Hi,
sorry for not responding earlier.
* Mike Olson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060410 03:51]:
This is going to be some work for me. Oracle's legal department has been
very helpful on our open source requests so far, but it's a large team and
is not familiar with this issue yet. I'll need to find,
(I believe the DPL has changed since my last request, so I'm
resending this request for assistance; I'm also adding debian-release
to the CC list as this concerns a potential stable update and a
potential pre-etch migration, and the DB maintenance team).
hey AJ,
We are in need of some
dann frazier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would classify this as a legal/licensing issue, not a documentation
issue.
Aren't most documentation licensing bugs sarge-ignore?
--
MJR/slef
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 03:04:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
dann frazier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would classify this as a legal/licensing issue, not a documentation
issue.
Aren't most documentation licensing bugs sarge-ignore?
I thought that was a GFDL-specific exception; but I'm not positive.
(Top posting to continue current flow)
I've added the DPL to the CC list.
aj: do you have an opinion here, or do you think its worth delegating
this decision to someone? See #256332 and the debian-legal
archive for background.
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 04:46:02PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 10:37:40AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
dann frazier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Though it maybe feasible to drop older db versions from the next
release (I do not know if such plans exist), I believe we would still
need to resolve this in an update to the current stable release
Ask the new DPL (aj) I guess.
andrew
On 4/10/06, Mike Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dann wrote:
Thank you for your offer. I think a relicensing would be the cleanest
approach.
Note that I am a Debian Developer, but I do not speak for the db
packaging, release, or legal teams. I
Dann wrote:
Thank you for your offer. I think a relicensing would be the cleanest
approach.
Note that I am a Debian Developer, but I do not speak for the db
packaging, release, or legal teams. I hope that they'll jump in if
they are in disagreement with any of the statements I've made
dann frazier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Though it maybe feasible to drop older db versions from the next
release (I do not know if such plans exist), I believe we would still
need to resolve this in an update to the current stable release
(sarge).
Aren't documentation bugs sarge-ignore? I'm not sure
Sleepycat didn't, and Oracle doesn't, have any issue with the
inclusion of the documentation with Debian, for any current or
past release. The Debian team raised an issue of compatibility.
In addressing it, we agreed to use the identical license for
software and documentation.
We didn't
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 05:37:11AM -0700, Mike Olson wrote:
Sleepycat didn't, and Oracle doesn't, have any issue with the
inclusion of the documentation with Debian, for any current or
past release. The Debian team raised an issue of compatibility.
In addressing it, we agreed to use the
dann frazier wrote:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 05:37:11AM -0700, Mike Olson wrote:
Sleepycat didn't, and Oracle doesn't, have any issue with the
inclusion of the documentation with Debian, for any current or
past release. The Debian team raised an issue of compatibility.
In addressing it, we
debian-legal folks: please skim #256332 for history.
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 11:13:30AM -0700, Mike Olson wrote:
If you're going to rev the packages in any case, I'd strongly
recommend simply moving to the 4.3 (or better, 4.4) release.
We would expect no functional problems, you'd get all the
Just some clarification..
Though it maybe feasible to drop older db versions from the next
release (I do not know if such plans exist), I believe we would still
need to resolve this in an update to the current stable release
(sarge).
I think as soon as the GNOME2 gnucash shows up in
hey Mike,
I'm seeking explicit clarification on the licensing of the
documentation in Debian's db3 and db4.2 packages. Can you clarify
your comments in #256332[1] with respect to these older releases?
Specifically, I'm interested to know whether the referenced
documentation in these older
15 matches
Mail list logo
