On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:25:16 -
Rogério Theodoro de Brito rbr...@ime.usp.br wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 18:36, KarlGoetz k...@kgoetz.id.au wrote:
Given this was filed against ubuntu when Gobuntu was being
developed, I'm tempted to suggest this bug should be marked
'invalid'.
OK,
** Changed in: vrms (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed = Opinion
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
Title:
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
To manage notifications about this bug go
please explain why you think this is opinion
** Changed in: vrms (Ubuntu)
Status: Opinion = Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
Title:
CC-by-sa reported as
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 08:37, KarlGoetz k...@kgoetz.id.au wrote:
please explain why you think this is opinion
Debian opinion != FSF opinion
Furthermore, vrms works by looking at the section of the package to
base its decisions on. If it reports something incorrectly, then there
are two
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:37:20 -
Rogério Theodoro de Brito rbr...@ime.usp.br wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 08:37, KarlGoetz k...@kgoetz.id.au wrote:
please explain why you think this is opinion
Debian opinion != FSF opinion
Indeed. And != Ubuntu opinion too.
Furthermore, vrms works by
** Changed in: vrms (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed = Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
Title:
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
To manage notifications about this bug go
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 18:36, KarlGoetz k...@kgoetz.id.au wrote:
Given this was filed against ubuntu when Gobuntu was being developed,
I'm tempted to suggest this bug should be marked 'invalid'.
OK, Took the suggestion into account and changed things.
Regards,
--
Rogério Brito :
Changed the incorrectly set status back to confirmed
** Changed in: vrms (Ubuntu)
Status: In Progress = Confirmed
--
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to
** Changed in: vrms (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed = In Progress
--
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
You've conviced me that cc-by-sa 2.5 is DFSG-nonfree, but the real
question is: is ubuntu following DFSG?
Back in the days of gobuntu, ubuntu was officially following FSF guidelins
rather than the DFSG.
And if I understand correctly, cc-by-sa 2.5 is considered free for non-sw work
by the FSF
Some of the information here in the previous comments is old/outdated or
incorrect. Here is the real story.
According to the DFSG and the FSF, CC-BY-SA = 3.0 is Free. See
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#CreativeCommonsAttributionShare-
Alike.28CC-BY-SA.29v3.0
tangerine-icon-theme is licensed
Tell me if I've understood correctly: vrms should show me only packages
that I've installed from restricted or multiverse?
--
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to
CC-by-sa is considered free for artistic content by the FSF, and the
packages listed as non-free by vrms contains icons et similia.
The meaning of vrms is indeed Virtual Richard Matthew Stallman, but
it lists packages considered non-free by Debian (that's because was
written by Debian developers
Is CC-by-sa non-free?
How so?
--
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/04/msg00031.html
--
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
CC-by-sa it's free for ubuntu (there was a discussion on the
gobuntu-devel mailing list).
I know that vrms is a debian project, so that it's impossible for us
to send a patch upstream (unless debian itself decide that older
CC-by-sa licences are indeed free), but ubuntu can do and apply a
patch
The package is called virtualRichardMStallman, I want it to list
packages considered non-free by FSF.
--
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
What about CC-BY-SA 3.0? Debian does consider 3.0 to be free according
to DFSG, but not previous versions.
--
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
** Changed in: vrms (Ubuntu)
Status: New = Confirmed
** Tags added: gobuntu
--
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
GNU FDL is DFSG free provided the invariant section clauses are not
used.
Yes, but e.g. autoconf-doc uses the FDL and is still list as non-free;
this is because, as long as I know, software from FSF uses the FDL
entirely (invariant sections included).
--
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
GNU FDL is DFSG free provided the invariant section clauses are not
used.
--
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
I also see autoconf-doc, gdb-doc, manpages-posix, manpages-posix-dev and
make-doc between non-free packages, is it right? It sounds strange.
Forgive me for the delay, please.
Well, vrms is a debian software, so even packages with the GNU FDL are
listed as non-free (such as autoconf-doc, for
I also see autoconf-doc, gdb-doc, manpages-posix, manpages-posix-dev and
make-doc between non-free packages, is it right? It sounds strange.
--
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which
23 matches
Mail list logo
