Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "2bds".
Did you mean:
2bd2
2017 Jan 14
2
unlicense
...ot; like this, and seems to think
this is one way (not the only one) of declaring something to be
"public domain". The first two examples I found:
https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1
https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/w/wiredtiger/copyright-2.6.1%2Bds-1
This follows the format explained in
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-specification,
which does not explicitly include Unlicense, but does include CC0,
which AFAICT is meant to formally license something so that it is
equivalent to being in the public do...
2017 Jan 17
2
unlicense
...e way (not the only one) of declaring something to be
>> "public domain". The first two examples I found:
>>
>> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1
>>
>> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/w/wiredtiger/copyright-2.6.1%2Bds-1
>>
>> This follows the format explained in
>>
>> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-specification,
>> which does not explicitly include Unlicense, but does include CC0,
>> which AFAICT is meant to formally license somethi...
2017 Jan 18
3
unlicense
...;>>> "public domain". The first two examples I found:
>>>>
>>>> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/w/wiredtiger/copyright-2.6.1%2Bds-1
>>>>
>>>> This follows the format explained in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-specification,
>>>> which does not explicitly include Unlicense, but does include CC0,
&...
2017 Jan 14
0
unlicense
...to think
> this is one way (not the only one) of declaring something to be
> "public domain". The first two examples I found:
>
> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1
> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/w/wiredtiger/copyright-2.6.1%2Bds-1
>
> This follows the format explained in
> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-specification,
> which does not explicitly include Unlicense, but does include CC0,
> which AFAICT is meant to formally license something so that it is
> equival...
2017 Jan 17
0
unlicense
...one) of declaring something to be
>>> "public domain". The first two examples I found:
>>>
>>> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1
>>>
>>> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/w/wiredtiger/copyright-2.6.1%2Bds-1
>>>
>>> This follows the format explained in
>>>
>>> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-specification,
>>> which does not explicitly include Unlicense, but does include CC0,
>>> which AFAICT is meant to...
2017 Jan 13
4
unlicense
I would like the unlicense (http://unlicense.org/) added to R
licenses. Does anyone else think that worthwhile?
--
Charles Geyer
Professor, School of Statistics
Resident Fellow, Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science
University of Minnesota
charlie at stat.umn.edu
2017 Jan 18
0
unlicense
...in". The first two examples I found:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/r/rasqal/copyright-0.9.29-1
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/w/wiredtiger/
> copyright-2.6.1%2Bds-1
> >>>>
> >>>> This follows the format explained in
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-
> format/1.0/#license-specification,
> >>>> which does not explicitly includ...