search for: wiredtig

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

Did you mean: wiredtiger
unlicense
2017 Jan 14
2
unlicense
...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 AFAICT is meant to formally license something so that it is equivalent to...
unlicense
2017 Jan 17
2
unlicense
...o 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 f...
unlicense
2017 Jan 18
3
unlicense
...claring 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,...
unlicense
2017 Jan 14
0
unlicense
..." 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...
unlicense
2017 Jan 17
0
unlicense
...s 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, >>> wh...
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
...gt;>>> "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, > >>>> whi...