announcing the beginning of security support for testing
--- Debian Testing Security TeamSeptember 9th, 2005 secure-testing-team@lists.alioth.debian.org http://secure-testing-master.debian.net/ --- Security support for testing The Debian testing security team is pleased to announce the beginning of full security support for Debian's testing distribution. We have spent the past year building the team, tracking and fixing security holes, and creating our infrastructure, and now the final pieces are in place, and we are able to offer security updates and advisories for testing. We invite Debian users who are currently running testing, or who would like to switch to testing, to subscribe to the secure-testing-announce mailing list, which is used to announce security updates: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/secure-testing-announce We also invite you to add the following lines to your /etc/apt/sources.list file, and run apt-get update apt-get upgrade to make the security updates available. deb http://secure-testing.debian.net/debian-secure-testing etch/security-updates main contrib non-free deb-src http://secure-testing.debian.net/debian-secure-testing etch/security-updates main contrib non-free Alternatively, replace secure-testing.debian.net in the above lines with a mirror near you: ftp.de.debian.org (located in Germany) ftp.nl.debian.org (located in the Netherlands) the.earth.li (located in UK) ftp2.jp.debian.org(located in Japan) farbror.acc.umu.se(located in Sweden) Some initial advisories have already been posted to the list and are already available in the repository. These include: [DTSA-1-1] New kismet packages fix remote code execution [DTSA-2-1] New centericq packages fix multiple vulnerabilities [DTSA-3-1] New clamav packages fix denial of service and privilege escalation [DTSA-4-1] New ekg packages fix multiple vulnerabilities [DTSA-5-1] New gaim packages fix multiple remote vulnerabilities [DTSA-6-1] New cgiwrap packages fix multiple vulnerabilities [DTSA-7-1] New mozilla packages fix frame injection spoofing [DTSA-8-1] New mozilla-firefox packages fix several vulnerabilities [DTSA-9-1] New bluez-utils packages fix bad device name escaping [DTSA-10-1] New pcre3 packages fix buffer overflow [DTSA-11-1] New maildrop packages fix local privilege escalation [DTSA-12-1] New vim packages fix modeline exploits [DTSA-13-1] New evolution packages fix format string vulnerabilities Note that while all of Debian's architectures are supported, we may release an advisory before fixed packages have built for all supported architectures. If so, the missing builds will become available as they complete. We are not currently issuing advisories for security fixes that reach testing through normal propagation from unstable, but only for security fixes that are made available through our repository. So users of testing should continue to upgrade their systems on a regular basis to get such security fixes. We might provide information about security issues that have been fixed through regular testing propagation in the future, though. Note that this announcement does not mean that testing is suitable for production use. Several security issues are present in unstable, and an even larger number are present in testing. Our beginning of security support only means that we are now able to begin making security fixes available for testing nearly as quickly as for unstable. The testing security team's website has information about what security holes are still open, and users should use this information to make their own decisions about whether testing is secure enough for them. Finally, we are still in the process of working out how best to serve users of testing and keep your systems secure, and we welcome comments and feedback about ways to do better. You can reach the testing security team at [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you want to become a mirror, please see http://secure-testing-master.debian.net/mirroring.html Debian developers who would like to upload fixes for security holes in testing to the repository can do so, following the instructions on our web site. For more information about the testing security team, see our web site, http://secure-testing-master.debian.net/ The archive signing key that is used to sign the apt repository is included below and can also be downloaded from http://secure-testing-master.debian.net/ziyi-2005-7.asc -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) mQGiBEMM7wgRBACs/rcYtu++PqBV5t6qTf9FsjJYZV4OUoQmtK849PdHUoVONh/b yz0vmP4QPCJXraFYiiiaur8WLcOphwY3DFaz0quozxl3pZfJjN27qDdTTDUKk1Kq zFQYTsDaXjSh0nRGW3gFmbyIqTL8sVGOAAz2KbrtLEQE11qYZjzvylEf4wCgv6ss
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:00:54AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Sep 08, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Indeed, the choice of venue is a fee argument is just that: an opinion which has at best no clear roots in the DFSG, therefore it cannot make a license non-free. Yeah, but there is certainly more than a single person arguing that we should not distribute software with such licence. There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then. Claiming this is only a single person arguing that, when i pointed him to a 50+ thread where more than 10 person participated, well, i don't know what you think about lying and hypocricy, but i certainly find something wrong with it :) Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Work-needing packages report for Sep 9, 2005
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the last week. Total number of orphaned packages: 194 (new: 0) Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 86 (new: 0) Total number of packages requested help for: 17 (new: 1) Please refer to http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ for more information. No new packages have been orphaned, but a total of 194 packages are orphaned. See http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/orphaned for a complete list. No new packages have been given up for adoption, but a total of 86 packages are awaiting adoption. See http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/rfa_bypackage for a complete list. For the following packages help is requested: [NEW] php-pspell (#326173), requested 6 days ago aboot (#315592), requested 77 days ago Description: Alpha bootloader: Looking for co-maintainers Reverse Depends: aboot-cross ltsp-server dfsbuild aboot athcool (#278442), requested 317 days ago Description: Enable powersaving mode for Athlon/Duron processors debtags (#321654), requested 33 days ago Description: Enables support for package tags Reverse Depends: libdebtags1-pic debtags-edit dselect (#282283), requested 292 days ago Description: a user tool to manage Debian packages ggz- (#324279), requested 18 days ago grub (#248397), requested 486 days ago Description: GRand Unified Bootloader Reverse Depends: webmin-grub grubconf replicator dfsbuild grub-splashimages gtkpod (#319711), requested 46 days ago Description: manage songs and playlists on an Apple iPod lsdvd (#316922), requested 66 days ago Description: read the contents of a DVD mwavem (#313369), requested 87 days ago (non-free) Description: Mwave/ACP modem support software parted (#262885), requested 402 days ago Description: Searching co-maintainer for the parted package. Reverse Depends: libparted1.6-dbg libparted1.6-i18n prep-installer qtparted partconf parted parted-udeb elilo-installer gparted autopartkit partman-base partman-efi partconf-mkfstab libparted1.6-dev aboot-installer lvmcfg-utils mindi partconf-find-partitions pbbuttonsd (#270558), requested 366 days ago Description: PBButtons daemon to handle special hotkeys of Apple computers Reverse Depends: pbbuttonsd-dev gtkpbbuttons gtkpbbuttons-gnome powerprefs qmailadmin (#267756), requested 380 days ago Description: web interface for managing qmail with virtual domains [contrib] sourcenav (#263051), requested 402 days ago Description: Source code analysis, editor, browser and build tool: Looking for co-maintainer sql-ledger (#320442), requested 41 days ago Description: A web based double-entry accounting program squashfs (#267078), requested 384 days ago Description: Tool to create and append to squashfs filesystems stlport4.6 (#263052), requested 402 days ago Description: STLport C++ class library Reverse Depends: libstlport4.6-dev See http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/help_requested for more information. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Le vendredi 09 septembre 2005 à 00:41 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit : On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then. Could you explain why DFSG#5 couldn't be invoked in this case? It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free it's up to you explaining why. Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: net-tools maintenance status
On 8/11/05, Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/11/05, Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 09:23:12AM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote: Just one more question: what happened to my original emails? I read them. Most likely I saved the wrong one for further processing. Thats why it is a good idea to copy the bug report. Sorry for your double work. Thanks, I'll keep them in mind. When can the patch be expected in unstable? Eh, bump, please?
Re: a desperate request for licence metadata
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:13:57PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wrote: In some jurisdictions lending is an exclusive right of the copyright owner. Thomas Bushnell writes: Can you be specific with references please? http://www.ifla.org/III/clm/p1/PublicLendingRight-Backgr.htm Well, one more anti-freedom law from Europe. Shame on them, but I should not be surprised. :( It's only big and organized lending (i.e., public libraries etc.) which is restricted. Nobody will sue me for lending out a book to a friend... I'm not sure that really makes me feel better. Are public libraries the sort of things we should be legally discouraging?? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | The Covered Code is a commercial item, as that term is defined in | 48 C.F.R. 2.101 (Oct. 1995), consisting of commercial computer | software and commercial computer software documentation, as such | terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (Sept. 1995). Consistent with 48 | C.F.R. 12.212 and 48 C.F.R. 227.7202-1 through 227.7202-4 (June | 1995), all U.S. Government End Users acquire Covered Code with only | those rights set forth herein. I have managed to find out what C.F.R. means and to locate the text of the referenced sections, completely without becoming wiser about what that text is supposed to achieve (and whether a private party *can* at all stipulate a different application of the U.S. federal administration's _internal_ purchasing regulations than would otherwise be used) ... CFR means the Code of Federal Regulations, which are implementing administrative rules (with the force of law) for statutes. In this case, the point is only about US Government End Users, a specific category of users, and the provisions of US law which require special copyright thingies to be said like this. The private party *can* make this stipulation, but only because the internal purchasing regulations *grant* that right to private parties. Also, CFR is not just internal purchasing regulations; the CFR has the force of law about just about everything the regulatory state is concerned with. You can read the text at http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Friday 09 September 2005 01:41, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then. Could you explain why DFSG#5 couldn't be invoked in this case? It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free it's up to you explaining why. here they are: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00037.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00038.html of course left with no well-grounded substantiations or explanations it is other way around [1]: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=2169tstart=0 I also think this breaches the Debian Social Contract#4, since you expose your users on baseless charges of license violation for no good reasons all over the world. Breaks We will place their interests first in our priorities. These two make it dangerous and even worse than plain nonfree clear-worded license IMHO. [1] claiming that Debian has already accepted cddl by having cddl'ed star is weak arg because it easily could be clasified as bug. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: snmpkit stuck in unstable ?
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 09:12:15AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Looks like its entire chain is ready, so now you need a hint. Ask debian-release to do this: the page on excuses was speaking of an hint... what is it ? choice 1) a plain english email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] choice 2) a procedure involving gpg signing and email to an obscure address using a set of keywords nobody ever documented properly 1 was my hope, 2 was my Debian-experience-induced-fear a. -- Andrea Mennucc Ukn ow,Ifina llyfixe dmysp acebar.ohwh atthef signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: snmpkit stuck in unstable ?
* A Mennucc ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050909 10:01]: On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 09:12:15AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Looks like its entire chain is ready, so now you need a hint. Ask debian-release to do this: the page on excuses was speaking of an hint... what is it ? choice 1) a plain english email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] choice 2) a procedure involving gpg signing and email to an obscure address using a set of keywords nobody ever documented properly 1 was my hope, 2 was my Debian-experience-induced-fear 1) is the answer. This leads to something like easy snmpkit/0.9-11 libprinterconf/0.5-7 in my hints file on ftp-master (only release team members can directly set hints; we do it however also if we notice by ourself). In your case, the result is already there on ftp-master snmpkit | 0.9-11 | testing | source snmpkit | 0.9-11 | unstable | source and will be available on the mirrors after tonights cron.daily run. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Scripsit Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto. I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit can be meaningfully described as a group of persons that can be discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it meaningfull to discriminate against it? -- Henning Makholm Larry wants to replicate all the time ... ah, no, all I meant was that he likes to have a bang everywhere. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#326429: ITP: webcheck -- website link and structure checker
On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 00:47 -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: [Arthur de Jong] I'm not sure if I need some statement on the copyrights on the generated html files. The css file that is just copied has a BSD license. Generally, output from a program is not considered to be copyrighted. The templates from which it is built could be copyrighted, and if significant bits of a template are copied in verbatim, you may wish to copy in a license statement from the template too. The templates are embedded in the python code (e.g. write('html code')) (except for the mentioned css file). The python code is GPL. Most of the content (links, titles, other gathered information) is from the crawled website. The old package provides, conflicts with and replaces linbot (the name of webcheck a long time ago). Should I keep that or just drop it? (linbot was in slink, potato and woody but neither linbot or webcheck were in sarge) Completely your call. You do not need to support upgrades from woody or prior, but you can if you wish. Three lines in debian/control which you'll never need to change is a pretty cheap price, but it *is* untidy if you want a minimalist control file. I think I'll keep those lines for a while then (they're not in the way for now). The old package has a configuration file in /etc/webcheck and the new package no longer provides that. What would be the best way to get rid of it? (policy 10.7.3 has a note about removing conffiles but I'm not sure it's relevant) Should I delete it on upgrade? Is the package configured in some other way, or have you dropped support for any site-wide configuration? If you still have a configuration mechanism, it's best if you can migrate /etc/webcheck to the new scheme automatically, then delete it, at upgrade time. If not, you can just delete it. The new package does not use a configuration file at all any more (the config.php file is still there but it is not really meant to be edited any more and is not in /etc). I don't think I want to keep a site-wide configfile. Maybe I'll support specifying a configfile from the command-line one day. I'm going for completely removing the /etc/webcheck directory on upgrades. Anyone think there should be a debconf question about this at install time (e.g. test if /etc/webcheck exists and ask the user to remove it)? Btw, I'm packaging this as a native Debian package because I just want to release one version and have one source tarball. Not recommended - you'll have to release a whole new upstream version any time you fix a trivial Debian bug, or even just to recompile against a newer sid library. Providing backports or forks (for etch after etch is frozen) will require new upstream version numbers, which will confuse your non-Debian audience (wait, what's the current release? Upstream 3.1.15 and 3.1.15~etch1 were released at the same time, but 3.0.4.etch2 was just added to the debian ftp site) I think this would avoid confusion since every Debian version is also a released version. If a release changes just Debian packaging (unlikely at the moment since it is in development) that will be documented in the NEWS file. Since this is a python package with architecture: all the risk of recompiles are minimal. I'm not too worried about the version numbers of backports or forks because priority is extra (not likely to be affected by major freeze problems) but adding a .etch# or .sarge# suffix shouldn't cause too much confusion. And there's the bandwidth issue - you and the build daemons have to transfer the whole source tarball every time you make a trivial change to debian/*. The current tarball is pretty small (45k plus maybe 5k for a debian directory) and since the architecture is all (no buildds) I don't think we'll be having a lot of bandwidth issues. Thanks for you comments! -- -- arthur - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://people.debian.org/~adejong -- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free it's up to you explaining why. Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto. I am refusing them as long as you cannot clearly show how DFSG#5 forbids some restrictions present in the CDDL. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#326429: Info received (was Bug#326429: ITP: webcheck -- website link and structure checker)
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this problem report. It has been forwarded to the package maintainer(s) and to other interested parties to accompany the original report. Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s): [EMAIL PROTECTED] arthur de jong [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem, please send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED], as before. Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message, unless you wish to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 11:46:04AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free it's up to you explaining why. Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto. I am refusing them as long as you cannot clearly show how DFSG#5 forbids some restrictions present in the CDDL. Marco, Remember the DFSG are guidelines, and it is ultimately to the responsability of the ftp-masters to take a decision, based on the DFSG, sure, but also on other consideration, as well as potential (legal) risk for our infrastructure, mirror network, and daughter-distribs and end-users. But then, it seems it is clear that the CDDL discriminates against any group of persons not living in the juridiction (juridiction is the same as choice-of-law, right ?) of the author suing them, or at least it seems clear that this is the argumentation used here. Now, this applies to choice of venue, not sure about choice of law,maybe too, but to a lesser degree, since it is possible that the defendant will have more trouble finding a lawyer familiar with the laws of a foreign juridiction. Now, i wonder what law and venue are applicable if no such clause is present ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: net-tools maintenance status
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: Eh, bump, please? http://net-tools.berlios.de Gruss Bernd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
subscribe
subscribe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: net-tools maintenance status
On 9/9/05, Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: Eh, bump, please? http://net-tools.berlios.de Planned: new release 1.65 which contains all the debian patches. Use of some netdev features. Great, but when?
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Henning Makholm writes: Scripsit Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, I'm explaining that it isn't free because of DFSG#5. However, it seems that you are refusing such arguments de facto. I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit can be meaningfully described as a group of persons that can be discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it meaningfull to discriminate against it? Not everyone belongs to the group: In all cases to date (and likely all cases in the future), some people would naturally be subject to the court's jurisdiction. As an example, the QPL discriminates against everyone who does not live conveniently close to Olso. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Scripsit Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm writes: I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit can be meaningfully described as a group of persons that can be discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it meaningfull to discriminate against it? Not everyone belongs to the group: In all cases to date (and likely all cases in the future), some people would naturally be subject to the court's jurisdiction. Unless they have for some reason already decided conclusively that they will never leave that jurisdiction and settle elsewhere, they are still inconvenienced. As an example, the QPL discriminates against everyone who does not live conveniently close to Olso. And against people who do live close to Oslo but may later contemplate to move elsewhere. -- Henning MakholmNej, hvor er vi altså heldige! Længe leve vor Buxgører Sansibar Bastelvel!
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 01:56:50PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm writes: I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit can be meaningfully described as a group of persons that can be discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it meaningfull to discriminate against it? Not everyone belongs to the group: In all cases to date (and likely all cases in the future), some people would naturally be subject to the court's jurisdiction. Unless they have for some reason already decided conclusively that they will never leave that jurisdiction and settle elsewhere, they are still inconvenienced. As an example, the QPL discriminates against everyone who does not live conveniently close to Olso. And against people who do live close to Oslo but may later contemplate to move elsewhere. That raises an interesting situatoin. What if the author moves? The author would have to travel back to Oslo to participate in a law suit related to that version of the license. -- --- Paul TBBle Hampson, MCSE 8th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361) [EMAIL PROTECTED] No survivors? Then where do the stories come from I wonder? -- Capt. Jack Sparrow, Pirates of the Caribbean License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.1/au/ --- pgpcD0dFb8C1V.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:30:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: 9. MISCELLANEOUS. Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a contract shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this License. Can a license exclude application of laws? Maybe there's a jurisdiction which has such a law on the books, which _can_ be opted out of, but I doubt such exists, as it would defeat the purpose of having that law in the first place. -- --- Paul TBBle Hampson, MCSE 8th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361) [EMAIL PROTECTED] No survivors? Then where do the stories come from I wonder? -- Capt. Jack Sparrow, Pirates of the Caribbean License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.1/au/ --- pgpAYCNwRUddM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Henning Makholm writes: I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit can be meaningfully described as a group of persons that can be discriminated against. Why do you think that a copyright owner needs a choice of venue clause in order to file suit against you in his home jurisdiction? -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
info tourisme Mailing List Confirmation
This message has been sent to you as the final step to confirm your email list subscription for the following list: info tourisme To confirm this subscription, please follow the below URL: http://www.auberge-alpineinn.com/cgi-bin/mail.cgi/n/info_tourisme/debian-devel/lists.debian.org/10184726/ (Click the URL above or, copy and paste the URL into your browser) Doing so will subscribe you to this list. --- The following is the description given for this list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- This double opt-in confirmation email was sent to protect the privacy of the owner of this email address. Double opt-in confirmation guarantees that only the owner of an email address can subscribe themselves to this mailing list. Furthermore, the following privacy policy is associated with this list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read and understand this privacy policy. Other mechanisms may have been enacted to subscribe email addresses to this list, such as physical guestbook registrations, verbal agreements, etc. If you did not asked to be subscribed to this particular list, please do not visit the confirmation URL above. The confirmation for subscription will not go through and no other action on your part will be needed. To contact the owner of this email list, please use the below address: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The following physical address is associated with this mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Powered by Dada Mail 2.9.2 http://www.auberge-alpineinn.com/cgi-bin/mail.cgi?f=smtm -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:23:10AM -0500, John Hasler wrote: Henning Makholm writes: I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit can be meaningfully described as a group of persons that can be discriminated against. Why do you think that a copyright owner needs a choice of venue clause in order to file suit against you in his home jurisdiction? I had the impression that international law mandates that you can sue someone only where he lives, is established, or makes business, at least this seems to be the case in France. But then maybe this was only for contract law, or something, not sure, as IANAL. This is indeed a good question, and one which needs to be solved to solve this issue. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit can be meaningfully described as a group of persons that can be discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it meaningfull to discriminate against it? Try people who do not have enough money to travel to $VENUE to defend themselves from a frivolous lawsuit -- one that they will lose by defaulting their court appearance. I think Debian agrees that poor people in general is a group that is protected by DFSG#5. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Friday 09 September 2005 15:46, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:23:10AM -0500, John Hasler wrote: Henning Makholm writes: I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit can be meaningfully described as a group of persons that can be discriminated against. Why do you think that a copyright owner needs a choice of venue clause in order to file suit against you in his home jurisdiction? I had the impression that international law mandates that you can sue someone only where he lives, is established, or makes business, at least this seems to be the case in France. But then maybe this was only for contract law, or something, not sure, as IANAL. I think it is called 'International Private Law'. In case of no clause of choice-of-vanue and choice-of-low were stipulated, these two are determinated by the means of [1]. I also think that the parties can dispute where the process be held, e.g. the selected forum / jury /court could be varacious for both sites, not giving pre-advantages to any of them, but IANAL also. In case you accept a contract or license with a choice-of-vanue and choice-of-low it is obvious you need to obey with the given ones. You guess who can has the pre-advantages in that case - licensor or licensee. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_international_law -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Welcome to info tourisme
The subscription of the email address: debian-devel@lists.debian.org To the mailing list: info tourisme is all set. Thanks for subscribing! Date of this subscription: Fri Sep 9 09:25:23 2005 Please save this email message for future reference. --- You may automatically unsubscribe from this list at any time by visiting the following URL: http://www.auberge-alpineinn.com/cgi-bin/mail.cgi/u/info_tourisme/debian-devel/lists.debian.org/ If the above URL is inoperable, make sure that you have copied the entire address. Some mail readers will wrap a long URL and thus break this automatic unsubscribe mechanism. You may also change your subscription by visiting this list's main screen: http://www.auberge-alpineinn.com/cgi-bin/mail.cgi/list/info_tourisme If you're still having trouble, please contact the list owner at: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The following physical address is associated with this mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
New message
Title: E-mail message content Well you look up now and we WON 6 GAMES IN A ROW! Who does it better than us? And now here we are with our best play of the week here for you to get an easy win! With as HOT as we have been how can you let yourself stay away from this? We have an easy baseball winner for you! DO NOT MISS OUT! www.lockandwin.com DISCLAIMER: This e-mail message and any files transmitted with it are intended for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete this e-mail message immediately. --- Sent by UNREGISTERED VERSION of Atomic Mail Sender.Please register to remove this message.
info tourisme Mailing List Confirmation
This message has been sent to you as the final step to confirm your email *removal* for the following list: info tourisme To confirm this unsubscription, please follow the below URL: http://www.auberge-alpineinn.com/cgi-bin/mail.cgi/u/info_tourisme/debian-devel/lists.debian.org/10184726/ (Click the URL above or, copy and paste the URL into your browser) Doing so will *remove* you to this list. --- The following is the description given for this list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- This double opt-out confirmation email was sent to protect the privacy of the owner of this email address. Furthermore, the following privacy policy is associated with this list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read and understand this privacy policy. If you did not asked to be removed from this particular list, please do not visit the confirmation URL above. The confirmation for removal will not go through and no other action on your part will be needed. To contact the owner of this email list, please use the below address: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The following physical address is associated with this mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
info tourisme Mailing List Confirmation
This message has been sent to you as the final step to confirm your email *removal* for the following list: info tourisme To confirm this unsubscription, please follow the below URL: http://www.auberge-alpineinn.com/cgi-bin/mail.cgi/u/info_tourisme/debian-devel/lists.debian.org/10184726/ (Click the URL above or, copy and paste the URL into your browser) Doing so will *remove* you to this list. --- The following is the description given for this list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- This double opt-out confirmation email was sent to protect the privacy of the owner of this email address. Furthermore, the following privacy policy is associated with this list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read and understand this privacy policy. If you did not asked to be removed from this particular list, please do not visit the confirmation URL above. The confirmation for removal will not go through and no other action on your part will be needed. To contact the owner of this email list, please use the below address: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The following physical address is associated with this mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit can be meaningfully described as a group of persons that can be discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it meaningfull to discriminate against it? Try people who do not have enough money to travel to $VENUE to defend themselves from a frivolous lawsuit -- one that they will lose by defaulting their court appearance. I think Debian agrees that poor people in general is a group that is protected by DFSG#5. Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against them? The legal system discriminates in favour of rich people. That's true regardless of license conditions. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
info tourisme Unsubscription
The removal of the email address: debian-devel@lists.debian.org From the mailing list: info tourisme is all set. Date of this removal: Fri Sep 9 10:26:04 2005 Please save this email message for future reference. --- You may automatically subscribe from this list at any time by visiting the following URL: http://www.auberge-alpineinn.com/cgi-bin/mail.cgi/s/info_tourisme/debian-devel/lists.debian.org/ If the above URL is inoperable, make sure that you have copied the entire address. Some mail readers will wrap a long URL and thus break this automatic unsubscribe mechanism. You may also change your subscription by visiting this list's main screen: http://www.auberge-alpineinn.com/cgi-bin/mail.cgi/list/info_tourisme If you're still having trouble, please contact the list owner at: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The following physical address is associated with this mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against them? YES. Please. The DFSG #5 says you should not discriminate the licensee; the licensor is OK. Debian does, in an active basis, discriminate against licensors: if they refuse to release source code; if they license their documentation under the GDFL, MPL (?), old QPL, etc, etc, etc. Free Software is about the licensors (copyright owners) relinquishing some of their rights to assure the rights of the commons. The legal system discriminates in favour of rich people. That's true regardless of license conditions. That's exactly why we (should) discriminate in favour of poor people. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Friday 09 September 2005 17:35, Matthew Garrett wrote: Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit can be meaningfully described as a group of persons that can be discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it meaningfull to discriminate against it? Try people who do not have enough money to travel to $VENUE to defend themselves from a frivolous lawsuit -- one that they will lose by defaulting their court appearance. I think Debian agrees that poor people in general is a group that is protected by DFSG#5. Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against them? Debian has always been full of software licensed that way ;-) Now you want (unintentially) to leave possible holes thru new 'a-la sco insane cases' to enter the scene... all over the world. The legal system discriminates in favour of rich people. That's true regardless of license conditions. I'll agree here ! Then why leave easy targets to lawsuit sharks ? -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#254248: What are the differences between cdebootstrap and debootstrap?
Scripsit Rogério Brito [EMAIL PROTECTED] I was a bit surprised to see a bug like 254248 being tagged as won't fix. There are other strange wontfix tags for cdebootstrap, including a handful of quite reasonably looking translation updates. Significantly, all of those wontfix tags were added without *any* comment or *any* attempt of an explanation of why the maintainer opposes their being fixed. I think this counts as abuse of the wontfix tag. Setting the tag is *never* a substitute for explaining (or referencing an explanation of) why one thinks the problem should not be solved. In cases where a bug report is so obviously bogus that no explanation for ignoring it is needed at all, it should be closed instead of having a wontfix tag silently slapped on. But this is evidently not the case for the wontfix-tagged bugs on cdebootstrap. -- Henning MakholmJeg køber intet af Sulla, og selv om uordenen griber planmæssigt om sig, så er vi endnu ikke nået dertil hvor ordentlige mennesker kan tillade sig at stjæle slaver fra hinanden. Så er det ligegyldigt, hvor stærke, politiske modstandere vi er.
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Free Software is about the licensors (copyright owners) relinquishing some of their rights to assure the rights of the commons. Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless. In order to maintain the freedoms that copyleft-style licenses offer us, the licensor needs to be able to engage in lawsuits. The legal system discriminates in favour of rich people. That's true regardless of license conditions. That's exactly why we (should) discriminate in favour of poor people. And, hence, discriminate against rich ones? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 09 September 2005 17:35, Matthew Garrett wrote: Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against them? Debian has always been full of software licensed that way ;-) Now you want (unintentially) to leave possible holes thru new 'a-la sco insane cases' to enter the scene... all over the world. But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference that choice of venue makes is that it potentially increases the cost for me. Within the UK alone, I can end up paying fairly large travel fees to deal with a court case. But I'll have to pay a lot more for a lawyer. Being sued in the US wouldn't be significantly more expensive for me than being sued here. The legal system discriminates in favour of rich people. That's true regardless of license conditions. I'll agree here ! Then why leave easy targets to lawsuit sharks ? How do we protect against that currently? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Free Software is about the licensors (copyright owners) relinquishing some of their rights to assure the rights of the commons. Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless. You seem to assert that licenses cannot be enforces unless the licensor gets carte blanche to harrass licensees with frivolous lawsuits. That is not reality. Do you think that the GPL and the BSD licenses are both pointless? And, hence, discriminate against rich ones? We *should* discriminate against software whose authors wants the right to order all users and distributors to travel around the globe on their whim. Such harassment has nothing at all to do with software freedom. -- Henning Makholm Ambiguous cases are defined as those for which the compiler being used finds a legitimate interpretation which is different from that which the user had in mind.
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The majority (all!) of license we ship do not demand that you agree *in advance* to waive your usual protections against arbitrary lawsuits in exotic courts. The only difference that choice of venue makes is that it potentially increases the cost for me. By orders of magnitude. Within the UK alone, I can end up paying fairly large travel fees to deal with a court case. It may be that you do not have any concept of home court within the UK. That does not mean that the rest of the world's Debian users should be expected to suffer from that fault. I'll agree here ! Then why leave easy targets to lawsuit sharks ? How do we protect against that currently? We protect against leaving easy target by considering software non-free if its licence demands that you position yourself as an easier target that you would be without the license. -- Henning MakholmDe kan rejse hid og did i verden nok så flot Og er helt fortrolig med alverdens militær
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 03:41:58PM +, MJ Ray wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote: I am refusing them as long as you cannot clearly show how DFSG#5 forbids some restrictions present in the CDDL. It does not work this way. If you believe that a questionable license is free, then it's up to you to explain why it follows the DFSG and convince ftpmasters to admit the packages as a general rule. If you can't even convince this liberal crowd, ow! Naturally, you could try to get the package in on the sly, like apparently happeend with star :) Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 03:35:20PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Matthew The legal system discriminates in favour of rich people. That's true Matthew regardless of license conditions. Although I don' dispute this assertion per se, the problem at hand is that *geography* necessarily discriminates in favor of people who are closer to such or such jurisdiction. Such a discrimination will necessarily occur. I do not see the difference in the degree of discrimination whether the determination of the group discriminated against is left to international private law or a license. The only argument I can see against choice of venue clauses is that if you distribute your software on a worldwide basis, then you'll have to expect to enforce it's license on a worldwide basis or to not enforce it in certain regions. Of course, that line of reasoning might have a chilling effect on small companies/individual developers. I don't really think there's a perfect solution as regarding discrimination on this issue. -- Yorick Cool Chercheur au CRID Rempart de la Vierge, 5 B-5000 Namur Tel: + 32 (0)81 72 47 62 /+32 (0)81 51 37 75 Fax: + 32 (0)81 72 52 02 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Friday 09 September 2005 18:41, MJ Ray wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote: I am refusing them as long as you cannot clearly show how DFSG#5 forbids some restrictions present in the CDDL. It does not work this way. If you believe that a questionable license is free, then it's up to you to explain why it follows the DFSG and convince ftpmasters to admit the packages as a general rule. If you can't even convince this liberal crowd, ow! Also you may take into account that if an author of cddl'ed software want to see it into free software linux/hurd/bsd distributions then the software could be easily double licensed, e.g. CDDL/GPL, CDDL/BSD, CDDL/Artistic, and so on. If it can not be double licensed with any proven free software license for any weird reason, then I'll suspect that can of worms will start showing sooner or later. In today's crazy days I'll go for a conservative approach. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote: George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 09 September 2005 17:35, Matthew Garrett wrote: Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against them? Debian has always been full of software licensed that way ;-) Now you want (unintentially) to leave possible holes thru new 'a-la sco insane cases' to enter the scene... all over the world. But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference that choice of venue makes is that it potentially increases the cost for me. Within the UK alone, I can end up paying fairly large travel fees to deal with a court case. But I'll have to pay a lot more for a lawyer. Being sued in the US wouldn't be significantly more expensive for me than being sued here. The problem is not only with the expensive funny lawsuit trips, you may find some jurisdictions and local lows quite ... let's say just strange. The legal system discriminates in favour of rich people. That's true regardless of license conditions. I'll agree here ! Then why leave easy targets to lawsuit sharks ? How do we protect against that currently? What changes the picture is that you just add new possibilities to be possibly attacked and as we all know sco wont be the last, it was not the smartest either... -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Garrett writes: The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with fivolous lawsuits. The only thing that changes are the costs. This seems remarkably similar to the argument The user has carte blanche to exercise DFSG freedoms; the only thing that a use fee changes are the costs. Does that mean that DFSG#1 allows fees for all users of software? A use fee imposes a cost where no cost would otherwise exist. For a big evil corporation, the difference in cost between suing me in the UK and suing me in the US is sufficiently small that they're unlikely to worry greatly about the amount. Even without a choice of venue clause, they can launch a lawsuit against me and make my life miserable. They pay slightly more, I pay slightly less. At least in the US, it is fairly cheap ($10k, predominantly in lawyer fees) to have a lawsuit with improper venue dismissed, and those costs can often be awarded to the defendant. Even if costs are not awarded, the US's Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (to wit, FRCP 41(d)) can have the judge order the plaintiff to pay for previously dismissed actions before further hearing any sufficiently similar action. So, in fact, it might be *cheaper* for me to have the case handled in the US than in some other jurisdictions? (Out of interest, are there any jurisdictions where the defendant is required to be present in a civil case, or is legal representation acceptable everywhere?) But the freedom to be able to enforce the requirements of a software license *does* have something to do with software freedom. There are always tradeoffs. Would you prefer an OSL-style license based on a contract where the distributor(s) explicitly agree to provide source code to the licensee, handing enforcement ability to all licensees? Sounds quite reasonable from an ideological point of view, but I can see it presenting certain practical difficulties. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Friday 09 September 2005 21:10, Matthew Garrett wrote: Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Garrett writes: The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with fivolous lawsuits. The only thing that changes are the costs. This seems remarkably similar to the argument The user has carte blanche to exercise DFSG freedoms; the only thing that a use fee changes are the costs. Does that mean that DFSG#1 allows fees for all users of software? A use fee imposes a cost where no cost would otherwise exist. For a big evil corporation, the difference in cost between suing me in the UK and suing me in the US is sufficiently small that they're unlikely to worry greatly about the amount. Even without a choice of venue clause, they can launch a lawsuit against me and make my life miserable. They pay slightly more, I pay slightly less. They can not make your life miserable with baseless lawsuits in any sane country, in fact they perfectly know you may strike em back for lesion of your good reputation and so on. But they can make your life miserable with baseless lawsuits in any insane country. Go figure what venues are sane and what are not. Do you see the light ;) -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Matthew Garrett writes: A use fee imposes a cost where no cost would otherwise exist. For a big evil corporation, the difference in cost between suing me in the UK and suing me in the US is sufficiently small that they're unlikely to worry greatly about the amount. Even without a choice of venue clause, they can launch a lawsuit against me and make my life miserable. They pay slightly more, I pay slightly less. The relative costs to a well-bankrolled plaintiff are not relevant to the DFSG. What is relevant is the relative cost or discrimination to the user, who will generally be the defendant in these cases. At least in the US, it is fairly cheap ($10k, predominantly in lawyer fees) to have a lawsuit with improper venue dismissed, and those costs can often be awarded to the defendant. Even if costs are not awarded, the US's Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (to wit, FRCP 41(d)) can have the judge order the plaintiff to pay for previously dismissed actions before further hearing any sufficiently similar action. So, in fact, it might be *cheaper* for me to have the case handled in the US than in some other jurisdictions? It may be cheaper to have a US-venued case dismissed *if venue is obviously improper*. Where the form is correct (or correctable through further filings) and there is a reasonable dispute over the facts, US courts are infamously expensive and prone to cost inflation. (Out of interest, are there any jurisdictions where the defendant is required to be present in a civil case, or is legal representation acceptable everywhere?) US courts generally require the parties to be physically present at a few points: trial is the most universal, but (from my own experience) there may be a pre-trial conference where a judge orders all the parties to attend in person. It will also be cheaper for a party to fly to the court's venue to be deposed than to fly their lawyer to where they live, and no US-filed case goes to trial without depositions of all the parties. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Friday 09 September 2005 21:57, Matthew Garrett wrote: George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 09 September 2005 21:03, Matthew Garrett wrote: Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community, not just the users. Arguing that the rights of the user are the only ones that matter suggests that the GPL ought to be non-free - it restricts the rights of users in favour of the rights of developers. In the vast majority of cases, choice of venue makes it more practical for developers to justifiably enforce their licenses. The fact that it has the potential to be used against users doesn't make it evil, any more than the fact that decss can be used to facilitate DVD piracy makes it evil. The diff is that you can not use GPL in baseless lawsuits against users and/or developers. Can you ? Do you risk your baseless adventure will be severely striken back in any sane countries ? Y/n If I'm willing to lie (and I'd have to be to be filing a baseless lawsuit), then yes, I can use the GPL in baseless lawsuits against users and/or developers. You can sue random people for random reasons (in some funny cases you will be simply ruled out of court), so it is obviously not a GPL flow. But in all cases it depends on the venue authorities. In case of their sanity: at best you will damage your business, at worst you will start live on charity. This has already been tested in recent lawsuit exercises. It is unpredictable what will happend in case of jurisdiction or court insanity and that possible danger should be avoided. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: announcing the beginning of security support for testing
On 9/9/05, Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Security support for testingThe Debian testing security team is pleased to announce the beginning of full security support for Debian's testing distribution. This is great news, and thank you! [...] We also invite you to add the following lines to your/etc/apt/sources.list file, and run apt-get update apt-get upgrade to make the security updates available.deb http://secure-testing.debian.net/debian-secure-testing etch/security-updates main contrib non-free deb-src http://secure-testing.debian.net/debian-secure-testing etch/security-updates main contrib non-free Could I replace 'etch' with 'testing' or should I replace 'testing' with 'etch' elsewhere in my sources.list file? Patrick
Re: announcing the beginning of security support for testing
On 9/9/05, Patrick Wiseman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://secure-testing.debian.net/debian-secure-testing etch/security-updates main contrib non-free deb-src http://secure-testing.debian.net/debian-secure-testing etch/security-updates main contrib non-free Could I replace 'etch' with 'testing' or should I replace 'testing' with 'etch' elsewhere in my sources.list file? testing instead of etch works It depends on what you wish to do when testing and etch aren't equal anymore. Do you want to follow testing or etch then?
Bug#327417: general: Since yesterdays testing upgrade pam authentication via mysql isn't working anymore.
Package: general Severity: important The error message is: Sep 10 00:02:45 localhost saslauthd[738]: PAM unable to dlopen(/lib/security/pam_mysql.so) Sep 10 00:02:45 localhost saslauthd[738]: PAM [dlerror: /lib/tls/libm.so.6: symbol _rtld_global_ro, version GLIBC_PRIVATE not defined in file ld-linux.so.2 with link time reference] Sep 10 00:02:46 localhost saslauthd[738]: PAM adding faulty module: /lib/security/pam_mysql.so Sep 10 00:02:46 localhost saslauthd[738]: DEBUG: auth_pam: pam_authenticate failed: Module is unknown Sep 10 00:02:46 localhost saslauthd[738]: do_auth : auth failure: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [service=smtp] [realm=x.de] [mech=pam] [reason=PAM auth error] Seems like the update of libc6 was causing the problem?! -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.7 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#327417: general: Since yesterdays testing upgrade pam authentication via mysql isn't working anymore.
reassign 327417 glibc thanks On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 01:28:16AM +0200, Thomas Becker wrote: Package: general Severity: important The error message is: Sep 10 00:02:45 localhost saslauthd[738]: PAM unable to dlopen(/lib/security/pam_mysql.so) Sep 10 00:02:45 localhost saslauthd[738]: PAM [dlerror: /lib/tls/libm.so.6: symbol _rtld_global_ro, version GLIBC_PRIVATE not defined in file ld-linux.so.2 with link time reference] Sep 10 00:02:46 localhost saslauthd[738]: PAM adding faulty module: /lib/security/pam_mysql.so Sep 10 00:02:46 localhost saslauthd[738]: DEBUG: auth_pam: pam_authenticate failed: Module is unknown Sep 10 00:02:46 localhost saslauthd[738]: do_auth : auth failure: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [service=smtp] [realm=x.de] [mech=pam] [reason=PAM auth error] Seems like the update of libc6 was causing the problem?! That sounds to me like saslauthd needs to be added to the list of services to restart on upgrade. Can you run /etc/init.d/saslauthd restart and confirm that it corrects the error? Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#327425: ITP: gaim-slashexec -- adds functionality to execute commands from within a Gaim conversation
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Benjamin Seidenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package name: gaim-slashexec Version : x.y.z Upstream Author : Gary Kramlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter Lawler bleeter from users.sf.net Daniel 'datallah' Atallah URL : http://guifications.sourceforge.net/SlashExec/ License : GPL Description : adds functionality to execute commands from within a Gaim conversation SlashExec is a Gaim Plugin that lets you execute commands from within a Gaim conversation. SlashExec provides a limited command-line interpreter for this purpose. SlashExec can also either display the command's output locally or send the output as a message in the current conversation. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.12.2 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#327425: ITP: gaim-slashexec -- adds functionality to execute commands from within a Gaim conversation
owner 327425 ! thanks Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Benjamin Seidenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package name: gaim-slashexec Version : x.y.z Upstream Author : Gary Kramlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter Lawler bleeter from users.sf.net Daniel 'datallah' Atallah URL : http://guifications.sourceforge.net/SlashExec/ License : GPL Description : adds functionality to execute commands from within a Gaim conversation SlashExec is a Gaim Plugin that lets you execute commands from within a Gaim conversation. SlashExec provides a limited command-line interpreter for this purpose. SlashExec can also either display the command's output locally or send the output as a message in the current conversation. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.12.2 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) Version: 1.0 Sorry, missed a field. Also used wrong email (annoyed at reportbug for not honoring $DEBEMAIL) Cheers, Benjamin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#327425: ITP: gaim-slashexec -- adds functionality to execute commands from within a Gaim conversation
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 08:47:34PM -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Benjamin Seidenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package name: gaim-slashexec Version : x.y.z ^ Upstream Author : Gary Kramlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter Lawler bleeter from users.sf.net Daniel 'datallah' Atallah URL : http://guifications.sourceforge.net/SlashExec/ License : GPL Description : adds functionality to execute commands from within a Gaim conversation SlashExec is a Gaim Plugin that lets you execute commands from within a Gaim conversation. SlashExec provides a limited command-line interpreter for this purpose. SlashExec can also either display the command's output locally or send the output as a message in the current conversation. Seems like it would be neat to have. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto pgpkCYCLFB310.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#327425: ITP: gaim-slashexec -- adds functionality to execute commands from within a Gaim conversation
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:24:20PM -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: Sorry, missed a field. Also used wrong email (annoyed at reportbug for not honoring $DEBEMAIL) Err, it does? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#327425: ITP: gaim-slashexec -- adds functionality to execute commands from within a Gaim conversation
Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:24:20PM -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: Sorry, missed a field. Also used wrong email (annoyed at reportbug for not honoring $DEBEMAIL) Err, it does? Hamish See http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=324341 . It now won't unless the config file is set, which mine was because I came from a version before the fix. Benjamin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote: But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference that choice of venue makes is that it potentially increases the cost for me. Within the UK alone, I can end up paying fairly large travel fees to deal with a court case. But I'll have to pay a lot more for a lawyer. Being sued in the US wouldn't be significantly more expensive for me than being sued here. The problem is not only with the expensive funny lawsuit trips, you may find some jurisdictions and local lows quite ... let's say just strange. That's choice of law, rather than choice of venue. I was under the impression that it was generally accepted. How do we protect against that currently? What changes the picture is that you just add new possibilities to be possibly attacked and as we all know sco wont be the last, it was not the smartest either... So the presence of a choice of venue clause is a quantitative difference rather than a qualitative one? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless. You seem to assert that licenses cannot be enforces unless the licensor gets carte blanche to harrass licensees with frivolous lawsuits. That is not reality. The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with fivolous lawsuits. The only thing that changes are the costs. Do you think that the GPL and the BSD licenses are both pointless? I think that a copyleft license is utterly pointless if there's no way for the licensor to be able to afford to sue infringers. You might as well just have released the code into the public domain. And, hence, discriminate against rich ones? We *should* discriminate against software whose authors wants the right to order all users and distributors to travel around the globe on their whim. Such harassment has nothing at all to do with software freedom. But the freedom to be able to enforce the requirements of a software license *does* have something to do with software freedom. There are always tradeoffs. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:35:36PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote: But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference that choice of venue makes is that it potentially increases the cost for me. Within the UK alone, I can end up paying fairly large travel fees to deal with a court case. But I'll have to pay a lot more for a lawyer. Being sued in the US wouldn't be significantly more expensive for me than being sued here. The problem is not only with the expensive funny lawsuit trips, you may find some jurisdictions and local lows quite ... let's say just strange. That's choice of law, rather than choice of venue. I was under the impression that it was generally accepted. I wonder, let's say you are going to be judged in some random US court, even if it is with German laws, you still would fall into common US-practice legal or something such ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless. You seem to assert that licenses cannot be enforces unless the licensor gets carte blanche to harrass licensees with frivolous lawsuits. That is not reality. The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with fivolous lawsuits. No - if the court throws out the case ex officio because of lack of jurisdiction, no harassment results. Do you think that the GPL and the BSD licenses are both pointless? I think that a copyleft license is utterly pointless if there's no way for the licensor to be able to afford to sue infringers. According to your argument, the GPL and BSD license must be pointless, because they don't contain any obnoxious choice-of-venue clauses. But the freedom to be able to enforce the requirements of a software license *does* have something to do with software freedom. Not anything I can read in the DFSG. -- Henning Makholm Skidt med din brud når der står et par nymfer i tyl og trikot i den lysegrønne skov!
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wonder, let's say you are going to be judged in some random US court, even if it is with German laws, you still would fall into common US-practice legal or something such ? Court procedures always go by the local law of the forum. -- Henning Makholm And here we could talk about the Plato's Cave thing for a while---the Veg-O-Matic of metaphors---it slices! it dices! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Friday 09 September 2005 19:35, Matthew Garrett wrote: George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote: But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference that choice of venue makes is that it potentially increases the cost for me. Within the UK alone, I can end up paying fairly large travel fees to deal with a court case. But I'll have to pay a lot more for a lawyer. Being sued in the US wouldn't be significantly more expensive for me than being sued here. The problem is not only with the expensive funny lawsuit trips, you may find some jurisdictions and local lows quite ... let's say just strange. That's choice of law, rather than choice of venue. I was under the impression that it was generally accepted. I mean the venue designates the jurisdiction where a lawsuit process is held. Can you prove somehow that all of them around the globe are sane and wont be used for speculations ... put-more-insane-fast-money-seeking-killing-any-competition-monopilic-methods-here I have currently no args against choice-of-law, but doesn't mean it is sane and safe. I just wonder why COV and COL are not present in proven licenses like GPL, BSD, Artistic, and why are they needed from now on. How do we protect against that currently? What changes the picture is that you just add new possibilities to be possibly attacked and as we all know sco wont be the last, it was not the smartest either... So the presence of a choice of venue clause is a quantitative difference rather than a qualitative one? I don't think it makes any difference. You just open new holes I'm arguing against. Why you need to put that baseless challenges on user's souls ? -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On 9/9/05, Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit can be meaningfully described as a group of persons that can be discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it meaningfull to discriminate against it? Try people who do not have enough money to travel to $VENUE to defend themselves from a frivolous lawsuit -- one that they will lose by defaulting their court appearance. I think Debian agrees that poor people in general is a group that is protected by DFSG#5. Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against them? It certainly sounds better. The licensor can then choose not to enforce it, whereas the licensee wouldn't have the choice not to defend himself.
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with fivolous lawsuits. No - if the court throws out the case ex officio because of lack of jurisdiction, no harassment results. Eh? They can sue you in your jurisdiction. In the case you're worrying about (obnoxious large businesses suing people in order to intimidate them), the difference in cost is unlikely to deter them. I think that a copyleft license is utterly pointless if there's no way for the licensor to be able to afford to sue infringers. According to your argument, the GPL and BSD license must be pointless, because they don't contain any obnoxious choice-of-venue clauses. If the licensor doesn't have enough money to enforce them, then yes, I think they're pointless. What's the point of a license that you can't enforce? But the freedom to be able to enforce the requirements of a software license *does* have something to do with software freedom. Not anything I can read in the DFSG. The DFSG are not holy writ, but how about if I phrase it as discrimination against licensors without money? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 09 September 2005 19:35, Matthew Garrett wrote: That's choice of law, rather than choice of venue. I was under the impression that it was generally accepted. I mean the venue designates the jurisdiction where a lawsuit process is held. Can you prove somehow that all of them around the globe are sane and wont be used for speculations ... If a license chooses a jurisdiction that is known to be insane then that specific case may be non-free. So the presence of a choice of venue clause is a quantitative difference rather than a qualitative one? I don't think it makes any difference. You just open new holes I'm arguing against. Why you need to put that baseless challenges on user's souls ? The presence or absence of a choice of venue clause does not alter the fact that the licensor can make baseless challenges against the user. The ease with which they can do so varies to some degree, but for large evil companies the practical difference is going to be small. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
The DFSG are not holy writ, but how about if I phrase it as discrimination against licensors without money? DFSG #5: No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. This implies, at least to me, that the _licensor_ is not allowed to discriminate against a person or group, because he/she is the one who chooses the license. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Matthew Garrett writes: George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote: But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference that choice of venue makes is that it potentially increases the cost for me. Within the UK alone, I can end up paying fairly large travel fees to deal with a court case. But I'll have to pay a lot more for a lawyer. Being sued in the US wouldn't be significantly more expensive for me than being sued here. The problem is not only with the expensive funny lawsuit trips, you may find some jurisdictions and local lows quite ... let's say just strange. That's choice of law, rather than choice of venue. I was under the impression that it was generally accepted. Choice of law is generally accepted because no one has explained why the chosen laws inherently discriminate against groups. Some legal systems/chosen laws would fail must not discriminate against groups in obvious ways, but they have not been specified in licenses. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with fivolous lawsuits. No - if the court throws out the case ex officio because of lack of jurisdiction, no harassment results. Eh? They can sue you in your jurisdiction. Yes they can. But that gives me excellent chances to convince the court that the case is devoid of merit - *without* having to spend a fortune and tons of time on travel. In the case you're worrying about (obnoxious large businesses suing people in order to intimidate them), the difference in cost is unlikely to deter them. The point is that the cost *for me* of defending myself is much more favourable. According to your argument, the GPL and BSD license must be pointless, because they don't contain any obnoxious choice-of-venue clauses. If the licensor doesn't have enough money to enforce them, then yes, I think they're pointless. What's the point of a license that you can't enforce? In the free software world, the point of having a license is to *allow* others to use, share and extend your software. The DFSG are not holy writ, but how about if I phrase it as discrimination against licensors without money? That wouldn't make your argument more coherent. We're concerned exclusively with which rights the *user* gets. Whether the author thinks it is worth it to give the user those rights is not something we consider at all. We can just observe that sufficiently many software authors *have* been willing to do so that we can put together a good free OS. There is no reason to start including software in our OS where the user only gets freedoms with this kind of strings attached. -- Henning Makholm I always thought being *real* sad would be *cooler* than acting *fake* sad, but it's not. It's not cool at *all*. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't think it makes any difference. You just open new holes I'm arguing against. Why you need to put that baseless challenges on user's souls ? The presence or absence of a choice of venue clause does not alter the fact that the licensor can make baseless challenges against the user. It very much alters the degree of harm to the user that such baseless challenges give cause to. -- Henning Makholm Den nyttige hjemmedatamat er og forbliver en myte. Generelt kan der ikke peges på databehandlingsopgaver af en sådan størrelsesorden og af en karaktér, som berettiger forestillingerne om den nye hjemme- og husholdningsteknologi.
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Matthew Garrett writes: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Without the licensors, there is no commons. Without an ability to enforce licenses, the concept of copyleft becomes pointless. You seem to assert that licenses cannot be enforces unless the licensor gets carte blanche to harrass licensees with frivolous lawsuits. That is not reality. The licensor *already* has carte blanche to harrass licensees with fivolous lawsuits. The only thing that changes are the costs. This seems remarkably similar to the argument The user has carte blanche to exercise DFSG freedoms; the only thing that a use fee changes are the costs. Does that mean that DFSG#1 allows fees for all users of software? At least in the US, it is fairly cheap ($10k, predominantly in lawyer fees) to have a lawsuit with improper venue dismissed, and those costs can often be awarded to the defendant. Even if costs are not awarded, the US's Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (to wit, FRCP 41(d)) can have the judge order the plaintiff to pay for previously dismissed actions before further hearing any sufficiently similar action. Do you think that the GPL and the BSD licenses are both pointless? I think that a copyleft license is utterly pointless if there's no way for the licensor to be able to afford to sue infringers. You might as well just have released the code into the public domain. And, hence, discriminate against rich ones? We *should* discriminate against software whose authors wants the right to order all users and distributors to travel around the globe on their whim. Such harassment has nothing at all to do with software freedom. But the freedom to be able to enforce the requirements of a software license *does* have something to do with software freedom. There are always tradeoffs. Would you prefer an OSL-style license based on a contract where the distributor(s) explicitly agree to provide source code to the licensee, handing enforcement ability to all licensees? Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the case you're worrying about (obnoxious large businesses suing people in order to intimidate them), the difference in cost is unlikely to deter them. The point is that the cost *for me* of defending myself is much more favourable. You're ignoring the cost of paying for any sort of legal advice, which isn't very realistic. If you want to redefine choice of venue as Discriminates against poor people who are competent to represent themselves legally, then I'd be more inclined to take it seriously. If the licensor doesn't have enough money to enforce them, then yes, I think they're pointless. What's the point of a license that you can't enforce? In the free software world, the point of having a license is to *allow* others to use, share and extend your software. No. The point of the GPL is to allow others to use, share and extend your software and to ensure that their derivative works remain free themselves. If you can't do the latter, you might as well have released it into the public domain. The DFSG are not holy writ, but how about if I phrase it as discrimination against licensors without money? That wouldn't make your argument more coherent. We're concerned exclusively with which rights the *user* gets. Whether the author thinks it is worth it to give the user those rights is not something we consider at all. We can just observe that sufficiently many software authors *have* been willing to do so that we can put together a good free OS. There is no reason to start including software in our OS where the user only gets freedoms with this kind of strings attached. Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community, not just the users. Arguing that the rights of the user are the only ones that matter suggests that the GPL ought to be non-free - it restricts the rights of users in favour of the rights of developers. In the vast majority of cases, choice of venue makes it more practical for developers to justifiably enforce their licenses. The fact that it has the potential to be used against users doesn't make it evil, any more than the fact that decss can be used to facilitate DVD piracy makes it evil. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the case you're worrying about (obnoxious large businesses suing people in order to intimidate them), the difference in cost is unlikely to deter them. The point is that the cost *for me* of defending myself is much more favourable. You're ignoring the cost of paying for any sort of legal advice, which isn't very realistic. No I'm not. When the case is trule meritless there is usually no reason to involve a lawyer (*unless* one is forced to defend oneself in an unknown legal system with a foreign language). And even if a lawyer proves necessary, standard insurance will usually cover his fees. But I'm bloody sure that a standard insurance policy will *not* cover my cost in cases where I have previously agreed to let myself be sued in a foreign country. In the free software world, the point of having a license is to *allow* others to use, share and extend your software. No. The point of the GPL is to allow others to use, share and extend your software and to ensure that their derivative works remain free themselves. In that order. If you can't do the latter, you might as well have released it into the public domain. Yes, but if you don't do the former, the latter has nothing to do with freedom anyway. Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community, not just the users. Yes, but the if you stick to using software from main, we will do our best to check that you have such-and-such rights part of it is a promise to the users. There are other parts of the social contract that make promises to other parts of the community. Arguing that the rights of the user are the only ones that matter suggests that the GPL ought to be non-free - it restricts the rights of users in favour of the rights of developers. The GPL does give the user those rights we promise to users that they will have. Whether or not it gives any rights beyond that is immaterial. In the vast majority of cases, choice of venue makes it more practical for developers to justifiably enforce their licenses. That does not change the fact that we would be going back on our promise to the users if we started including software that required them to subject themselves to that risking. The fact that it has the potential to be used against users doesn't make it evil, Who is speaking about evil? -- Henning Makholm The great secret, known to internists and learned early in marriage by internists' wives, but still hidden from the general public, is that most things get better by themselves. Most things, in fact, are better by morning. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Friday 09 September 2005 21:03, Matthew Garrett wrote: --cut-- That wouldn't make your argument more coherent. We're concerned exclusively with which rights the *user* gets. Whether the author thinks it is worth it to give the user those rights is not something we consider at all. We can just observe that sufficiently many software authors *have* been willing to do so that we can put together a good free OS. There is no reason to start including software in our OS where the user only gets freedoms with this kind of strings attached. Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community, not just the users. Arguing that the rights of the user are the only ones that matter suggests that the GPL ought to be non-free - it restricts the rights of users in favour of the rights of developers. In the vast majority of cases, choice of venue makes it more practical for developers to justifiably enforce their licenses. The fact that it has the potential to be used against users doesn't make it evil, any more than the fact that decss can be used to facilitate DVD piracy makes it evil. The diff is that you can not use GPL in baseless lawsuits against users and/or developers. Can you ? Do you risk your baseless adventure will be severely striken back in any sane countries ? Y/n -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] You're ignoring the cost of paying for any sort of legal advice, which isn't very realistic. No I'm not. When the case is trule meritless there is usually no reason to involve a lawyer (*unless* one is forced to defend oneself in an unknown legal system with a foreign language). And even if a lawyer proves necessary, standard insurance will usually cover his fees. But I'm bloody sure that a standard insurance policy will *not* cover my cost in cases where I have previously agreed to let myself be sued in a foreign country. My insurance optionally covers employment disputes, accidents and housing issues. I don't have any cover that protects me from arbitrary legal cases. In any case, Discriminates against poor people who have an insurance policy that covers legal cases in their home country but not elsewhere? That's beginning to sound a bit fringe. No. The point of the GPL is to allow others to use, share and extend your software and to ensure that their derivative works remain free themselves. In that order. Not at all. The strength of the copyleft in the GPL suggests that they're all treated with equal priority. If you can't do the latter, you might as well have released it into the public domain. Yes, but if you don't do the former, the latter has nothing to do with freedom anyway. Right. This sort of clause doesn't impair your ability to use, share or extend software except in the case of someone suing you, which *they can do anyway*. Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community, not just the users. Yes, but the if you stick to using software from main, we will do our best to check that you have such-and-such rights part of it is a promise to the users. There are other parts of the social contract that make promises to other parts of the community. And what rights are we taking away from them? The right not to be sued? We don't provide them with that right in the first place. In the vast majority of cases, choice of venue makes it more practical for developers to justifiably enforce their licenses. That does not change the fact that we would be going back on our promise to the users if we started including software that required them to subject themselves to that risking. What risk? I can already sue you in the UK, if I want. I could forge evidence that suggested that you'd agreed to that. I could expose you to the same costs without you ever having touched a piece of software that was under a choice of venue clause. How are we protecting our users from anything here? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 09 September 2005 21:03, Matthew Garrett wrote: Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community, not just the users. Arguing that the rights of the user are the only ones that matter suggests that the GPL ought to be non-free - it restricts the rights of users in favour of the rights of developers. In the vast majority of cases, choice of venue makes it more practical for developers to justifiably enforce their licenses. The fact that it has the potential to be used against users doesn't make it evil, any more than the fact that decss can be used to facilitate DVD piracy makes it evil. The diff is that you can not use GPL in baseless lawsuits against users and/or developers. Can you ? Do you risk your baseless adventure will be severely striken back in any sane countries ? Y/n If I'm willing to lie (and I'd have to be to be filing a baseless lawsuit), then yes, I can use the GPL in baseless lawsuits against users and/or developers. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Garrett writes: My insurance optionally covers employment disputes, accidents and housing issues. I don't have any cover that protects me from arbitrary legal cases. In any case, Discriminates against poor people who have an insurance policy that covers legal cases in their home country but not elsewhere? That's beginning to sound a bit fringe. It is considerably less fringe than Choice of venue is non-discriminatory because suitable lies allow anybody to sue you anywhere over anything even with no license and only the cost changes if you have to defend yourself in the other guy's home court because of a software license. I'd disagree, but I think that's a matter of opinion. As you point out elsewhere, total fabrications can be invented to support any claim, but DFSG freedom questions should be limited to what the license imposes on or requires from users. What's the point in us worrying about licenses granting freedoms that can't actually be exercised in life? There is no freedom not to be sued, so it's impossible for a license to contravene that. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Matthew Garrett writes: Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As you point out elsewhere, total fabrications can be invented to support any claim, but DFSG freedom questions should be limited to what the license imposes on or requires from users. What's the point in us worrying about licenses granting freedoms that can't actually be exercised in life? There is no freedom not to be sued, so it's impossible for a license to contravene that. There are the DFSG freedoms to not have to pay a fee and to not be discriminated against, and licenses can contravene those. Even though a sociopath can impose costs on an arbitrary person, we should not treat being vicimized by a sociopath as the baseline for freedom. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:35:36PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 09 September 2005 18:24, Matthew Garrett wrote: But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses that we ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily. The only difference that choice of venue makes is that it potentially increases the cost for me. Within the UK alone, I can end up paying fairly large travel fees to deal with a court case. But I'll have to pay a lot more for a lawyer. Being sued in the US wouldn't be significantly more expensive for me than being sued here. The problem is not only with the expensive funny lawsuit trips, you may find some jurisdictions and local lows quite ... let's say just strange. That's choice of law, rather than choice of venue. I was under the impression that it was generally accepted. Only insofar as the laws generally chosen are accepted. If somebody showed up with a choice for Swaziland[0], we might have a problem with that. But although US law is fairly right-wing, and German law is fairly crazy, neither of them are actually prejudicial in a fair court. [0] It's an autocracy (under state of emergency rules for about 30 years, they're currently trying to reestablish some semblence of democracy); the case would be determined by who paid the largest bribe to the king. Given his proclivities, that might be the one with the cutest intern. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 10:24:19PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote: On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:30:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: 9. MISCELLANEOUS. Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a contract shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this License. Can a license exclude application of laws? Maybe there's a jurisdiction which has such a law on the books, which _can_ be opted out of, but I doubt such exists, as it would defeat the purpose of having that law in the first place. Under certain limited conditions, yes. Generally, no. There's a few statutes on the books around the place which say This applies to [...] unless waived by both parties and similar stuff. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Garrett writes: What's the point in us worrying about licenses granting freedoms that can't actually be exercised in life? There is no freedom not to be sued, so it's impossible for a license to contravene that. There are the DFSG freedoms to not have to pay a fee and to not be discriminated against, and licenses can contravene those. Even though a sociopath can impose costs on an arbitrary person, we should not treat being vicimized by a sociopath as the baseline for freedom. Right, but the cost being suggested only appears when someone is sued frivilously (I'm assuming that we don't think that the freedom to contravene a license without being sued is something to worry about...), which approximates sociopathic behaviour. What practical difference does a choice of venue clause make to the user? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Re: Bug#327417: general: Since yesterdays testing upgrade pam authentication via mysql isn't working anymore.
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: reassign 327417 glibc Bug#327417: general: Since yesterdays testing upgrade pam authentication via mysql isn't working anymore. Bug reassigned from package `general' to `glibc'. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Announcing kernel-handbook project
[This message is cross-posted to multiple mailing lists for announcement purposes only. Please edit the address list before replying! Suggested address for followups is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello, In an attempt to improve the situation with Debian kernel documentation I have recently initiated the kernel-handbook project on Alioth. The goal of this project is to create and maintain the Debian kernel handbook, a primary access point to all kernel-related user documentation in Debian. At the moment it only contains the description of the new kernel packaging scheme, which kernel team introduced with the upload of 2.6.12 kernel debs. Comments and suggestions regarding the contents are, of course, welcome. In addition to announcing the project, I would like to call for volunteers to contribute and maintain separate parts of the handbook. This project is an ideal candidate for team maintenance and the SVN repository has been created to host it. If you are interested, please contact the project's mailing list (see below). Project information: Current version: http://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org Source in SVN : svn://svn.debian.org/svn/kernel-handbook/trunk Mailing list : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks and best regards, Jurij Smakov[EMAIL PROTECTED] Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted gnumeric 1.5.90-1 (source i386 all)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 07:00:00 +0200 Source: gnumeric Binary: gnumeric-doc gnumeric-common gnumeric gnumeric-plugins-extra Architecture: source i386 all Version: 1.5.90-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: gnumeric - GNOME spreadsheet application gnumeric-common - common files for Gnumeric, the GNOME spreadsheet application gnumeric-doc - documentation for Gnumeric, the GNOME spreadsheet application gnumeric-plugins-extra - additional plugins for the GNOME spreadsheet Changes: gnumeric (1.5.90-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream beta release. * [debian/control] Bumped libgsf, goffice build dependencies per configure.in . Files: 745bee5fe8762a0423f0715a5f392451 1323 math optional gnumeric_1.5.90-1.dsc d9a7f01ae242d485b27558505338a1ee 16233260 math optional gnumeric_1.5.90.orig.tar.gz ed75998d45176756c888d15983894db2 32379 math optional gnumeric_1.5.90-1.diff.gz 9f844eb9ae8c77f69b0d38ee42151465 5273412 math optional gnumeric-common_1.5.90-1_all.deb ddc2769e66553fec3828e59297aa84fb 4177518 doc optional gnumeric-doc_1.5.90-1_all.deb 009b44c731d1a4c8d9670842cbc1628c 2003488 math optional gnumeric_1.5.90-1_i386.deb cee47fb906c2115904791fe607d3de14 142172 math optional gnumeric-plugins-extra_1.5.90-1_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDIRzfA+HB2Re6Rc4RAsjfAKCmaopXPcKWvimCkbvokzN3mKAe4QCfcIO3 h/jKphtqJxHl42yTROgjAyM= =Zh4/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: gnumeric-common_1.5.90-1_all.deb to pool/main/g/gnumeric/gnumeric-common_1.5.90-1_all.deb gnumeric-doc_1.5.90-1_all.deb to pool/main/g/gnumeric/gnumeric-doc_1.5.90-1_all.deb gnumeric-plugins-extra_1.5.90-1_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gnumeric/gnumeric-plugins-extra_1.5.90-1_i386.deb gnumeric_1.5.90-1.diff.gz to pool/main/g/gnumeric/gnumeric_1.5.90-1.diff.gz gnumeric_1.5.90-1.dsc to pool/main/g/gnumeric/gnumeric_1.5.90-1.dsc gnumeric_1.5.90-1_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gnumeric/gnumeric_1.5.90-1_i386.deb gnumeric_1.5.90.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/g/gnumeric/gnumeric_1.5.90.orig.tar.gz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted newt 0.51.6-31 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 22:30:22 +0100 Source: newt Binary: libnewt-dev libnewt-pic libnewt0.51 newt-tcl whiptail python-newt Architecture: source i386 Version: 0.51.6-31 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Alastair McKinstry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Alastair McKinstry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: libnewt-dev - Developer's toolkit for newt windowing library libnewt-pic - Not Erik's Windowing Toolkit, shared library subset kit libnewt0.51 - Not Erik's Windowing Toolkit - text mode windowing with slang newt-tcl - A newt module for Tcl python-newt - A NEWT module for Python whiptail - Displays user-friendly dialog boxes from shell scripts Closes: 317451 326068 Changes: newt (0.51.6-31) unstable; urgency=low . * don't free() a pointer that will be NULL if fribidi is not installed. Closes: #317451, #326068. * Build-Depend on libfribid-dev, libnewt0.51 recommends libfribidi0. Files: 36e3713153db7bdc0fd4f1bcf9c4201b 743 devel optional newt_0.51.6-31.dsc eaecff44bcc1275599f645ffb2826431 112211 devel optional newt_0.51.6-31.diff.gz fdcc6bb264d38f93dd550de5904931ab 59688 base required libnewt0.51_0.51.6-31_i386.deb e7b7ac62f72d31f22b8b6a968e327221 81218 libdevel optional libnewt-dev_0.51.6-31_i386.deb 9fc8617b5fc283f8c3f2cb3b3f81d7a9 53894 libdevel extra libnewt-pic_0.51.6-31_i386.deb 16a2dea74b95fa76d97b250eac6e9e6d 27086 interpreters extra newt-tcl_0.51.6-31_i386.deb 16263d5a4174977de73ef4d596497185 35776 python standard python-newt_0.51.6-31_i386.deb 73debe6879c51149af5f5f0fd2a43e1f 32608 base important whiptail_0.51.6-31_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDISfeQTK/kCo4XFcRAqZUAJ43uF8OI69d5ETfaWmxWFwhwJP9hQCfd1HA +4+MlwmL189UdTmgEM1vl0s= =WIuU -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: libnewt-dev_0.51.6-31_i386.deb to pool/main/n/newt/libnewt-dev_0.51.6-31_i386.deb libnewt-pic_0.51.6-31_i386.deb to pool/main/n/newt/libnewt-pic_0.51.6-31_i386.deb libnewt0.51_0.51.6-31_i386.deb to pool/main/n/newt/libnewt0.51_0.51.6-31_i386.deb newt-tcl_0.51.6-31_i386.deb to pool/main/n/newt/newt-tcl_0.51.6-31_i386.deb newt_0.51.6-31.diff.gz to pool/main/n/newt/newt_0.51.6-31.diff.gz newt_0.51.6-31.dsc to pool/main/n/newt/newt_0.51.6-31.dsc python-newt_0.51.6-31_i386.deb to pool/main/n/newt/python-newt_0.51.6-31_i386.deb whiptail_0.51.6-31_i386.deb to pool/main/n/newt/whiptail_0.51.6-31_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted slang2 2.0.4-5 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 07:56:49 +0100 Source: slang2 Binary: libslang2-dev libslang2 libslang2-udeb libslang2-pic slsh Architecture: source i386 Version: 2.0.4-5 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Alastair McKinstry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Alastair McKinstry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: libslang2 - The S-Lang programming library - runtime version libslang2-dev - The S-Lang programming library, development version libslang2-pic - The S-Lang programming library, shared library subset kit libslang2-udeb - S-Lang library for Debian Installer (udeb) slsh - S-Lang shell Changes: slang2 (2.0.4-5) unstable; urgency=low . * Remove unnecessary recommends on libfribidi0, build-depends on libfribid-dev. * Change maintainer to Alastair, with Jim Mintha as uploader Files: b9e5954bf11c5a6278ba02fde2c548a0 697 devel optional slang2_2.0.4-5.dsc 0abeef40ded5797f141dd9254c1bc429 141347 devel optional slang2_2.0.4-5.diff.gz 499b946ee7fe11af22f8b964214a4544 434374 devel optional libslang2-dev_2.0.4-5_i386.deb 8faa5659aeb8a82cc31ad04b79bd13c3 406348 base required libslang2_2.0.4-5_i386.deb 3c99daf4c83d3a9af728a5c954de9865 378042 libdevel optional libslang2-pic_2.0.4-5_i386.deb a771f5bb60bd23db64429d0767d87649 247514 debian-installer extra libslang2-udeb_2.0.4-5_i386.udeb 2ee140af471c56559e6cb3b05e98f65d 67462 interpreters optional slsh_2.0.4-5_i386.deb Package-Type: udeb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDITMRQTK/kCo4XFcRAk/iAJ9fp/5sJJSWl38Ba2hD7FP//jpYhACgtmbS GgLXRmYROoIXQM6gOxdgECA= =OvlV -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: libslang2-dev_2.0.4-5_i386.deb to pool/main/s/slang2/libslang2-dev_2.0.4-5_i386.deb libslang2-pic_2.0.4-5_i386.deb to pool/main/s/slang2/libslang2-pic_2.0.4-5_i386.deb libslang2-udeb_2.0.4-5_i386.udeb to pool/main/s/slang2/libslang2-udeb_2.0.4-5_i386.udeb libslang2_2.0.4-5_i386.deb to pool/main/s/slang2/libslang2_2.0.4-5_i386.deb slang2_2.0.4-5.diff.gz to pool/main/s/slang2/slang2_2.0.4-5.diff.gz slang2_2.0.4-5.dsc to pool/main/s/slang2/slang2_2.0.4-5.dsc slsh_2.0.4-5_i386.deb to pool/main/s/slang2/slsh_2.0.4-5_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted mod-vhost-ldap 0.2.5-1 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 20:35:31 +0200 Source: mod-vhost-ldap Binary: libapache2-mod-vhost-ldap Architecture: source i386 Version: 0.2.5-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: OndÅej Surý [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: OndÅej Surý [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: libapache2-mod-vhost-ldap - Apache 2 module for Virtual Hosting from LDAP Changes: mod-vhost-ldap (0.2.5-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream release. + Fix crasher. Files: 2eca279097aea4691230e2783d081701 648 web optional mod-vhost-ldap_0.2.5-1.dsc e946269738226261258a1f353dcc3adc 7313 web optional mod-vhost-ldap_0.2.5.orig.tar.gz 4ee395b568f35a3a4180f65824b14827 2810 web optional mod-vhost-ldap_0.2.5-1.diff.gz 18677c9b8a99e3419b4791a7c9694f10 9922 web optional libapache2-mod-vhost-ldap_0.2.5-1_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDIUC/9OZqfMIN8nMRAorXAJwMOBTRn/W7HVdVldUlIYNj57hW1wCgl0Zz Fbw5jBJ3ovVQrCNPFmqAirU= =j4YL -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: libapache2-mod-vhost-ldap_0.2.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/m/mod-vhost-ldap/libapache2-mod-vhost-ldap_0.2.5-1_i386.deb mod-vhost-ldap_0.2.5-1.diff.gz to pool/main/m/mod-vhost-ldap/mod-vhost-ldap_0.2.5-1.diff.gz mod-vhost-ldap_0.2.5-1.dsc to pool/main/m/mod-vhost-ldap/mod-vhost-ldap_0.2.5-1.dsc mod-vhost-ldap_0.2.5.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/m/mod-vhost-ldap/mod-vhost-ldap_0.2.5.orig.tar.gz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted libimage-exif-perl 1.00.3-2 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 10:31:35 +0200 Source: libimage-exif-perl Binary: libimage-exif-perl Architecture: source i386 Version: 1.00.3-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: libimage-exif-perl - Perl module to extract EXIF information from image files Changes: libimage-exif-perl (1.00.3-2) unstable; urgency=low . * Rebuild against libexif12. * debian/control: + Build-Depend on libexif-dev (= 0.6.12-1). + Bumped Standards-Version to 3.6.2 (no changes). Files: f50e03377d359181b1f99bbbe2e549d1 652 perl optional libimage-exif-perl_1.00.3-2.dsc 811580aaffd95d9b80c8ef4766125770 6004 perl optional libimage-exif-perl_1.00.3-2.diff.gz d47274ea5b95ed9f7a076a15bb7f0556 57420 perl optional libimage-exif-perl_1.00.3-2_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDIUiWzWFP1/XWUWkRAryXAJ9VoraN8WHjZ72DyqOEsNihlyIHaACeJLDy h4OKt9tj9QcSCv05ww/olzo= =qq2Y -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: libimage-exif-perl_1.00.3-2.diff.gz to pool/main/libi/libimage-exif-perl/libimage-exif-perl_1.00.3-2.diff.gz libimage-exif-perl_1.00.3-2.dsc to pool/main/libi/libimage-exif-perl/libimage-exif-perl_1.00.3-2.dsc libimage-exif-perl_1.00.3-2_i386.deb to pool/main/libi/libimage-exif-perl/libimage-exif-perl_1.00.3-2_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted ncftp2 1:2.4.3-15 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 07:44:37 +0200 Source: ncftp2 Binary: ncftp2 Architecture: source i386 Version: 1:2.4.3-15 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Noèl Köthe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Noèl Köthe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: ncftp2 - A user-friendly and well-featured FTP client Closes: 326314 Changes: ncftp2 (1:2.4.3-15) unstable; urgency=low . * switched from readline 4 to readline5 (closes: Bug#326314) * updated standards-version * fixed lintian warning: ncftp2: syntax-error-in-debian-changelog line 60 found change data where expected next heading or eof Files: cd5939bdbb9819f1ceb4925c7d146fa5 594 net optional ncftp2_2.4.3-15.dsc 49b7d5b9c9b9cc550ca684b7e37721f7 24612 net optional ncftp2_2.4.3-15.diff.gz 89eb99b7cd13aafb582f1fd71ad94878 95294 net optional ncftp2_2.4.3-15_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDIVuP9/DnDzB9Vu0RAhpvAJ9fj+dQKMwOS/0QfcwqYtoqpy4nJwCeN3W8 gJ/Yr6KuvYI3eZ1iDJ6vT6U= =aRBH -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: ncftp2_2.4.3-15.diff.gz to pool/main/n/ncftp2/ncftp2_2.4.3-15.diff.gz ncftp2_2.4.3-15.dsc to pool/main/n/ncftp2/ncftp2_2.4.3-15.dsc ncftp2_2.4.3-15_i386.deb to pool/main/n/ncftp2/ncftp2_2.4.3-15_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted qpsmtpd 0.30-5 (source all)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 02:58:00 -0700 Source: qpsmtpd Binary: qpsmtpd Architecture: source all Version: 0.30-5 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Devin Carraway [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Devin Carraway [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: qpsmtpd- Flexible SMTP daemon for network-level spam detection Closes: 326848 Changes: qpsmtpd (0.30-5) unstable; urgency=low . * Add debconf template French translation; thanks to Steve Petruzzello and the French l10n team. (Closes: #326848) Files: 36438d3bfd3ebccc31874b8908dd4027 579 mail extra qpsmtpd_0.30-5.dsc 3509384c323475744c6b7d188dc41167 31192 mail extra qpsmtpd_0.30-5.diff.gz d90952ae7a337c4a28aeaeaa8dad72af 126650 mail extra qpsmtpd_0.30-5_all.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDIV3BU5XKDemr/NIRAuu1AKDW4lTidUAzKBs0R/L4jtKqbsPm7wCgisU3 UTxqhaDo/k2D9Llw4y1dtMo= =ijXy -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: qpsmtpd_0.30-5.diff.gz to pool/main/q/qpsmtpd/qpsmtpd_0.30-5.diff.gz qpsmtpd_0.30-5.dsc to pool/main/q/qpsmtpd/qpsmtpd_0.30-5.dsc qpsmtpd_0.30-5_all.deb to pool/main/q/qpsmtpd/qpsmtpd_0.30-5_all.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted bibletime 1.5-1 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:33:45 +0100 Source: bibletime Binary: bibletime Architecture: source i386 Version: 1.5-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Daniel Glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Daniel Glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: bibletime - A bible study tool for KDE Closes: 259948 279471 297873 304632 Changes: bibletime (1.5-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream release * Use cdbs use a local kde.mk because the supplied one is broken for tarballs bug #284428 * cdbs will update config.sub/guess (Closes: #304632) * Acknowledge NMU, thanks (Closes: #279471) * Manpage is included upstream now Thanks to Erik Schanze [EMAIL PROTECTED] for it (Closes: #259948) not installed upstream so install from the debian dir * debian/menu: quote the strings, remove kderemove set the section to Education (Closes: #297873) * debian/copyright: Upstream Authors fix * clean up the debian dir, override not needed any more Files: 213175c353b5e032c5114d1d86bbbf30 762 kde optional bibletime_1.5-1.dsc aedcfdab701fc6a188fb2dd258439290 1178791 kde optional bibletime_1.5.orig.tar.gz f112bc8495405e84208b1929573b9dc5 11011 kde optional bibletime_1.5-1.diff.gz 3dfde7beb7969dc97f1fc7130cb20b20 880212 kde optional bibletime_1.5-1_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDIWf+/offrSwPzRoRAll2AKDMRD4ncRPTVBqrXHFuxlU5gxAwAACeOuCw n/ohisAj1hPmoLFCjdgyQuc= =narI -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: bibletime_1.5-1.diff.gz to pool/main/b/bibletime/bibletime_1.5-1.diff.gz bibletime_1.5-1.dsc to pool/main/b/bibletime/bibletime_1.5-1.dsc bibletime_1.5-1_i386.deb to pool/main/b/bibletime/bibletime_1.5-1_i386.deb bibletime_1.5.orig.tar.gz to pool/main/b/bibletime/bibletime_1.5.orig.tar.gz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted lablgl 1.01-7 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 13:08:23 +0200 Source: lablgl Binary: liblablgl-ocaml-dev liblablgl-ocaml Architecture: source i386 Version: 1.01-7 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Debian OCaml Maintainers debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org Changed-By: Samuel Mimram [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: liblablgl-ocaml - Runtime libraries for lablgl liblablgl-ocaml-dev - an OpenGL interface for Objective Caml Closes: 325915 Changes: lablgl (1.01-7) unstable; urgency=low . [ Julien Cristau ] * libXxf86vm is not used by lablgl, so we: + remove libxxf86vm-dev dependency from liblablgl-ocaml-dev. + remove -lXxf86vm from Makefile.config. (Closes: #325915) . [ Samuel Mimram ] * New maintainer, added myself to uploaders. Files: 23d5b6054989f1046cdb319302940cc3 847 libdevel optional lablgl_1.01-7.dsc 4e89ecd0f29918087be6474a09b258c6 5934 libdevel optional lablgl_1.01-7.diff.gz f35867b846cf63ba0bf646e69c512ee0 53358 libs optional liblablgl-ocaml_1.01-7_i386.deb 0249181ddabf912bf760d6394a3b3fd0 169906 libdevel optional liblablgl-ocaml-dev_1.01-7_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDIW7lIae1O4AJae8RAn/NAJ0fyyOyBboFbFDqYFyIe/3JxdDZigCfSlzR 92c4U62H76IaoC160WKMLQE= =SfR4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: lablgl_1.01-7.diff.gz to pool/main/l/lablgl/lablgl_1.01-7.diff.gz lablgl_1.01-7.dsc to pool/main/l/lablgl/lablgl_1.01-7.dsc liblablgl-ocaml-dev_1.01-7_i386.deb to pool/main/l/lablgl/liblablgl-ocaml-dev_1.01-7_i386.deb liblablgl-ocaml_1.01-7_i386.deb to pool/main/l/lablgl/liblablgl-ocaml_1.01-7_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted gnomesword 2.1.2-3 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 17:44:53 +0100 Source: gnomesword Binary: gnomesword Architecture: source i386 Version: 2.1.2-3 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Daniel Glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Daniel Glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: gnomesword - Bible study with GNOME Closes: 323116 325061 Changes: gnomesword (2.1.2-3) unstable; urgency=low . * sword now has shlibs right (Closes: #323116) Build-deps now on libsword-dev 1.5.8-3 * patch to build system to update macros (Closes: #325061) * debian/menu: fix unquoted strings * convert the icon to an xpm * debian/copyright: fix the dh_make boilerplate * make help files non-executable Files: ac0d370d014ea756352b25a83d1b1781 823 gnome optional gnomesword_2.1.2-3.dsc d6a8cd87b8fc2e3475de2697967f58e1 20767 gnome optional gnomesword_2.1.2-3.diff.gz 7bd8a8721213f6c73ac30c0668e212cb 1839836 gnome optional gnomesword_2.1.2-3_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDIXN1/offrSwPzRoRAqItAJ0Qxj5saoVcbZT6AYh9YwD96PRjlACcCgEc atTKMJwRFZZwHtDRWNpa0a0= =U7+2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: gnomesword_2.1.2-3.diff.gz to pool/main/g/gnomesword/gnomesword_2.1.2-3.diff.gz gnomesword_2.1.2-3.dsc to pool/main/g/gnomesword/gnomesword_2.1.2-3.dsc gnomesword_2.1.2-3_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gnomesword/gnomesword_2.1.2-3_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted libgtk-perl 0.7009-5 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 13:58:41 +0200 Source: libgtk-perl Binary: libgnome-perl libgtk-pixbuf-perl libgtk-imlib-perl libgladexml-perl libgtk-perl libgnome-print-perl libgtkglarea-perl libgtkxmhtml-perl Architecture: source i386 Version: 0.7009-5 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Debian QA Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Matej Vela [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: libgladexml-perl - Perl module for the libglade library libgnome-perl - Perl module for the gnome and zvt libraries libgnome-print-perl - Perl module for the gnome print library libgtk-imlib-perl - Perl module for the gdkimlib library libgtk-perl - Perl module for the gtk+ library libgtk-pixbuf-perl - Perl module for the gdkpixbuf library libgtkglarea-perl - Perl module for the gtkglarea library libgtkxmhtml-perl - Perl module for the libgtkxmhtml library Closes: 327303 Changes: libgtk-perl (0.7009-5) unstable; urgency=low . * QA upload. * Replace build dependency on xlibmesa-dev with xlibmesa-gl-dev. Closes: #327303. Files: 2caa9d672d099e469c64bc8eddf76fb5 994 perl optional libgtk-perl_0.7009-5.dsc fd8c50fe353af28a60be8abbfce5dd56 113114 perl optional libgtk-perl_0.7009-5.diff.gz 026e9c8daa11d0b4d3717a6d2baf24ec 805112 perl optional libgtk-perl_0.7009-5_i386.deb 798a0b15a206be533e02c6cc58234e62 58064 perl optional libgtk-imlib-perl_0.7009-5_i386.deb a547453789829deac7e29420d7705904 55654 perl optional libgtk-pixbuf-perl_0.7009-5_i386.deb 47f9ac670583a1d9b0d74de8d08172f9 271336 perl optional libgnome-perl_0.7009-5_i386.deb 248de089e682419e119d1b4359f14ff1 83208 perl optional libgnome-print-perl_0.7009-5_i386.deb 045fbb4f8c32b64bb043bc7dca16c854 48470 perl optional libgtkglarea-perl_0.7009-5_i386.deb ee04f9f266ffde35ef9ce9e1335084df 48964 perl optional libgladexml-perl_0.7009-5_i386.deb e9d0f25202b088cc612c7767579f21c9 46710 perl optional libgtkxmhtml-perl_0.7009-5_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDIXnqxBYivKllgY8RAuF1AJ9KdIG/WgQ9lw7iNbUe4xgoAZIDpgCcCXIk 4X5dmMub6NvMMZBKnBgAGKM= =fPCX -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: libgladexml-perl_0.7009-5_i386.deb to pool/main/libg/libgtk-perl/libgladexml-perl_0.7009-5_i386.deb libgnome-perl_0.7009-5_i386.deb to pool/main/libg/libgtk-perl/libgnome-perl_0.7009-5_i386.deb libgnome-print-perl_0.7009-5_i386.deb to pool/main/libg/libgtk-perl/libgnome-print-perl_0.7009-5_i386.deb libgtk-imlib-perl_0.7009-5_i386.deb to pool/main/libg/libgtk-perl/libgtk-imlib-perl_0.7009-5_i386.deb libgtk-perl_0.7009-5.diff.gz to pool/main/libg/libgtk-perl/libgtk-perl_0.7009-5.diff.gz libgtk-perl_0.7009-5.dsc to pool/main/libg/libgtk-perl/libgtk-perl_0.7009-5.dsc libgtk-perl_0.7009-5_i386.deb to pool/main/libg/libgtk-perl/libgtk-perl_0.7009-5_i386.deb libgtk-pixbuf-perl_0.7009-5_i386.deb to pool/main/libg/libgtk-perl/libgtk-pixbuf-perl_0.7009-5_i386.deb libgtkglarea-perl_0.7009-5_i386.deb to pool/main/libg/libgtk-perl/libgtkglarea-perl_0.7009-5_i386.deb libgtkxmhtml-perl_0.7009-5_i386.deb to pool/main/libg/libgtk-perl/libgtkxmhtml-perl_0.7009-5_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted socks4-server 4.3.beta2-14 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 11:24:04 +0200 Source: socks4-server Binary: libsocks4 socks4-clients socks4-server Architecture: source i386 Version: 4.3.beta2-14 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Christoph Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Christoph Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: libsocks4 - SOCKS libraries socks4-clients - Socks4 enabled clients as rtelnet, rftp, ... socks4-server - SOCKS4 server for proxying IP-based services over a firewall Closes: 294371 Changes: socks4-server (4.3.beta2-14) unstable; urgency=low . * make code compatible with gcc-4.0 (closes: #294371) * update download URL in copyright * change to DH_COMPAT=3 Files: 52de8f380c35b3a04f4a3f3bf88bb11b 965 net extra socks4-server_4.3.beta2-14.dsc e2754a231fa5f1f81a41fad83138c83d 17970 net extra socks4-server_4.3.beta2-14.diff.gz c96183b36a5ece23fc95caff66ba949f 60392 net extra socks4-server_4.3.beta2-14_i386.deb 25f63e539e5a038200b9a64a592993c6 82822 net extra socks4-clients_4.3.beta2-14_i386.deb 6fc311ea6b209a6766f5fda3163e8785 46194 libs optional libsocks4_4.3.beta2-14_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBQyF5yW4/9k35XC9tAQKWlggAj1baKg22IzLYC6RhMJAhZGgLHy1qqqAs 7PsxuJDRcXEaBoYobyvDWkVYOFo7PqoqVnAlXwonWMF9/ukUfmsANCAzR3hHjlxL vr2xRQuD8Kl/9IbCyuzrLHdf1G9SBanq50OymDfl0a8seCSypzEWEWDfodS2S4V9 8gsECo62s4MZXVydMmVx/ixqkJX6GkrikxvoNANT731ep5Je8+3JJ1ltOamkEBz0 i8dY8Fn9hU6GtKZUux12tUkb3XtcqDmZblDtJDRATXvJg5HB62TlbT4h36Inu30F Qo1qhawGXOGqd+14Jquz/bCraEMPcJ9XztL8Y4fc0AMeM13JewiScg== =JjAB -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: libsocks4_4.3.beta2-14_i386.deb to pool/main/s/socks4-server/libsocks4_4.3.beta2-14_i386.deb socks4-clients_4.3.beta2-14_i386.deb to pool/main/s/socks4-server/socks4-clients_4.3.beta2-14_i386.deb socks4-server_4.3.beta2-14.diff.gz to pool/main/s/socks4-server/socks4-server_4.3.beta2-14.diff.gz socks4-server_4.3.beta2-14.dsc to pool/main/s/socks4-server/socks4-server_4.3.beta2-14.dsc socks4-server_4.3.beta2-14_i386.deb to pool/main/s/socks4-server/socks4-server_4.3.beta2-14_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted x10 1.06-12 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 17:30:45 +0200 Source: x10 Binary: x10 Architecture: source i386 Version: 1.06-12 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Debian QA Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Matej Vela [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: x10- Operate X-10 electrical power control modules Closes: 324232 Changes: x10 (1.06-12) unstable; urgency=low . * QA upload. * debian/po/vi.po: Add translation by Clytie Siddall. Closes: #324232. Files: 40a65b04add3aef3b72eb117e2a3e97e 546 electronics optional x10_1.06-12.dsc ebb0a55a075619c1ac48452da70d2537 8873 electronics optional x10_1.06-12.diff.gz 9e91f6543959a6c1f466cb3e28b5a43e 22492 electronics optional x10_1.06-12_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDIXslxBYivKllgY8RAiEzAJ92bg4CVnG2ly/516BYThxPADcYnwCg2kDi 2N1fjpefF0gBVqBp6j0ewBM= =9Cvv -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: x10_1.06-12.diff.gz to pool/main/x/x10/x10_1.06-12.diff.gz x10_1.06-12.dsc to pool/main/x/x10/x10_1.06-12.dsc x10_1.06-12_i386.deb to pool/main/x/x10/x10_1.06-12_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted ssmtp 2.61-5 (source i386 sparc)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:15:56 +1000 Source: ssmtp Binary: ssmtp Architecture: source i386 sparc Version: 2.61-5 Distribution: unstable Urgency: high Maintainer: Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: ssmtp - extremely simple MTA to get mail off the system to a mail hub Closes: 310327 316254 Changes: ssmtp (2.61-5) unstable; urgency=high . * Fixed broken pipe -- ssmtp exits before end of input, closes: #310327, #316254. Patches by Aidas Kasparas [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wouter Van Hemel [EMAIL PROTECTED] and John Eikenberry [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Files: fac3cad8e96b14046f383c9dbed4cd70 622 mail extra ssmtp_2.61-5.dsc 87389d8bd11374184b76f0861fefdf77 23548 mail extra ssmtp_2.61-5.diff.gz e482d2f2b5a2a56202d7ab2e11d2e63e 37666 mail extra ssmtp_2.61-5_i386.deb 6f6fcc6a4868110f7bfd7229947d8dca 37916 mail extra ssmtp_2.61-5_sparc.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDIYE9gY5NIXPNpFURAg6bAJ9pfmSnv9gv5qhqn/TOIlGse3md1QCgq3Mo ImL5sfRnejYOGj2ZEA/C2Yc= =oKFB -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: ssmtp_2.61-5.diff.gz to pool/main/s/ssmtp/ssmtp_2.61-5.diff.gz ssmtp_2.61-5.dsc to pool/main/s/ssmtp/ssmtp_2.61-5.dsc ssmtp_2.61-5_i386.deb to pool/main/s/ssmtp/ssmtp_2.61-5_i386.deb ssmtp_2.61-5_sparc.deb to pool/main/s/ssmtp/ssmtp_2.61-5_sparc.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted wmufo 1.2.1-4 (source i386)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 04:25:33 -0700 Source: wmufo Binary: wmufo Architecture: source i386 Version: 1.2.1-4 Distribution: unstable Urgency: high Maintainer: Debian QA Packages [EMAIL PROTECTED] Changed-By: Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: wmufo - This is wmseti on steroids! Changes: wmufo (1.2.1-4) unstable; urgency=high . * QA upload. * Rebuild to get binaries depending on libgtop2-5 on all architectures for the GNOME 2.10 transition. * Build-Depend on libsm-dev, not on xlibs. Files: 3bbd831295ab8c4b6f63e25b068704b7 604 contrib/x11 optional wmufo_1.2.1-4.dsc 642129223580b37d3f44674269f7d98d 38060 contrib/x11 optional wmufo_1.2.1-4.diff.gz 85d9024189611a47de64ba72ab53f736 64402 contrib/x11 optional wmufo_1.2.1-4_i386.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDIYDXKN6ufymYLloRArGMAKDJ785ktLg/AwolI6DCztngrO7w1gCgtsfC tJJcb7+mlVvyzyMIU6aFtzU= =+Aoi -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: wmufo_1.2.1-4.diff.gz to pool/contrib/w/wmufo/wmufo_1.2.1-4.diff.gz wmufo_1.2.1-4.dsc to pool/contrib/w/wmufo/wmufo_1.2.1-4.dsc wmufo_1.2.1-4_i386.deb to pool/contrib/w/wmufo/wmufo_1.2.1-4_i386.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted anna 1.15 (source powerpc)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 14:11:36 +0100 Source: anna Binary: anna Architecture: source powerpc Version: 1.15 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Debian Install System Team debian-boot@lists.debian.org Changed-By: Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: anna - anna's not nearly apt, but for the Debian installer, it will do (udeb) Changes: anna (1.15) unstable; urgency=low . * Use di_system_subarch_analyze rather than forking archdetect. * anna can be used in non-Debian installers, and also in systems that aren't really installers such as rescue disks and live CDs. With that in mind, Loading components of the Debian installer starts to look a bit awkward. Loading additional components is the best replacement I can come up with. . * Updated translations: - Catalan (ca.po) by Guillem Jover - Czech (cs.po) by Miroslav Kure - Danish (da.po) by Claus Hindsgaul - German (de.po) by Holger Wansing - Esperanto (eo.po) by Serge Leblanc - Spanish (es.po) by Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña - Basque (eu.po) by Piarres Beobide - Persian (fa.po) by Arash Bijanzadeh - French (fr.po) by Christian Perrier - Galician (gl.po) by Jacobo Tarrio - Italian (it.po) by Stefano Canepa - Japanese (ja.po) by Kenshi Muto - Kurdish (ku.po) by Erdal Ronahi - Lithuanian (lt.po) by KÄstutis BiliÅ«nas - Macedonian (mk.po) by Georgi Stanojevski - BokmÃ¥l, Norwegian (nb.po) by Bjørn Steensrud - Dutch (nl.po) by Bart Cornelis - Polish (pl.po) by Bartosz Fenski - Portuguese (pt.po) by Miguel Figueiredo - Portuguese (Brazil) (pt_BR.po) by André LuÃs Lopes - Romanian (ro.po) by Eddy Petrisor - Russian (ru.po) by Yuri Kozlov - Slovak (sk.po) by Peter Mann - Slovenian (sl.po) by Jure Äuhalev - Ukrainian (uk.po) by Eugeniy Meshcheryakov - Vietnamese (vi.po) by Clytie Siddall - Wolof (wo.po) by Mouhamadou Mamoune Mbacke - Simplified Chinese (zh_CN.po) by Carlos Z.F. Liu Files: a1414d549d82676c22287a4a49698390 708 debian-installer standard anna_1.15.dsc f6307fb4ce02d75cc6dd745618a25491 63835 debian-installer standard anna_1.15.tar.gz d876dd602ba96b40aeae187414f2e372 36414 debian-installer standard anna_1.15_powerpc.udeb Package-Type: udeb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDIYs29t0zAhD6TNERAvq5AJsGe1BoA2Fe/PQUa1VCLX8JeBFDYACfTcSV kI4pqWhHNptyYdXkLG+CIuY= =Cfqd -END PGP SIGNATURE- Accepted: anna_1.15.dsc to pool/main/a/anna/anna_1.15.dsc anna_1.15.tar.gz to pool/main/a/anna/anna_1.15.tar.gz anna_1.15_powerpc.udeb to pool/main/a/anna/anna_1.15_powerpc.udeb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accepted xorg-x11 6.8.99.900.dfsg.1-0pre1 (source i386 all)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 12:04:56 -0400 Source: xorg-x11 Binary: libxkbui1 libxtst6-dbg xserver-common xlibs-static-dev libxp6-dbg libxevie-dev libdmx-dev libxevie1 libice6-dbg libxaw6-dbg libdmx1-dbg x-dev libxv1 libxext6-dbg libxau6-dbg libxxf86vm1-dbg x11-common libxpm4 libxtst6 libxxf86dga-dev xfonts-cyrillic libx11-6 libsm6-dbg xlibs-pic xlibs-data libxdamage1 libxv1-dbg libxss-dev libxkbfile1 xdmx libxrandr2 xnest libxdamage1-dbg libxaw6 libxres1 xlibmesa-dri-dbg libxrandr2-dbg libxmu6 libxau6 libxxf86misc-dev libxxf86misc1-dbg libglu1-xorg libx11-dev xlibs-static-pic libxpm4-dbg libxaw7-dbg libxmu6-dbg pm-dev libxss1-dbg libxmuu-dev libxss1 libxext6 xserver-xorg libxtst-dev libxxf86rush1-dbg libxp-dev libxevie1-dbg libice6 libxmu-dev xlibs libxrandr-dev proxymngr libxcomposite1 libxxf86rush-dev libxvmc-dev xfonts-base-transcoded x-window-system-core xutils xspecs libxtrap6 libxxf86vm-dev libxt-dev libxkbui-dev libxi6-dbg xfonts-base xlibs-dbg libxpm-dev xfonts-100dpi-transcoded libxinerama1-dbg libxtrap-dev libxaw8 xlibosmesa-dev xlibosmesa4 libxkbfile1-dbg xdm libxt6-dbg libxi6 libx11-6-dbg libxaw8-dbg xbase-clients xserver-xorg-dbg libxxf86rush1 libxdmcp6 libxtrap6-dbg libxt6 xfonts-75dpi libxres1-dbg libxdmcp-dev libxvmc1-dbg xlibmesa-gl-dev libglu1-xorg-dbg libfs-dev x-window-system libxcomposite1-dbg xfree86-common xlibmesa-dri libxaw7-dev libxxf86dga1 libxaw8-dev libxp6 libxkbui1-dbg libdmx1 libxinerama-dev libxv-dev libxxf86misc1 twm x-window-system-dev libxres-dev libsm-dev xfonts-scalable libxmuu1-dbg libxinerama1 xfwp libxfixes3 libxdamage-dev libsm6 libxxf86dga1-dbg libxxf86vm1 libxfixes3-dbg libxaw6-dev lbxproxy libfs6-dbg libxvmc1 libxfixes-dev libice-dev libxkbfile-dev libxmuu1 xfs libglu1-xorg-dev libxau-dev xlibmesa-gl xfonts-100dpi libxext-dev xfonts-75dpi-transcoded xlibosmesa4-dbg libxcomposite-dev libxi-dev xvfb libxdmcp6-dbg libxaw7 libfs6 xlibmesa-gl-dbg Architecture: source i386 all Version: 6.8.99.900.dfsg.1-0pre1 Distribution: experimental Urgency: low Maintainer: Debian X Strike Force debian-x@lists.debian.org Changed-By: David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: lbxproxy - Low Bandwidth X (LBX) proxy server libdmx-dev - Distributed Multihead X client library development files libdmx1- Distributed Multihead X client library libdmx1-dbg - Distributed Multihead X client library (unstripped) libfs-dev - X Font Server library development files libfs6 - X Font Server library libfs6-dbg - X Font Server library (unstripped) libglu1-xorg - Mesa OpenGL utility library [X.Org] libglu1-xorg-dbg - Mesa OpenGL utility library (unstripped) [X.Org] libglu1-xorg-dev - Mesa OpenGL utility library development files [X.Org] libice-dev - Inter-Client Exchange library development files libice6- Inter-Client Exchange library libice6-dbg - Inter-Client Exchange library (unstripped) libsm-dev - X Window System Session Management library development files libsm6 - X Window System Session Management library libsm6-dbg - X Window System Session Management library (unstripped) libx11-6 - X Window System protocol client library libx11-6-dbg - X Window System protocol client library (unstripped) libx11-dev - X Window System protocol client library development files libxau-dev - X Authentication library development files libxau6- X Authentication library libxau6-dbg - X Authentication library (unstripped) libxaw6- X Athena widget set library (version 6) libxaw6-dbg - X Athena widget set library (version 6, unstripped) libxaw6-dev - X Athena widget set library development files (version 6) libxaw7- X Athena widget set library libxaw7-dbg - X Athena widget set library (unstripped) libxaw7-dev - X Athena widget set library development files libxaw8- X Athena widget set library libxaw8-dbg - X Athena widget set library (unstripped) libxaw8-dev - X Athena widget set library development files libxcomposite-dev - X off-screen compositing library development files libxcomposite1 - X off-screen compositing library libxcomposite1-dbg - X off-screen compositing library (unstripped) libxdamage-dev - X region 'damage' library development files libxdamage1 - X region 'damage' library libxdamage1-dbg - X region 'damage' library (unstripped) libxdmcp-dev - X Display Manager Control Protocol library development files libxdmcp6 - X Display Manager Control Protocol library libxdmcp6-dbg - X Display Manager Control Protocol library (unstripped) libxevie-dev - X EVent Interception Extension library development files libxevie1 - X EVent Interception Extension library libxevie1-dbg - X EVent Interception Extension library (unstripped) libxext-dev - X Window System miscellaneous extension library development files libxext6 - X Window System miscellaneous extension library libxext6-dbg - X Window System miscellaneous extension library (unstripped)