On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 02:13:21PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
libopenh323 is distributed under the MPL 1.0, for which MySQL AB have
already granted a linking exception.
YMMV for other GPL code involved.
So while we're at it, let's go over the other parts of asterisk_addons:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By throwing hardware support out the window? Good plan!
We already did this with the firmwares decision.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ben Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] debian-legal is not *the* place
where it should be debated, where else could it be ?
Maybe debian-x, maybe debian-devel or maybe you need a new list.
[...]
Now, not everybody installing Debian on their belief
it is the distro most committed to
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 25 Feb 2005 11:17:19 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
Well-meaning authors can go look at similar packages already
in main and check the copyright file.
Imitating other licensors and repeating the same poor choices again and
again? [...]
Maybe, but good/poor
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
format_mp3:
License is GPL according to format_mp3.c and to
MPGLIB_README . The mp3 code is based on libmpg from
http://www.mpg123.org/ .
However the front-page of that site claims:
News
12. Jan. 2005
Yes! The project is not maintained at the moment and
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 10:16:46AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What sorts of issues with JPEGs? We should have available and
distribute the prefered form for modification for them as well. That
is, whatever form upstream actually uses when
* Daniel Stone:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 10:50:13AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
Is there some proof that the files are created that way, or is this just
your assumptation?
While you cannot prove it, it is incredibly unlikely that anyone would
ever choose to write anything that way.
After a
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
No, it doesn't. The lone JPEG is only non-free if the lossless version
is what the original author would use to make a modification to the
JPEG. If, for example, the original author threw out the lossless
version immediately on making the JPEG,
Maybe debian-x, maybe debian-devel or maybe you need
a new list.
Ok, debian-wankers, got it. If some people feel the
topic is so absurd, why do they waste their time
answering rudely ? I expect contradiction, but if
gratuitously insulting others is some game, let them
play with their
Ben Johnson wrote:
Maybe debian-x, maybe debian-devel or maybe you need
a new list.
Ok, debian-wankers, got it. If some people feel the
topic is so absurd, why do they waste their time
answering rudely ?
I really don't know the answer to that question. I don't think MJ Ray
was answering
--- Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think MJ Ray was answering rudely there
My sincere apologies to MJ Ray if I misunderstood what
he was saying.
Please don't let a few people spoil your outlook
on debian-legal as
a whole.
- Josh Triplett
Thank you, this is refreshing.
On 28 Feb 2005 12:25:52 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 25 Feb 2005 11:17:19 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
Well-meaning authors can go look at similar packages already
in main and check the copyright file.
Imitating other licensors and repeating the same poor choices
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:05:16 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote:
What sorts of issues with JPEGs? We should have available and
distribute the prefered form for modification for them as well. That
is, whatever form upstream actually uses when upstream wants to modify
the JPEG. In some cases, this will
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:16:46 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
If we actually upheld this standard at present, it would result in us
removing a large number of packages from Debian.
I think that these issues are sarge-ignore because of GR2004-004, but
will be release-critical bugs post-Sarge.
On Monday 28 February 2005 11:16, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I haven't tried to formulate a precise definition yet, but I think that
the GPL's definition is stricter than we should require in general. We
don't have the DFSG because they provide philosophical freedoms - we
have the DFSG because
Scripsit Ben Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What still bothers me is that after Daniel Stone's very opinion,
nobody could honestly prefer to write a driver using hex values for
registers AND functions, period. This is not just a case of bad
coding practices, it is deliberate.
I don't think that
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 11:15:20PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:16:46 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
If we actually upheld this standard at present, it would result in us
removing a large number of packages from Debian.
I think that these issues are sarge-ignore
Scripsit David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The DFS_Guidelines_ don't need to hold up in court. Therefore they
are able to say that source which is unacceptable for modification
because of lack of documentation, poor programming practices,
obscure language or any arbitrary criteria you might
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 09:26:18PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Of course, how else are people going to notice all the contemptible things?
Given that there's an effectively infinite supply of worthless, useless
and irrelevant things to express contempt at, I'd guess that people will
never
Ben Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, debian-wankers, got it.
I really didn't understand that until I read Josh's explanation. I
don't read many Marco d'Itri spews, so I thought you were ranting.
I was thinking of something a bit more like the short-term private
lists that exist for short
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 28 Feb 2005 12:25:52 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
Maybe, but good/poor comments are a bit more judgement than
the DLSes give too. They say this licence is foo rather than
giving recommendations for what you think is the most common
want.
I'm sorry but I
21 matches
Mail list logo
