Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?

To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Cc: calculus@rezozer.net
Subject: Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?
From: Riley Baird <BM-2cVqnDuYbAU5do2DfJTrN7ZbAJ246S4XiX@bitmessage.ch>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 07:15:31 +1100
Message-id: <[🔎] 20160312071531.1060e1ca572af179847dcb9d@bitmessage.ch>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 56E2DD72.2040304@rezozer.net>
References: <[🔎] 56E23F22.3040709@rezozer.net> <[🔎] 56E2BE7C.4050105@phonecoop.coop> <[🔎] 56E2DD72.2040304@rezozer.net>

> >> One of my package, nayty not to mention it [1], has a new
> >> copyright notice [2] that is mean to be compatible.
> >> 
> >> I am considering to migrate it to main: please can you confirm that
> >> the new copyright notice is effectively DFSG-conformant.

That licence is fine.

Attachment: pgpdk8P9796Hh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?
  - From: Jerome BENOIT <calculus@rezozer.net>

References:
- ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?
  - From: Jerome BENOIT <calculus@rezozer.net>
- Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?
  - From: MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop>
- Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?
  - From: Jerome BENOIT <calculus@rezozer.net>

Prev by Date: Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?
Next by Date: Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?
Previous by thread: Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?
Next by thread: Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread