Hi!
Nikto is a security web scanner licensed under GPLv2 only. It was
orphaned some time ago and I am packaging the new upstream version.
http://packages.qa.debian.org/n/nikto.html
While nikto.pl (the executable) is licensed under GPLv2, the data files
that are used have a pretty
On Sat Apr 05 10:00, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
On 08/04/04 21:21 +0100, Matthew Johnson said ...
On Sat Apr 05 00:06, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
So if I am packaging a piece of software for Debian and the software is
licensed
under the GPL, is the above valid (and more
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 10:40:07 +0100 Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sat Apr 05 10:00, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
[...]
Yes, including /usr/share/common-licenses in the 'license blurb' text
itself is valid?
This is what I meant. As long as the text in debian/rules unambiguously
declares the
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:16:33 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
All,
The IETF is about to change their IPR policy and turn it into a two-step
process where contributors assign rights to the IETF Trust which then
grant rights to others. The relevant documents are:
OoO Peu avant le début de l'après-midi du samedi 05 avril 2008, vers
13:00, Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] disait:
First try to get the data licence fixed upstream.
I have sent him a mail about this matter.
If that doesn't work, either put it in non-free or strip the non-free
data and put
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Vincent Bernat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. Another question: nikto has been removed but is still present in
stable. It contains the same non-free data. Since the package has been
orphaned, who should I contact about this? ftp-master?
I'd say nikto is
Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Vincent Bernat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. Another question: nikto has been removed but is still present in
stable. It contains the same non-free data. Since the package has been
7 matches
Mail list logo
