Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I noticed that bug #384019 has been recently closed. [...]
The bug was closed because an FTP-master (James Troup) stated that the
Open Publication License v1.0 without options is fine for main. [...]
What should be done, in your opinion?
Should the bug be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What should be done, in your opinion?
Nothing. The ftpmasters decide what is free or not, not you, not I, not
debian-legal as a whole (?).
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 9/16/06, Markus Laire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just reported a bug for this. Hopefully I didn't make any mistakes
and it'll eventually show up in bugs.debian.org
It's bug #387783
At http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=387783
--
Markus Laire
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
|--== Javier Serrano Polo writes:
JSP En/na Free Ekanayaka ha escrit:
JSP I should warn you. You won't be the first one trying this. Others have
JSP already failed, including me.
It sounds rather scaring :(
JSP Considering the guy who was making the Ubuntu package failed, I don't
Sven Luther wrote:
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 01:57:31AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
snip
At least we actually have the source for the acenic code, even though we
don't have a free license for it.
Euh, no, it is a binary-only firmware blob last i checked, but i may be
wrong.
Yes, but the
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What should be done, in your opinion?
Nothing. The ftpmasters decide what is free or not, not you, not I, not
debian-legal as a whole (?).
Well you can check with the particular ftp masters and
This patch assumes that we accept that Joerg#1
has released cdrecord under the GPL. The only
other alternative is to immediately wipe out the
whole subversion repository and start over with a
clean copy, from 2004 I suppose.
I also removed a bit of slander directed at various
Linux kernel
posted mailed
Alexis Sukrieh wrote:
[Please CC me, I'm not subscribed]
Hi,
I intent to package[1] the Perl module libnet-amazon-s3-perl (because
it's needed by the package backup-manager).
1: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=368734
The problem is that the copyright
MJ Ray wrote:
By the way, in
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-vim-maintainers/2006-August/003211.html
the DPL criticises debian-legal for not yet tidying up the copyright
bugs of www.d.o - which is something we were waiting for the DPL+SPI to
decide since 2005-10. Bizarre. Time
MJ Ray wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Where's the cc-nl lead's explanation? It's something.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003876.html
Hope that helps,
It really does help a lot.
in any case i do not think (and that judgment was
shared by a
posted mailed
Michael Hanke wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 11:35:54AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Michael Hanke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ Please keep me CC'ed, I'm not subscribed. ]
[...]
I talked to upstream and they replaced those statement with something
like the following to make their software
Patryk Cisek wrote:
Hello,
I'm packaging Kadu program (www.kadu.net) for Debian and Ubuntu right now.
There's a problem with Kadu's license (GPLv2 or later), which conflicts
OpenSSL's license. When project started, upstream authors where not aware
of the conflict, so they didn't add a
Daniel Baumann wrote:
Patryk Cisek wrote:
license? Well, they have rights to their patches, but copyright holder
for
Kadu is Kadu Team (http://www.kadu.net/wiki/index.php/English:Authors).
Could someone, please, clarify this?
For license changes, the copyright holder(s) are the important
posted mailed
Anon Sricharoenchai wrote:
Package: libmms
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.3
According to,
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xine-develm=107261185004445w=2 , since
they can't find where to contact the author of majormms, either in
majormms website,
posted mailed
Loïc Minier wrote (in bug 330355):
I'm happy you took the time to verify this for Ubuntu. I did a quick
search in the xine-devel archive between 2004-01 and 2005-09
confirming:
- the announcement of the relicensing process
- confirmation that most persons, including Major
Joey Hess wrote:
znc contains a Csocket file with this license. I wonder if the requirement
that source code must be made available for no more than a nominal fee
is acceptable.
Yes, it is: it just means source code must not be significantly more
expensive than binary code, which is
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:16:18 -0400 Albert Cahalan wrote:
This patch assumes that we accept that Joerg#1
has released cdrecord under the GPL. The only
other alternative is to immediately wipe out the
whole subversion repository and start over with a
clean copy, from 2004 I suppose.
I also
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:40:40 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
[...]
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 11:35:54AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
[...]
Please ask them to use a MIT/X11-like licence or similar liberal
terms.
MJ, MIT/Expat is usually preferred to MIT/X11 here. :-) I don't
remember why; I think
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Aug 31, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marco trolled again. FYI, no serious person disagrees with this
interpretation.
Except every other distribution, which usually retain real lawyers
to advise them
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MIT/Expat is usually preferred to MIT/X11 here. :-) I don't
remember why; I think it's more liberal.
It also has the advantage of being (currently) an unambiguous way to
refer to the specific license terms; the terms of the Expat license
has only one
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I noticed that bug #384019 has been recently closed. [...]
The bug was closed because an FTP-master (James Troup) stated that the
Open Publication License v1.0 without options is fine for main. [...]
What should be done, in
Hi,
I have what I believe will be a fairly simple question (at least I hope
so).
I am looking at packaging mod_gnutls, a work that is under the Apache
Software License v2.0, and links against GnuTLS, which is under the
LGPL, 2.1 or later.
I have seen that there is a little concern over Apache
22 matches
Mail list logo
