Bug#572982: azureus: Multiple license issues.
Hi! * Moritz Muehlenhoff j...@inutil.org [101008 18:46]: At debian-java we're pretty happy with the exception and we didn't feel the need to run it through -legal. I haven't had time to make an upload with the exception documented in the debian/ folder so the bug it is still open (but the packaged didn't get removed, which is the important part :-) You should really do this now, the Squeeze release is close and this bug has been w/o action for quite some time! Do I understood that correctly: This bug has been solved since June, but the fix hasn't been uploaded yet (not commited to the packages git branch it seems)? Is there something we can do to help? Someone needs a sponsor to fix this? Best Regards, Alexander __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.
Bug#572982: azureus: Multiple license issues.
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 01:36:37PM -0400, Pablo Duboue wrote: At debian-java we're pretty happy with the exception and we didn't feel the need to run it through -legal. I haven't had time to make an upload with the exception documented in the debian/ folder so the bug it is still open (but the packaged didn't get removed, which is the important part :-) You should really do this now, the Squeeze release is close and this bug has been w/o action for quite some time! Cheers, Moritz __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.
Bug#572982: azureus: Multiple license issues.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 What does debian-legal has to say about this. Do you think the license exception posted before will solve this issue? Hoping from answer for a debian/copyright emacs night soon. - -- Best Regards, Adrian Perez adrianperez-...@ubuntu.com, adrianperez@gmail.com + Ubuntu Developer. http://www.ubuntu.com + Debian Maintainer.http://www.debian.org + GigaTux VPS hosting user http://www.gigatux.com + Certified Ruby on Rails Developer.http://www.rubyonrails.org + Certified Java Developer. http://java.sun.com + Certified Python Developer. http://python.org + Certified Ajax Developer. + Certified RedHat User.http://www.redhat.com + Certified Linux/Unix User. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkwHo6AACgkQmXMNXIqaMIRD0gCaAk0lIJVtx6936fHzQolGzkzy sloAn1I9X/SiPa+zlFc2uyX6xegNZ93H =mIjZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.
Bug#572982: azureus: Multiple license issues.
At debian-java we're pretty happy with the exception and we didn't feel the need to run it through -legal. I haven't had time to make an upload with the exception documented in the debian/ folder so the bug it is still open (but the packaged didn't get removed, which is the important part :-) P. __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.
Bug#572982: azureus: Multiple license issues.
Package: src:azureus Severity: serious Hi GPL and EPL are not compatible[1], yet azureus contains quite a few files under GPL while Depending on SWT, which is under EPL. Furthermore the source itself contains multiple files under CPL, which is also incompatible with GPL. The file com/aelitis/azureus/ui/swt/Sleak.java is listed as being under GPL and copyrighted by Aelitis and IBM, but reading the file this does not seem to be the case. The file itself appears be under CPL and owned by IBM and that Aelitis have (possibly without permission) assumed copyright over it and relicensed it under GPL. If that have got this permission I feel it ought be mentioned in debian/copyright. Note: I am not certain whether the files under LGPL are an issue, as far as I can tell it depends on whether one of the derives from the other. I would recommend contacting the debian legal mailing list for advice on this. ~Niels [1] This incompatibility is acknowledged both by GNU and eclipse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Public_License http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#GPLCOMPATIBLE http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-trunk-686 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_DK.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_DK.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
