domain.
Here it means that parts of the package are covered by one license,
parts by another, etc. It doesn't always mean this. See
http://bugs.debian.org/205951, for example.
Regards,
-John Belmonte
Branden Robinson wrote:
[Follows set to debian-legal.]
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:22:31PM -0500
Marek Habersack wrote:
In fact, I'm considering adding a
list of files in the library and their associated licenses to the
README.Debian in the package once it hits Sid (I've uploaded it already). I
grew aware of problems with licensing while working on Caudium. We, as the
Caudium Group, don't own
Peter Palfrader wrote:
Last time I checked we didn't have License fields, so this discussion is
pointless.
Indeed, I was imagining some other world. In any case, I'd assume that
the license field of the ITP is going to reflect the contents of the
package copyright file.
--
http:// if ile.o
Marek Habersack wrote:
* License : GPL, LGPL, Public Domain
What does this mean exactly?
My guess is that it means some parts of the library are under GPL, some
under LGPL, and some in the public domain. If that's the case, the
library as a whole must be considered to be under the GPL,
Marek Habersack wrote:
My guess is that it means some parts of the library are under GPL, some
under LGPL, and some in the public domain. If that's the case, the
library as a whole must be considered to be under the GPL, correct?
Yes, that's the case. I just wanted to highlight the fact that
Chad Walstrom wrote:
My guess is that it means some parts of the library are under GPL, some
under LGPL, and some in the public domain. If that's the case, the
library as a whole must be considered to be under the GPL, correct?
Not necessarily. If work is done on the Public Domain portion of
Marek Habersack wrote:
Quoting from the nettle manual:
Nettle is distributed under the GNU General Public License (GPL) (see the
file COPYING for details). However, most of the individual files are dual
licensed under less restrictive licenses like the GNU Lesser General Public
License (LGPL),
Jens Goedeke wrote:
sorry if this is not the correct address for feature requests, but I
don't know where to send this mail to.
I've installed a debian system (knoppix 3.2) with kernel 2.4.20 on my
toshiba laptop (satellite pro 2100). Under KDE in any application
I've got a offen occuring
Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Because of how powerful is Perl? Because of the amount of things that
depend on Perl that currently exist and would be a waste of time to
rewrite? Because Perl might be the best tool for many cases? There are
many possible answers...
Not that coding in Lua, scsh or similar tools
Colin Watson wrote:
You haven't challenged it successfully, then; to my knowledge, my
statement is correct for the current base system, which is what it was
referring to.
I don't necessarily oppose tiny languages such as Lua, but perhaps
somebody should write the tools in question in them first,
Hello,
I didn't have any luck asking this question on debian-mentors, so I hope
it's ok to try here.
Is there some resource that lets me find overlooked bugs-- for
example, RC bugs older than 2 weeks and having no follow-up messages?
If not, what is the best way to generate such a list on my
Colin Watson wrote:
I'd rather that the tools in Debian base were written in a high-level
language where available. Take away Perl and you've got only shell, C,
and C++ left; I don't think that's going to improve security in
practice.
Lua is a modern high-level language. Its 15K stand-alone
Steve Langasek wrote:
Generally, I think people are using
http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/ and looking through the bugs
with ids lower than x. I think you'll find that the majority of older
bugs there fall into this category (or have had follow-ups, but the
follow-ups themselves are older
Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
Also, he seems to have no official status whatsoever; if he's serious
about wanting to maintain stuff, he is welcome to go through the NM
process.
Part of the NM process can be packaging by way of a sponsor. I would guess that
it's common for a person's advocate (required to
14 matches
Mail list logo
