Bug#724920: Bug#725661: pu: opencv/2.3.1+dfsg-1
2015-01-30 8:03 GMT+09:00 Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk:
Control: tags 725661 + pending
On Sat, 2015-01-17 at 11:45 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On 2014-09-20 18:00, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Control: tags 725661 +confirmed -moreinfo
On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 09:02 +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
Most of the files in modules/gpu/test/nvidia/ is DFSG Non-free.
They are also provided the latest OpenCV, but the license was changed
by
commit f0b19d4659045b00c55f849187cd657b21a13e5d.
It took a patch from commit the license was modified. And I fix the
problems in the license by applying.
Apologies for the delay in getting back to you.
Please go ahead.
Ping?
Uploaded and flagged for acceptance.
Regards,
Adam
Thanks!
Nobuhiro
--
Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
iwamatsu at {nigauri.org / debian.org}
GPG ID: 40AD1FA6
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#724920: Bug#725661: pu: opencv/2.3.1+dfsg-1
Control: tags 725661 + pending On Sat, 2015-01-17 at 11:45 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On 2014-09-20 18:00, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Control: tags 725661 +confirmed -moreinfo On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 09:02 +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote: Most of the files in modules/gpu/test/nvidia/ is DFSG Non-free. They are also provided the latest OpenCV, but the license was changed by commit f0b19d4659045b00c55f849187cd657b21a13e5d. It took a patch from commit the license was modified. And I fix the problems in the license by applying. Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. Please go ahead. Ping? Uploaded and flagged for acceptance. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#724920: Bug#725661: pu: opencv/2.3.1+dfsg-1
On 2014-09-20 18:00, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Control: tags 725661 +confirmed -moreinfo On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 09:02 +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote: Most of the files in modules/gpu/test/nvidia/ is DFSG Non-free. They are also provided the latest OpenCV, but the license was changed by commit f0b19d4659045b00c55f849187cd657b21a13e5d. It took a patch from commit the license was modified. And I fix the problems in the license by applying. Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. Please go ahead. Ping? Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#724920: Bug#725661: pu: opencv/2.3.1+dfsg-1
ping.
2014-03-07 9:02 GMT+09:00 Nobuhiro Iwamatsu iwama...@debian.org:
Hi,
Sorry, this work is delayed.
Most of the files in modules/gpu/test/nvidia/ is DFSG Non-free.
They are also provided the latest OpenCV, but the license was changed by
commit f0b19d4659045b00c55f849187cd657b21a13e5d.
It took a patch from commit the license was modified. And I fix the
problems in the license by applying.
I updatred debdiff. Could you check this?
Best regards,
Nobuhiro
2013-10-07 Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org:
Control: tag -1 wheezy moreinfo
Hi,
Nobuhiro Iwamatsu iwama...@debian.org (2013-10-07):
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
I'd like to propose an upgrade of opencv.
opencv distributed in wheezy includes source code of non-free (#724920).
I want to solve this problem.
Source code of the target is the code for test. It does not affect the
actual working.
I attached debdiff. Could you consider this change suitable for
stable-proposed-updates?
(for the records, we usually prefer when bugs are fixed in testing /
unstable before considering updates in stable.) Anyway, if the files
indeed got relicensed under a suitable license, why should they get
removed from an earlier release? At best we could ship a package with
updated headers and licensing info to reflect the facts all those files
are actually OK?
Mraw,
KiBi.
--
Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
iwamatsu at {nigauri.org / debian.org}
GPG ID: 40AD1FA6
--
Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
iwamatsu at {nigauri.org / debian.org}
GPG ID: 40AD1FA6
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#724920: Bug#725661: pu: opencv/2.3.1+dfsg-1
Hi,
Thanks for your ping. And sorry, reply was late.
I am working about this.
Best regards,
Nobuhiro
2014-01-22 intrigeri intrig...@debian.org:
Hi,
Cyril Brulebois wrote (07 Oct 2013 08:41:17 GMT) :
Nobuhiro Iwamatsu iwama...@debian.org (2013-10-07):
I'd like to propose an upgrade of opencv.
opencv distributed in wheezy includes source code of non-free (#724920).
I want to solve this problem.
Source code of the target is the code for test. It does not affect the
actual working.
I attached debdiff. Could you consider this change suitable for
stable-proposed-updates?
(for the records, we usually prefer when bugs are fixed in testing /
unstable before considering updates in stable.) Anyway, if the files
indeed got relicensed under a suitable license, why should they get
removed from an earlier release? At best we could ship a package with
updated headers and licensing info to reflect the facts all those files
are actually OK?
Ping?
Regards,
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc
--
Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
iwamatsu at {nigauri.org / debian.org}
GPG ID: 40AD1FA6
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#724920: Bug#725661: pu: opencv/2.3.1+dfsg-1
Hi, Cyril Brulebois wrote (07 Oct 2013 08:41:17 GMT) : Nobuhiro Iwamatsu iwama...@debian.org (2013-10-07): I'd like to propose an upgrade of opencv. opencv distributed in wheezy includes source code of non-free (#724920). I want to solve this problem. Source code of the target is the code for test. It does not affect the actual working. I attached debdiff. Could you consider this change suitable for stable-proposed-updates? (for the records, we usually prefer when bugs are fixed in testing / unstable before considering updates in stable.) Anyway, if the files indeed got relicensed under a suitable license, why should they get removed from an earlier release? At best we could ship a package with updated headers and licensing info to reflect the facts all those files are actually OK? Ping? Regards, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#724920: Bug#725661: pu: opencv/2.3.1+dfsg-1
Control: tag -1 wheezy moreinfo Hi, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu iwama...@debian.org (2013-10-07): Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu I'd like to propose an upgrade of opencv. opencv distributed in wheezy includes source code of non-free (#724920). I want to solve this problem. Source code of the target is the code for test. It does not affect the actual working. I attached debdiff. Could you consider this change suitable for stable-proposed-updates? (for the records, we usually prefer when bugs are fixed in testing / unstable before considering updates in stable.) Anyway, if the files indeed got relicensed under a suitable license, why should they get removed from an earlier release? At best we could ship a package with updated headers and licensing info to reflect the facts all those files are actually OK? Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
