search for: rasqal

Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "rasqal".

unlicense
2017 Jan 14
2
unlicense
...Unlicense is listed in https://spdx.org/licenses/ Debian does include software "licensed" 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 A...
unlicense
2017 Jan 17
2
unlicense
...t;> >> Debian does include software "licensed" 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 n...
unlicense
2017 Jan 18
3
unlicense
...ude software "licensed" 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/pa...
unlicense
2017 Jan 14
0
unlicense
...://spdx.org/licenses/ > > Debian does include software "licensed" 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 d...
unlicense
2017 Jan 17
0
unlicense
...Debian does include software "licensed" 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-specificatio...
unlicense
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
unlicense
2017 Jan 18
0
unlicense
...icensed" 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 > >>>> > >>>> >...