Re: [wietse@porcupine.org: Please review: Official IBM Public License] (original) (raw)
- To: Andreas Jellinghaus <aj@dungeon.inka.de>
- Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: [wietse@porcupine.org: Please review: Official IBM Public License]
- From: Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>
- Date: 25 Jun 1999 14🔞49 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] yahk8ssmq1i.fsf@ask.diku.dk>
- In-reply-to: Andreas Jellinghaus's message of Thu, 24 Jun 1999 19:58:12 +0200
- References: <[🔎] 19990622225834.A14825@dungeon.inka.de> <[🔎] yahaetqn8w9.fsf@ask.diku.dk> <[🔎] 19990624195812.B29536@dungeon.inka.de>
Andreas Jellinghaus aj@dungeon.inka.de writes:
IBM PUBLIC LICENSE - [INSERT NAME OF PROJECT] VERSION 1.0 6/14/99
Looks DFSG-ok to me.
maybe debian can make a statement ? so postfix can be moved to main
AFAIK Debian as a project does not normally make formal statements about whether individual licenses meet the DFSG.
As soon as the new license officially applies to postfix, the package maintainer would be able to upload it (to unstable) with a new copyright file and its section changed to main.
-- Henning Makholm
Reply to:
- References:
- [wietse@porcupine.org: Please review: Official IBM Public License]
* From: Andreas Jellinghaus aj@dungeon.inka.de - Re: [wietse@porcupine.org: Please review: Official IBM Public License]
* From: Henning Makholm henning@makholm.net - Re: [wietse@porcupine.org: Please review: Official IBM Public License]
* From: Andreas Jellinghaus aj@dungeon.inka.de
- [wietse@porcupine.org: Please review: Official IBM Public License]
- Prev by Date:Qt 2.0 is out, with its new licence
- Next by Date:Re: license check
- Previous by thread:Re: [wietse@porcupine.org: Please review: Official IBM Public License]
- Next by thread:[wietse@porcupine.org: Please review: Official IBM Public License]
- Index(es):