Hi everyone, I was wondering if we are going to include the spec file changes into 0.22? I think we should but noone seems to have made a move in that direction.
Within the Java tree there is only a trivial change required, identical to trunk. I'm not sure if the same is true in the other languages. We should probably do the change at the same time if we are going to. Robbie ---------- Original message ---------- From: Rafael Schloming <[email protected]> Date: 1 May 2013 18:30 Subject: Re: License problem with qpid-python To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] FYI I've filed the following JIRA to track this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4798 --Rafael On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Thomas Goirand <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear QPID maintainers, > > Jonas Smedegaard just sent a bug report on the Debian bug tracker, > because he believes that the qpid-python package in Debian is non-free: > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=706101 > > Indeed, when having a look in the sepcs/* folder, we can see a LICENSE > file which contains both the Apache-2.0 and AMQP license. Though nearly > all files in that folder contains only the AMQP license header. So it is > not clear at all under which license these files are. And if they are > only licensed under the AMQP license, then they are non-free in the eyes > of Debian (the AMQP license isn't suitable for Debian). > > If this issue isn't solved quickly, then the package will have to be > removed from Debian. > > Also, since Debian Wheezy will be out this week-end, a lightning fast > answer from you would be really appreciated. Best case would be if we > could solve this problem before the release. > > Cheers, > > Thomas Goirand (zigo) > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
