[
Date Prev
][
Date Next
] [
Thread Prev
][
Thread Next
] [
Date Index
] [
Thread Index
]
Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?
To
: Francesco Poli <
invernomuto@paranoici.org
>
Cc
: Debian-legal <
debian-legal@lists.debian.org
>, Debian-project <
debian-project@lists.debian.org
>
Subject
: Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?
From
: Rox 64 <
mrox128@gmail.com
>
Date
: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 14:42:14 +0200
Message-id
: <
[🔎]
CAGWMD9HV7ABtCT_+=Ne+ggd+zN+HZfp+8uA_SYWStWRQAS9=Dg@mail.gmail.com
>
In-reply-to
: <
[🔎]
20120923095915.6e529e80061cb3a68285ef29@paranoici.org
>
References
: <20120912071753.GB22902@upsilon.cc> <
[🔎]
20120920233155.5f4da4ebebfb11a314e2ae7f@paranoici.org
> <
[🔎]
20120920215258.GA21782@scru.org
> <
[🔎]
20120922183452.0bfb222328aaba0d091c789a@paranoici.org
> <
[🔎]
20120922224424.GA30194@falafel.plessy.net
> <
[🔎]
20120923095915.6e529e80061cb3a68285ef29@paranoici.org
>
So what are the supposed weakness of both versions of the GPL?
Reply to:
debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Rox 64 (on-list)
Rox 64 (off-list)
Follow-Ups
:
Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?
From:
Francesco Poli <invernomuto@paranoici.org>
References
:
Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?
From:
Francesco Poli <invernomuto@paranoici.org>
Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?
From:
Clint Adams <clint@debian.org>
Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?
From:
Francesco Poli <invernomuto@paranoici.org>
Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?
From:
Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>
Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?
From:
Francesco Poli <invernomuto@paranoici.org>
Prev by Date:
Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?
Next by Date:
Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?
Previous by thread:
Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?
Next by thread:
Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?
Index(es):
Date
Thread