On 9/14/06, Markus Laire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, it's possible that I should report a "serious"[1] bug for this,
but I wanted to ask about this from debian-legal first, to know if
others agree that this is a problem.
Reporting a serious bug is definitely correct.
Be sure to mention t
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:59:33 +0200 Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Adam Borowski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060914 15:55]:
> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 03:37:11PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
> > > I'm concerned about the licensing of cdrkit[1,2] aka debburn,
> > > which was recently forked from cdrecord.
> > >
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:37:11 +0300 Markus Laire wrote:
> I'm concerned about the licensing of cdrkit[1,2] aka debburn, which
> was recently forked from cdrecord.
I am concerned as well, and I would have started a similar thread just
today, if you hadn't done so before me!
I actually mentioned th
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Adam Borowski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060914 15:55]:
> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 03:37:11PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
> > > I'm concerned about the licensing of cdrkit[1,2] aka debburn, which
> > > was recently forked from cdrecord.
> > >
> > > The curre
"Eric Lavarde - Debian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
I sent the below email already a while ago, but didn't receive any answer.
Can someone tell me what's wrong? Did I miss some important point of
netiquette, or FAQ to read before asking stupid questions?
On 9/14/06, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
#include
* Markus Laire [Thu, Sep 14 2006, 03:37:11PM]:
> I mentioned this problem over a week ago[5] at debburn-devel but
> didn't get any response.
Because the hard problems that you pointed out have been fixed. We do no
longer return "schi
#include
* Markus Laire [Thu, Sep 14 2006, 03:37:11PM]:
> I mentioned this problem over a week ago[5] at debburn-devel but
> didn't get any response.
Because the hard problems that you pointed out have been fixed. We do no
longer return "schily" author ID, etc.
> Recently Nathanael Nerode menti
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006, Anon Sricharoenchai wrote:
> So I could give another example.
> If the new project copy code from Qt and the project itself is licensed under
> LGPL. While it is obviously that some parts of code is from Qt, and no any
> approval from trolltech to be relicensed,
On 9/14/06, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Adam Borowski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060914 15:55]:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 03:37:11PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
> > I'm concerned about the licensing of cdrkit[1,2] aka debburn, which
> > was recently forked from cdrecord.
> >
> > The curre
* Adam Borowski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060914 15:55]:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 03:37:11PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
> > I'm concerned about the licensing of cdrkit[1,2] aka debburn, which
> > was recently forked from cdrecord.
> >
> > The current license seems to be GPLv2 + additional restrictions
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 03:37:11PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
> I'm concerned about the licensing of cdrkit[1,2] aka debburn, which
> was recently forked from cdrecord.
>
> The current license seems to be GPLv2 + additional restrictions which
> IMHO is not right because GPLv2 doesn't allow any suc
I'm concerned about the licensing of cdrkit[1,2] aka debburn, which
was recently forked from cdrecord.
The current license seems to be GPLv2 + additional restrictions which
IMHO is not right because GPLv2 doesn't allow any such additional
restrictions.
An example from libscg/scsi-linux-ata.c[3]:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Ah; my understanding was that there were some parts (the xmms header
> files?) which were GPL only, and that the rest of libmms was licenced
> under the LGPL, which is what I retitled the bug to clarify. [If
> that's actually the case, as debian/copyrigh
13 matches
Mail list logo
