Hello Antonio, Stefano,
On Wed 15 Jul 2020 at 10:57AM -07, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> I think your analysis is correct. The source is Apache-2.0 licensed, but
> with a renaming requirement. There is a collaborative effort to maintain
> a renamed source, cinc, which we've been shipping, but we
Hi Sean (2020.07.11_14:53:31_-0700)
> > However, Chef Inc. decided that Chef should no longer be free
> > software/open source. I no longer intend to use or maintain Chef, and
> > would like it to be removed from Debian.
>
> I'm a bit confused here. On the one hand you say that there's a
>
On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 16:49:25 -0700
Sean Whitton wrote:
> DFSG#4 probably covers this case.
...if it were moved into non-free, since "Chef" currently fails DFSG
#1, but even that's not an option if Debian can't distribute "Chef" in
the first place, lest the project run afoul of the trademark
Hello Jason,
On Sat 11 Jul 2020 at 09:29PM -07, Jason Self wrote:
> Sean Whitton asked:
>> On the other hand you say you think that we should remove the Chef
>> package because there are not going to be future upstream releases
>> which are free software. Could you provide me a reference,
Sean Whitton asked:
> On the other hand you say you think that we should remove the Chef
> package because there are not going to be future upstream releases
> which are free software. Could you provide me a reference, please?
The problematic pieces appear to be contained within [0]. These two
Hello again Antonio,
On Fri 26 Jun 2020 at 09:22AM -03, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> As per #959981, Chef packages in Debian have trademark issues
> according to their upstream.
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=959981
>
> The claims are questionable, are argued by Steve
Control: block -1 by 964889 964890 964891 964893 964894
On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 11:04:24AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> control: tag -1 +moreinfo
>
> Hello,
>
> On Fri 26 Jun 2020 at 09:48AM -03, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 09:22:09AM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>
control: tag -1 +moreinfo
Hello,
On Fri 26 Jun 2020 at 09:48AM -03, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 09:22:09AM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>> ruby-knife-acl and ohai are part of the Chef ecosystem, and both have
>> circular dependencies with chef. So, please remove the
Hi Antonio (2020.06.26_12:22:09_+)
> ruby-knife-acl and ohai are part of the Chef ecosystem, and both have
> circular dependencies with chef. So, please remove the following source
> packages from unstable:
>
> - chef
> - ohai
> - ruby-knife-acl
I'd add to that:
- chef-zero (also contains
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 09:22:09AM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> ruby-knife-acl and ohai are part of the Chef ecosystem, and both have
> circular dependencies with chef. So, please remove the following source
> packages from unstable:
>
> - chef
> - ohai
> - ruby-knife-acl
actually, please
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal
As per #959981, Chef packages in Debian have trademark issues
according to their upstream.
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=959981
The claims are questionable, are argued by Steve Langasek in a
corresponding Ubuntu bug.
11 matches
Mail list logo
