SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

May 2011

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
Mailling list for Scientific Linux users worldwide <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 12 May 2011 13:53:42 +0200
Reply-To:
Miguel Angel Diaz <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: Version of GPL license
From:
Miguel Angel Diaz <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Comments:
To: Frank Lanitz <[log in to unmask]> cc: [log in to unmask]
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (24 lines) 
For each package there is a license, but it should exist a license for
SL. 

For example, in Centos you can find a file (GPU.txt or EULA.txt) in a
mirror  http://centos.arcticnetwork.ca/5.5/os/x86_64/ . These files show
version of GPL license.

Did anyone find these files to SL ?

El jue, 12-05-2011 a las 12:12 +0200, Frank Lanitz escribió:
> Hi,
> Am 12.05.2011 12:09, schrieb Miguel Angel Diaz:
> 
> > I have a question about licences.
> > 
> > I have just read in FAQ question that SL has a GPL license. Do anybody
> > know witch version of license is? 1, 2 or 3?
> 
> I think this is depending on which package you are asking for. The Linux
> Kernel itself e.g. is GPLv2 only.
> 
> Cheers,
> Frank

ATOM RSS1 RSS2