Bug#919356: Licensing of include/linux/hash.h

>>>>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, Domenico Andreoli wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:08:32AM +0100, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >>> It was [pointed out] by one of our license group that [hash.h] is the &g

Bug#919356: Licensing of include/linux/hash.h

> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:08:32AM +0100, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> It was [pointed out] by one of our license group that [hash.h] is the >> same that has a GPL-2+ in [fio] which has a signed-off-by. >> >> References: >> [pointed out] >

Bug#705152: Non-free code in xgraph? [copyright.h and derivative.c for starters.]

Any progress here? Today it's one year since I sent my first message. Ulrich -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#496840: pinfo cannot display texinfo info files, info can

Hi, Gentoo has encountered the same problem: Another related issue is that files beginning with the string "dir" cannot be opened, e.g. "dired-x" (which is included with emacs): Attached are two pat

Bug#475683: libpaper has imprecise definition of DL format

Package: libpaper Version: 1.1.23 Severity: minor Tags: patch The DL ("DIN lang") format is defined by ISO 269 as 110 mm * 220 mm. However, libpaper contains a slightly different definition: $ paperconf -s -m DL 110.067 mm 220.133 mm --- lib/paperspecs~ 2004-10-23 11:53:15.0 +0

Bug#375688: Bug in iso-codes: iso3166-2.xml contains invalid entries

> thanks for the patch and the additional hints about the ISO 3166-2 XML file. > I've verified that the most part of the patch is indeed correct, except the > code "DE-BR" for Brandenburg. All other corrections have been applied to > the SVN repository and will appear in the next release. Hello

Bug#375688: Bug in iso-codes: iso3166-2.xml contains invalid entries

Hello, I came across bug #375688 because I had discovered the wrong entry "DE-BR" for Berlin in iso-codes. While I agree that "DE-BR" should be changed to "DE-BE", I believe that the following hunk from the proposed patch is not correct: 1748c1748 < code="DE-BB"name="Brandenbur