Control: retitle -1 please include correct license in upstream tarball
Control: severity -1 normal
Michael Stapelberg stapelb...@debian.org writes:
Can we just ignore this bug for wheezy? To me, the licensing intention
seems very clear.
I think that's fine. The package seems to be also
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 02:17:18PM +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
...
Can we just ignore this bug for wheezy? To me, the licensing intention
seems very clear.
Can it be closed even? I don't think this bug applies at all.
--
mattia
:wq!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Hi Mattia,
Mattia Dongili malat...@debian.org writes:
I don't see a valid reason to get a newer version in wheezy at this
stage of the freeze.
I agree.
Adam, here is the diffstat between the version currently in wheezy
(upstream git commit f07ee8aa562b7cee0138a88219169f501fd9c041) and the
Hi Ansgar, Mattia,
Ansgar Burchardt ans...@debian.org writes:
I also checked the initial Debian package on snapshot.debian.org
(version 20050930-1). It also has only the non-free license in the
individual files, but states Dual GPLv2/ACPICA Licence in d/copyright.
It also has the
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:47:33AM +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
Hi Ansgar, Mattia,
Ansgar Burchardt ans...@debian.org writes:
I also checked the initial Debian package on snapshot.debian.org
(version 20050930-1). It also has only the non-free license in the
individual files, but
Hi Mattia,
Mattia Dongili malat...@debian.org writes:
yes it is, that's what Al did already:
http://ftp-master.debian.org/new/acpica-unix_20130214-0.3.html
I see.
release-team: What’s your take on this? Can we get the new version into
Debian in time for wheezy or how should we handle this?
--
On 27.03.2013 13:44, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
Mattia Dongili malat...@debian.org writes:
yes it is, that's what Al did already:
http://ftp-master.debian.org/new/acpica-unix_20130214-0.3.html
I see.
release-team: What’s your take on this? Can we get the new version
into
Debian in time for
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 05:06:35PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On 27.03.2013 13:44, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
Mattia Dongili malat...@debian.org writes:
yes it is, that's what Al did already:
http://ftp-master.debian.org/new/acpica-unix_20130214-0.3.html
I see.
release-team: What’s your
Hi,
I took a brief look at the upstream website. The download site [1]
points to two other pages for downloads ([2] and [3]), one of them
having the non-free license, the other a BSD/GPL dual-license.
Interestingly both of these ask to accept the non-free license...
They both contain a different
I also checked the initial Debian package on snapshot.debian.org
(version 20050930-1). It also has only the non-free license in the
individual files, but states Dual GPLv2/ACPICA Licence in d/copyright.
It also has the BSD-3-clause-or-GPL-2 bit in d/copyright.
It's likely that it was already
Hi Ansgar,
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 01:30:12PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
Package: src:acpica-unix
Version: 20100528-1
Severity: serious
The last condition in debian/copyright looks non-free:
The copyright file also states:
License: Dual GPLv2/ACPICA Licence
On the website
Package: src:acpica-unix
Version: 20100528-1
Severity: serious
The last condition in debian/copyright looks non-free:
4.3. Licensee shall not export, either directly or indirectly, any of this
software or system incorporating such software without first obtaining any
required license or
12 matches
Mail list logo
