# Diego E. Pettenò (07 Jan 2010)
# on behalf of QA team
#
# Fails to fetch, bug #228929, open June 2008, still not
# fixed.
#
# Removal on 2010-03-08
dev-java/jrockit-jdk-bin
Richard Freeman posted on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:05:52 -0500 as excerpted:
> I think that this should at least be added. If some things are more
> conservatively labeled as v2 when it should be v2+ it doesn't cause all
> that much harm. Over time the licenses would get updated, and then we'd
> have
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 10:57:01AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 11:55:49PM -0500, Vincent Launchbury wrote:
> > Greg KH wrote:
> > > And note, _I_ placed those images in the kernel image, after consulting
> > > lawyers about this issue, so it's not like I don't know what I am
> >
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 11:55:49PM -0500, Vincent Launchbury wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > And note, _I_ placed those images in the kernel image, after consulting
> > lawyers about this issue, so it's not like I don't know what I am
> > talking about here.
>
> I'm not questioning whether it's legal
On 01/05/2010 01:07 PM, Duncan wrote:
Periodically there's talk of adding "+" versions of at least the FSF
licenses, but while it would probably be quite a good thing, it'd be a
LOT of VERY boring work poring thru all those packages and either
updating to the + version, or leaving comments in eac
