El domingo, 5 de marzo de 2006 a las 14:44:33 -0500, Joe Smith escribía:
If a court is in doubt as to how the licence is to be interpreted it should
look at such text. Such text, especially if included near the licence, has
If the author intends it to be a request, not a requirement, nobody
Junichi Uekawa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The web page (http://www.portaudio.com/license.html) has the following
additional clauses; which should be included in Debian package to
clarify:
Plain English Interpretation of the License
The following is a plain
Hi,
Can you please identify yourself as someone who has legal qualification to
make the following assertions. I am concerned that any arbitrary Debian user
can take offence to our license without reasonable legal grounds. I simply
do not know who you are.
I am a Debian Developer; without
Hello Junichi
Can you please identify yourself as someone who has legal qualification to
make the following assertions. I am concerned that any arbitrary Debian user
can take offence to our license without reasonable legal grounds. I simply
do not know who you are.
I've opened bugs now, I
Ross Bencina [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can you please identify yourself as someone who has legal qualification to
make the following assertions. I am concerned that any arbitrary Debian user
can take offence to our license without reasonable legal grounds. I simply
do not know who you are.
Hi Don
Can you please identify yourself as someone who has final authority for
giving this advice.
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Ross Bencina wrote:
[someone said]
Or, if the request clause is not removed from the license, I would
like to see it clarified as follows:
Any person wishing to
Ross Bencina [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Don
Can you please identify yourself as someone who has final authority for
giving this advice.
I will be very surprised if Don satisfies that request. No
debian decision is final: we reserve the right to find or admit
bugs in the future, whether coding,
Package: audacity
Severity: serious
Hi,
I'm filing a bugreport against audacity in case we forget at all.
It kind of sneaked in; without a resolution this package should be removed from
Debian.
regards,
junichi
[1 text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)]
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Ross
Package: portaudio
Severity: serious
I'm filing a bug so that we can remember there is an issue here.
regards,
junichi
At Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:19:18 -0800,
Don Armstrong wrote:
[1 text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)]
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Ross Bencina wrote:
[someone said]
Hi,
Can you please identify yourself as someone who has final authority for
giving this advice.
I will be very surprised if Don satisfies that request. No
debian decision is final: we reserve the right to find or admit
bugs in the future, whether coding, usage or licensing. The most
Hi,
I've opened bugs now, I don't know if it hasn't happened before.
Please Cc' the respective bugs so that we know it's fixed either way.
The possible options that I see are:
1. audacity/portaudio are removed from Debian
2. license text is modified so that it clarifies that
severity 354898 wishlist
severity 354899 wishlist
thanks
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 06:41:19PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 08:15:05AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
I've opened bugs now, I don't know if it hasn't happened before.
Please Cc' the respective bugs so that we
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 08:57:55AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
I've opened bugs now, I don't know if it hasn't happened before.
Please Cc' the respective bugs so that we know it's fixed either way.
The possible options that I see are:
1. audacity/portaudio are removed from Debian
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006, Ross Bencina wrote:
Can you please identify yourself as someone who has final authority
for giving this advice.
As MJ Ray has already pointed out, I'm just acting in an advisory
capacity here, explaining to you what ftp-master and/or the maintainer
are likely to decide
Junichi Uekawa wrote:
However, portaudio looks non-free to me.
http://www.portaudio.com/license.html:
* Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is
requested to send the modifications to the original developer so that
they can be incorporated into the canonical version.
Hi,
However, portaudio looks non-free to me.
http://www.portaudio.com/license.html:
* Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is
requested to send the modifications to the original developer so that
they can be incorporated into the canonical version.
Sounds
On Monday 20 February 2006 04:51, Bjorn Roche was like:
My
app runs on Linux and definately has trouble with PA/ALSA, so I'd like to
work on that as well, though, to be honest, I am a bit baffled by ALSA. If
PA gets into Debian, I really think that will help, as more people would
hear about
Ross Bencina schrieb:
There are numerous active commercial applications which depend on
PortAudio.. it is far from dead and gone. Quite naturally I believe it
to be a technically superior solution to RtAudio, primarily because
(last time I checked) RtAudio does not attempt to solve many of
This one time, at band camp, Junichi Uekawa said:
However, portaudio looks non-free to me.
http://www.portaudio.com/license.html: * Any person wishing to
distribute modifications to the Software is requested to send the
modifications to the original developer so that they can be
Let me say as a long time member of this list and user of Portaudio and
its proponent in many projects, there was a period of a year where this
project was a big time user of Ambien. It was asleep for the most
part. A few folks came along and woke it up.
Flex Radio depends heavily on
Ross Bencina wrote:
PortAudio upstream was planning to change the license to clarify
this, but I don't think they ever got around to tracking down all the
contributors in order to do this.
I think there was never any clarity on what the license should be
changed to. I am in touch with all of
On Monday 20 February 2006 00:46, Matt Brubeck was like:
Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is
requested BUT NOT REQUIRED to send the modifications to the original
developer so that they can be incorporated into the canonical version.
Messy.
Is the word
Hi Markus
First of all, thanks for taking the time to put your concerns in writing --
some of these issues are news to me. I've received a lot of traffic over
this issuein the last 24 hours and I'll have get back to you with some more
detailed responses to the strategic issues, however I
Hi Matt
I would like to see PortAudio use an unmodified X11 license (widely
used, and identical to the current PortAudio license except for the
non-binding request clause). Rather than appearing in the license's
list of conditions, this clause could appear in the documentation, or
any other
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Ross Bencina wrote:
[someone said]
Or, if the request clause is not removed from the license, I would
like to see it clarified as follows:
Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is
requested BUT NOT REQUIRED to send the modifications to the
Markus:
Thanks so much for your comments. I will say more below about our code,
but I think you are right to critisize our process. Personally, I'd like
to see us using a bug tracking system and a better source code management
and patch management system. I don't have enough expereience in
Hi,
On Thursday 16 February 2006 22:49, Junichi Uekawa was like:
Audio on the other hand seems to have mostly settled for ALSA and jack.
(I'm not sure if portaudio is gone?)
Things like portaudio and MIDIshare never really arrived. (OK, I'm
exaggerating slightly - Doesn't Audacity use
Junichi Uekawa wrote:
Hi,
On Thursday 16 February 2006 22:49, Junichi Uekawa was like:
Audio on the other hand seems to have mostly settled for ALSA and jack.
(I'm not sure if portaudio is gone?)
Things like portaudio and MIDIshare never really arrived. (OK, I'm
exaggerating slightly -
Junichi Uekawa wrote:
Things like portaudio and MIDIshare never really arrived. (OK, I'm
exaggerating slightly - Doesn't Audacity use portaudio?)
Audacity does use portaudio. Portaudio isn't dead and gone, but
development is barely progressing. With portaudio-v19 audacity can
use jack.
Hi,
However, portaudio looks non-free to me.
According to my reading of the license (and according to the PortAudio
upstream authors), this clause is a non-binding request, and so it does
not make the license non-free. Please see this thread:
Hi Guys
I'm the dev lead for PortAudio.
Matt Brubeck wrote:
Junichi Uekawa wrote:
Things like portaudio and MIDIshare never really arrived. (OK, I'm
exaggerating slightly - Doesn't Audacity use portaudio?)
Audacity does use portaudio. Portaudio isn't dead and gone, but
development is barely
Junichi Uekawa wrote:
However, portaudio looks non-free to me.
http://www.portaudio.com/license.html:
* Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is
requested to send the modifications to the original developer so that
they can be incorporated into the canonical
32 matches
Mail list logo
