On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:42:22 +0800
Shan-Bin Chen (DreamerC) dreamerwolf...@gmail.com wrote:
They forked a new version from 0.9.2 , and the library in Debian is 0.9.3 .
I think the problem that could be solved between versions.
Because the authors in deadbeef want to release with GPL and LGPL
Some points:
Jokes are great, but licenses are not the place to make them. Come to
DebConf and make them over conversation and $BEVERAGE instead.
License proliferation is bad, license standardisation/consolidation is good!
The DUMB license is extremely far from clear. License clarity is
Hi,
2010/4/9 Paul Wise p...@debian.org:
libdumb is already in Debian:
http://packages.debian.org/libdumb
It woulud be nice if you could switch to a more standard license
instead of inventing your own. I'd recommend one of BSD, ISC,
MIT/Expat, LGPL, GPL.
Hi,
recently I try to package deadbeef [1] into Debian and Ubuntu, but it
includes the libdumb (0.9.2).
It seems that the libdumb has a license issue which blocked the upload.
We need to clear the license issue, and make sure that everyone agree.
[1] http://deadbeef.sourceforge.net/ an audio
Hi,
You mention DUMB v0.9.2, whereas the latest version is 0.9.3. Is this
intentional on the part of the 'deadbeef' package?
When DUMB v0.9.2 was the latest version and the problem was first brought to my
attention, I put a notice on the website stating that Point 4 of the licence
was
Hi all,
what do other debian-legal participants think about having non-free
clauses that look like jokes in licenses?
Or maybe they are jokes that look like non-free clauses, I am not sure
which one makes more sense or better describes the situation...
Should this bug be reopened, in your
Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it (24/02/2010):
Or maybe they are jokes that look like non-free clauses, I am not
sure which one makes more sense or better describes the situation...
Looks like upstream clarified the “joke status”?
reopen 533555
thanks
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it (24/02/2010):
Or maybe they are jokes that look like non-free clauses, I am not
sure which one makes more sense or better describes the situation...
Looks like upstream clarified the
tag 533555 patch
retitle 533555 Clauses 4-6 can be ignored by a new clause 8; clarify copyright
file
summary -1 533555
severity 533555 minor
thanks
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Don Armstrong wrote:
If the real maintainers can actually be contacted by mail and get a
binding response that clauses 4-6
9 matches
Mail list logo
