Great result. Well done! Cheers,
Chris. On 30/09/2007, Peter Rock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, Kevin and Chris. Thanks very much for your suggestions and > information regarding the "elilo-installer" package. I contacted > debian legal and the maintainers. It appears as though the copyright > notice being absent was an oversight. Several developers responded > stating that they have no problem with the package being under GPLv2. > Another stated that it was derived from lilo which is under the GPL. > My understanding is that any discussion as to how the developers feel > like licensing elilo-installer is then irrelevant. If it is derived > from GPL code, then it too must be GPL. > > For now, I have marked the package free and under "GPLv2" but noted > that the license was missing due to an oversight. > > Thanks again for teaching me. :) > > > From: "Kevin M. Dean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [gNewSense-users] Teach Me > > To: Peter Rock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > > > Interesting catch. :) > > > > Debian packages contain a few things. The first is a set of text files > > that give information on the package (dependancies, package maintainer, > > conflicts and so on) and contain basic information on how to compile and > > install the package. This is the "control" aspect of the package. > > > > The second part is "data", which in the VAST majority of cases contains > > binary files that will be installed. > > > > An empty package doesn't actually install anything, just runs the > > "setup" scripts. > > > > HOWEVER... That's somewhat irrelevant here, considering that > > elilo-installer isn't a Debian package, it's a udeb. > > > > udebs are used during the Debian Installer process to set variables and > > do bulk package installation depending on those variables. In this case, > > elilo-installer checks the architecture, and if it's an amd64-Mac or an > > Intel Itanium architecture, it installs elilo as the boot loader. If it > > is NOT one of those architectures it does nothing. > > > > This packages, as of this moment, is useless in gNewSense BUT may be > > useful in the future if and when there is a naitive AMD64 port. > > > > As to the license, I'm not "technically" sure what the non-software > > aspects of a debian package are... My guess would be that they're public > > domain, but that's ONLY a guess. Whatever it is, it complies with the > > DFSG which almost certainly is Free Software. > > > > I'd recommend e-mailing the debian-legal mailing list and asking for > > clarification on this; it could have some very interesting reprecussions. > > > > - -Kevin > > > From: "Chris Andrew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [gNewSense-users] Teach Me > > To: "Peter Rock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > > > Peter, > > > > I had a similar problem with SILO (Sparc version of lilo). > > > > http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00101 > > > > With regard to your question, I would check the package for the > > maintainer's details, and then email him/ her for confirmation of > > details. When I contacted the maintainer to do with SILO, it prompted > > a copyright/ licence info page for the package, which had been > > overlooked. > > > > I also tried Sourceforge and Google, to guide me, in-case the > > maintainer wasn't helpful (he was). > > > > Hope this helps. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Chris. > > > _______________________________________________ > gNewSense-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users > -- Reasons why you may want to try GNU/Linux: http://www.getgnulinux.org/ A great GNU/Linux distro: http://wiki.gnewsense.org/ -- Reasons why you may want to try GNU/Linux: http://www.getgnulinux.org/ A great GNU/Linux distro: http://wiki.gnewsense.org/ _______________________________________________ gNewSense-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
