On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 03:51, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 08:50:56PM +0200, Andrej Shadura wrote:
> >
> >I was going to have a look but got distracted by writing kernel drivers
> >â** fascinating stuff :D
> >I will try and spend some time this week on this.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 08:50:56PM +0200, Andrej Shadura wrote:
>
>I was going to have a look but got distracted by writing kernel drivers
>â** fascinating stuff :D
>I will try and spend some time this week on this. If not, I'll post an
>update here.
Thank you Andrej! Very much
Hi Francesco,
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:37:46PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:39:28 -0500 Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>
> [...]
> > This is one of the reasons the FSF demands copyright
> > assignment for their projects...they want to be able to relicense at
> > any point
Hi,
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, 20:15 Nicholas D Steeves, wrote:
> Update
>
> Sorry for my deplorable memory and lack of organisation wrt this bug;
> I committed some initial work and then forgot about it. Given my work
> schedule for Oct and Nov it is unlikely that I will be able to prevent
> the
Update
Sorry for my deplorable memory and lack of organisation wrt this bug;
I committed some initial work and then forgot about it. Given my work
schedule for Oct and Nov it is unlikely that I will be able to prevent
the scheduled autoremoval. If someone else would like to fix it asap
please
Hi Nicholas et. al,
(tallica: This is re: Debian bug #883731, related to the GPL -> BSD
relicensing of Audacious a few years back. Please take a look at
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=883731 for background
if you're interested, otherwise disregard.)
On 12/12/2017 04:39 PM,
On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:39:28 -0500 Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
[...]
> This is one of the reasons the FSF demands copyright
> assignment for their projects...they want to be able to relicense at
> any point in the future without having to contact and document consent
> from all contributors.
Yeah,
n copyright to the Audacious Team in the headers of the files
they contributed to. I would be happy to generate such a file[s] if
you can point me in the right direction[s].
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 03:03:09PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Nicholas D Steeves writes ("Re: Bug#883731: audac
Nicholas D Steeves writes ("Re: Bug#883731: audacious: Debian packaging has
incorrect license"):
> Will I also need to provide formal copies in debian/COPYING.emails or
> would a README.copyright or similar pointing to the bug report
> suffice? In particular I'm concern
On 12/10/2017 06:12 PM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> In particular I'm concerned about lines like this from
> d/copyright:
>
> "po/uk.po" is © 2005 Mykola Lynnyk and is distributed under the terms of the
> GPL.
>
> Where the new po/uk.po is GPL-incompatible 2-clause BSD:
The line "Copyright (C)
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:23:47AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 18:12:39 -0500 Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>
> [...]
> > GPL-incompatible 2-clause BSD
> [...]
>
> A nitpick: the 2-clause BSD license is not GPL-incompatible (it's
> indeed compatible with the GNU GPL).
> It's
On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 18:12:39 -0500 Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
[...]
> GPL-incompatible 2-clause BSD
[...]
A nitpick: the 2-clause BSD license is not GPL-incompatible (it's
indeed compatible with the GNU GPL).
It's just a distinct license with different (and much simpler)
wording...
--
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:36:49AM -0500, John Lindgren wrote:
> Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>
> > Both BSD 3-clause and BSD 2-clause allow relicensing as GPL, thus so
> > long as the licensing terms are complied with correctly BSD code can
> > perpetually and unidirectionally flow to GPL projects.
Hi Francesco, John, and everybody else reading this,
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 11:10:40AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 22:39:41 -0500 Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
[...]
> Failing to retain the license text in the package distribution is in
> fact lack of compliance with the
Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> Both BSD 3-clause and BSD 2-clause allow relicensing as GPL, thus so
> long as the licensing terms are complied with correctly BSD code can
> perpetually and unidirectionally flow to GPL projects.
Yes, I agree. It's perfectly okay for the Debian package(s) to be
On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 22:39:41 -0500 Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> Dear Debian Legal Team,
Hello Nicholas, John, and everybody else reading this.
I would like to send some comments of mine, here.
Please note that: not only I am not a lawyer, but, even more
importantly, I am not your lawyer, nor a
Dear Debian Legal Team,
I've CCed you for my reply to this bug, because I don't have the
experience to be able to tell if Debian implicitly relicensed
Audacious as GPL-3 from 2012-2016, how potentially falling out of
BSD-2-clause license compliance might have affected this, and also how
this
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> # License change happened in 3.3 (about 5 years ago)
> found 883731 3.3.1-1
Bug #883731 [audacious] audacious: Debian packaging has incorrect license
Marked as found in versions audacious/3.3.1-1.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please
Hi Nicholas,
> On this topic, would you please update contrib/audacious.appdata.xml
> to reflect the current Audacious license (GPL3)? It claims the
> project_license is BSD-2-Clause.
Sorry if my initial email was unclear. The current Audacious license *is*
BSD 2-clause, with some exceptions:
Hi John,
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 05:08:56PM -0500, John Lindgren wrote:
>
> Per Debian policy 2.3:
>
> "Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright
> information and distribution license in the file
> /usr/share/doc/package/copyright
> (see Copyright information for
Package: audacious
Version: 3.9-2
Severity: serious
Per Debian policy 2.3:
"Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright
information and distribution license in the file
/usr/share/doc/package/copyright
(see Copyright information for further details)."
The file
21 matches
Mail list logo
