On Wednesday 26 of October 2005 20:02, Charles Fry wrote:
This issue has already been explained and discussed on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (and [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
debian-legal@lists.debian.org):
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00188.html
Currently the Pear team claims to be in the process of resolving this
situation (see Pear request #5473).
What does it mean? Is the problem already solved? Can I upload the packages?
No, it is not solved. To be specific,
Today my packages with PEAR modules was rejected from incoming queue.
The reason is that PHP License was used for PEAR library.
I've found many packages already existing in Debian archive which are
licensed with PHP License. What does it mean? Should I fill bug reports
with critical
On 10432 March 1977, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
But now where you compiled the list I dont want to take the glory away
From you, so feel free to do it yourself. :)
I could just clone the original bugreport. What do you think?
Whatever you find more attractive. :)
--
bye Joerg
Linus: Wenn Darl
On Monday 03 of October 2005 18:12, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
severity serious.
Another pointer:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00128.html
It is cool that you filled the bug report for my package (php4-pear-log) but
I've found several more packages which are licensed with PHP
[Joerg Jaspert]
Another pointer:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00128.html
Are you sure you get this right. When I read the license, it look
like a bad choosen license for PEAR (because of all the references to
PHP), but not like a non-free license. The fact that the PHP name
Petter Reinholdtsen schrieb am Dienstag, den 04. Oktober 2005:
[Joerg Jaspert]
Another pointer:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00128.html
+snip+
So perhaps the license is free according to DFSG?
Of course its free. But it only fits to php itself. If you wan't to use it
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 01:30:49PM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
As Jörg stated in his reject mail: The reason for this decision is the
license which does not really fit the package.. Not: this license is
non-free!
Yep, it's like a license which would be BSD-like but claims to be
from
On 10432 March 1977, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
It is cool that you filled the bug report for my package (php4-pear-log) but
I've found several more packages which are licensed with PHP License:
php-auth - 3.0
php-date - 3.0
php-db - 3.0
php-file - 3.0
php-html-template-it - 2.0
php-http -
php-auth - 3.0
php-date - 3.0
php-db - 3.0
php-file - 3.0
php-html-template-it - 2.0
php-http - 3.0
php-imlib - 2.0
php-mail - 2.0
php-net-checkip - 2.0
php-net-smtp - 2.0
php-net-socket - 2.0
php-services-weather - 2.0
php-xml-parser - 3.0
Are you going to report the
Hello.
Today my packages with PEAR modules was rejected from incoming queue. The
reason is that PHP License was used for PEAR library.
I've found many packages already existing in Debian archive which are licensed
with PHP License. What does it mean? Should I fill bug reports with critical
On 10431 March 1977, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
Today my packages with PEAR modules was rejected from incoming queue. The
reason is that PHP License was used for PEAR library.
NEW, not incoming.
I've found many packages already existing in Debian archive which are
licensed
with PHP
12 matches
Mail list logo
