reopen 509287
thanks
I forgot to close the bug previously.
We collected many information and it comes out that the
software was intendet to be distributed freely.
intention is not sufficient. the license itself as written must be
interpretable as dfsg-free. i think the package needs to
On a practical level this issue is a colossal waste of time. We have
established:
1) The package is useful
2) The identity of the copyright holder is ambiguous, even to themselves
3) The probability of action to enforce a license violation claim is basically
nil
Removing the package from
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:19:51 -0400, Stephen van Egmond wrote:
On a practical level this issue is a colossal waste of time. We have
established:
debian isn't solely guided by practicality, but instead by more
fundamentally interesting principles.
1) The package is useful
2) The identity of
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
severity 509287 important
Bug#509287: afio: license is non-free
Severity set to `important' from `serious'
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator
Dear All,
As the afio upstream maintainer I am currently working off-list with some
people to clarify the background the afio license text, how and when it got
updated and interpreted, and what were the historical intentions of the authors
involved. We are making some progress.
I expect
Hi Marc,
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt h...@ftwca.de:
severity 509287 serious
tags 509287 + lenny-ignore
thanks
Erik Schanze schan...@gmx.de writes:
severity 509287 important
thanks
Michael Gilbert michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com:
the license for afio is non-free. see
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
severity 509287 important
Bug#509287: afio: license is non-free
Severity set to `important' from `serious'
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator
severity 509287 important
thanks
Hi Michael,
Michael Gilbert michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com:
Package: afio
Version: 2.5-5
Severity: serious
the license for afio is non-free. see /usr/share/doc/afio/copyright:
i'm marking this as serious for now since this is a DFSG violation,
but i can
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
severity 509287 serious
Bug#509287: afio: license is non-free
Severity set to `serious' from `important'
tags 509287 + lenny-ignore
Bug#509287: afio: license is non-free
There were no tags set.
Tags added: lenny-ignore
thanks
Stopping
Erik Schanze schan...@gmx.de wrote:
What should I do?
Have I move afio to non-free?
Thank you for bringing this question to the list - I was going to do
so, but had not found time yet.
More seriously, the Lachman Associates licence doesn't give any
permission to modify the software, does it?
Hi all,
Few comments below...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 01:00:16 +0100 Erik Schanze wrote:
[...]
I got a Bug against package afio because of licence problems.
Please see http://bugs.debian.org/509287.
There was already a similar Bug 9 years ago
* Erik Schanze:
There is an ongoing discussion on a Redhat list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449037 and they excluded
the package already. There is an other blog on
http://www.kernelplanet.org/fedora/ that gave a summary of the current
situation.
I think the analysis in
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 01:00:16 +0100 Erik Schanze wrote:
[...]
I got a Bug against package afio because of licence problems.
Please see http://bugs.debian.org/509287.
There was already a similar Bug 9 years ago that was closed, after one
person from this list gave his OK.
Package: afio
Version: 2.5-5
Severity: serious
the license for afio is non-free. see /usr/share/doc/afio/copyright:
* --
*
* License notice 1, covering part of this software package.
*
* [Covers the original 1985
Dear debian-legal folks,
I got a Bug against package afio because of licence problems.
Please see http://bugs.debian.org/509287.
There was already a similar Bug 9 years ago that was closed, after one
person from this list gave his OK.
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/05/msg00162.html)
15 matches
Mail list logo
