On Saturday 03 June 2006 16:57, Anthony Towns wrote:
You can say that if you like, but please be aware that it's not Debian's
position. Debian's position, as consistently expressed by ftpmaster,
on this list, and in the press, is that the license is acceptable for
non-free, and that is also
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:39AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
Too many excuses. All inadequate.
It is past time that the covert actions of the small cabal
were openly reviewed. The license (for convenience), any
relevant written promises from Sun (if any), and any relevant
written legal
On 6/4/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't
maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't
even seem to be a regular participant on the debian-legal list.
As a semi-regular on -legal, I
Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 17:39 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't
maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't
even seem to be a regular participant on the debian-legal list.
Despite all of that,
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 05:39:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns
aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:39AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
Too many excuses. All inadequate.
It is past time that the covert actions of the small cabal
were openly reviewed. The license (for
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 09:57:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
position. Debian's position, as consistently expressed by ftpmaster,
on this list, and in the press, is that the license is acceptable for
non-free, and that is also Sun's position.
Just for clarification, a position expressed by a
On 6/4/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:39AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
Too many excuses. All inadequate.
It is past time that the covert actions of the small cabal
were openly reviewed. The license (for convenience), any
relevant written promises
Le mercredi 31 mai 2006 à 15:01 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
Please note that Walter does not speak for the Debian project, and is not
a developer, maintainer, or new-maintainer applicant, just a participant
on this mailing list.
Do you really need to be so contemptuous against users who
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:16PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On 6/4/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:39AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
Too many excuses. All inadequate.
It is past time that the covert actions of the small cabal
were openly
Le vendredi 02 juin 2006 à 16:44 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with
all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and
distribution of the Subject Software, including but not limited to,
all export and import
Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 03:59 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
For those still playing, Olaf also isn't a Debian developer, doesn't
maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He's made
something like 5 posts to debian-legal, though, which I guess given Andrew
Donnellan's
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 11:49:50PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote:
The ipv6calc upstream tarball database directory contains a README saying:
Because of unknown license issues, the database files aren't
included in source tarball (cleanup by make distclean), but
will be retrieved on make
Thus
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 05:39:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:39AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
be posted to debian-legal.
For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't
maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 09:57:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
OTOH, I'd say pull it *now* while distribution is low, then fix the
problems, and only *then* get it back in... seems to be the least
damaging route to go for, imho.
You can say that if you like, but please be aware that it's
On Sunday 04 June 2006 02:23, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 6/4/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't
maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't
even seem to be a regular participant
Scripsit Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Le vendredi 02 juin 2006 à 16:44 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
6. Compliance with Laws; Non-Infringement. Recipient shall comply with
all applicable laws and regulations in connection with use and
distribution of the Subject Software, including
Bill Allombert wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 09:57:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I see no ground in the Debian constitution to claim this is Debian's
position. Being the ftp-masters decisision does not make it the
Debian's position.
As for the relevance of Sun position on Debian
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
I guess the conclusion is that being a Debian developer means you're
right and not being one means you're wrong?
More like, being a Debian developer means your arguments are ignored and
not being a Debian developer means your arguments are ignored (for a
completely
On 6/4/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:16PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On 6/4/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:39AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
Too many excuses. All inadequate.
It is past time that
Also, I should add that agreeing to a license that commits SPI to
indemnify Sun in certain circumstances should not have happened without
consulting with the board of SPI and SPI's attorney. **Regardless** of
the particular opinion on whether or not this is a legal risk, this
consultation should
#include hallo.h
* Olaf van der Spek [Sun, Jun 04 2006, 02:31:00PM]:
For those still playing, Olaf also isn't a Debian developer, doesn't
maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He's made
something like 5 posts to debian-legal, though, which I guess given Andrew
AT For those playing along at home, zzz isn't a Debian developer,
AT doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer
AT applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the
AT debian-legal list.
So what?
I would like to request everyone to think before posting any
On Sun, 2006-06-04 at 09:57 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I would furthermore strongly encourage people to work *with* Sun towards
improving the current license
There have been numerous issues with the current text pointed out here
already, I guess people are currently just waiting for the fixes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me that this is insufficient and that the developers need to
clarify their license somewhere before PyGaim can be uploaded to Debian.
Am I correct in making this assumption?
No. As long as you believe that the notice on the project web site is
truthfully
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please note that Walter does not speak for the Debian project, and is not
a developer, maintainer, or new-maintainer applicant, just a participant
on this mailing list.
Do you really need to be so contemptuous against users who make mailing
lists live?
For the records,
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 05:39:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't
maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't
even seem to be a regular participant on the
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 07:37:21PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
I really hope we can solve the issues in a graceful manner.
...and fast, too. This is urgent while that the package is in the
archive with the broken license. I think we should set a
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me that this is insufficient and that the developers need to
clarify their license somewhere before PyGaim can be uploaded to Debian.
Am I correct in making this assumption?
No. As long as you believe that the notice on the
On 6/4/06, Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#include hallo.h
* Olaf van der Spek [Sun, Jun 04 2006, 02:31:00PM]:
For those still playing, Olaf also isn't a Debian developer, doesn't
maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He's made
something like 5 posts to
And which part of the message you quote as an example is the inappropriate one?
AT For those playing along at home, zzz isn't a Debian developer,
AT doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer
AT applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the
AT debian-legal
On Sat, 03 Jun 2006, Michael Spang wrote:
I have created a package [0] for PyGaim. Their SourceForge project
page says that PyGaim is distributed under the GPL. There is no
mention of this, however, in the source release.
This is a bug; whether it would preclude distributing it in Debian is
a
Michael Spang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me that this is insufficient and that the developers need to
clarify their license somewhere before PyGaim can be uploaded to Debian.
Am I correct in making this assumption?
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 03:30:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 05:39:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't
maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
His message was polite, and didn't seem like a demand (despite the use
of the word cabal).
The Too many excuses. All inadequate bit was polite?
His request was quite reasonable, and I heartily agree with it.
His message also was much more than that,
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jun 2006, Michael Spang wrote:
I have created a package [0] for PyGaim. Their SourceForge project
page says that PyGaim is distributed under the GPL. There is no
mention of this, however, in the source release.
This is a bug; whether it would preclude
Walter Landry wrote:
I would still get clarification from the author. Relying on the
License field may give you legal cover, but it may still not match the
pygaim author's intentions. The author may not have noticed that
field, filled it in while in a hurry and not paying attention, etc.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 03:59 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
For those still playing, Olaf also isn't a Debian developer, doesn't
maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He's made
something like 5
37 matches
Mail list logo
