On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:18:26 + Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:02 AM Paul Wise wrote:
>
> > I don't like this, people seeking source code should not have to get
> > approval first. That said, I note that the source code is available
> > directly from the site without approval.
>
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 08:39:48AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> The bigger problem for entering Debian is what Andreas mentions, that
> the software uses Qt4 instead of Qt5. Once you have released a new
> version that uses Qt5 it could potentially enter Debian.
To be correct: Version 0.9.4 in
On Fri, 2020-01-10 at 13:01 +0100, Eric Maeker wrote:
> Sounds like we are travelling to "contrib" or "non-free" package ? Or
> may be "non-debian" ?
The section of Debian a package is added to depends solely on the DFSG
compliance of the software (freely licensed and released source code).
It looks like this bug went from "Qt4->Qt5" to "no longer DFSG-free."
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 17:34:35 +0100
Eric Maeker wrote:
> Oh! There is a misunderstanding here!
> Let me correct my words:
> -> full code of each stable released version is packaged and freely
> available (but undocumented
On Fri, 2020-01-10 at 17:34 +0100, Eric Maeker wrote:
> We know that at least two forks exists (this is what our private data
> server's log tells us). We do not receive any patch, invitation to
> git repos, or any kind of official informations or queries.
Having multiple forks and having folks
Hi,
For now, our NPO is too poor to engage in consulting or to pay external
developments and we awfully miss time to manage all aspects of a widely
collaborative project.
Sounds like we are travelling to "contrib" or "non-free" package ? Or may
be "non-debian" ?
Belle journée
Cordialement
Can you please clarify -- you said the license was the same, but you didn't
say what that license actually was. What license is your code available
under?
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 07:18 Eric Maeker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For now, our NPO is too poor to engage in consulting or to pay external
>
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 07:45:34AM -0500, Daniel Hakimi wrote:
> Can you please clarify -- you said the license was the same, but you didn't
> say what that license actually was. What license is your code available
> under?
GPL-3+ [1]
BTW, I think if a Debian package is published the requirement
Oh! There is a misunderstanding here!
Let me correct my words:
-> full code of each stable released version is packaged and freely
available (but undocumented since v1.0.0).
Code is considered 100% stable (and released) when :
- it perfectly passes every the unit-tests in debug mode with MacOs,
9 matches
Mail list logo
