Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 09:54 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 10:41 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Alex Ross:
2) 2,300 Debian packages available for immediate usage.
How do you solve the problem that you cannot legally distribute
software which is licensed under the
Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 18:21 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:
GPL:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface
Scripsit Peter Samuelson
[Henning Makholm]
Do you mean that every package that offers to edit conffiles based on
debconf questions is policy-buggy?
'conffile' is dpkg jargon that has a specific meaning: configuration
files that dpkg handles specially w/r/t upgrades and removals. Editing
[Peter Samuelson]
'conffile' is dpkg jargon that has a specific meaning: configuration
files that dpkg handles specially w/r/t upgrades and removals. Editing
a conffile at install time makes no sense. If you want to edit a
configuration file, don't ship it as a conffile - in fact, don't
Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 21:24 +, schreef Jean-Luc Coulon (f5ibh):
Le 02.11.2005 22:20:15, João Silva a écrit :
Anyone knows what package brings the todos command?
I had this error in a debian-cd try:
tools/add-bin-doc: line 42: todos: command not found
sysutils
try something like
Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 18:31 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 01:14 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Alex Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Banck wrote:
If so, do you plan to use Debian's mailing lists and bug
tracking system for development?
No. We have ours:
Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 21:04 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 18:54 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ubuntu is not an official Debian Port.
on another hand, GNU/Solaris uses different kernel and libc, which
brings many
On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 04:20:45AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Second, thanks to some enhancements Ryan Murray has recently made to
buildd/wanna-build, it is now possible for the release team to
request automated buildd binNMUs of a package across all
architectures for library transitions,
Scripsit Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 21:24 +, schreef Jean-Luc Coulon (f5ibh):
try something like 'apt-file search todo | grep bin'
Searching for 'todo' (as in, a todo list) or 'todos' (which happens to
be a rather common spanish word) rarely ends you up with
The problem is still here:
Received: from sanvila by master.debian.org with local (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1EXVub-0007ob-00; Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:37:13 -0600
Received: from spohr.debian.org [140.211.166.43]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1ESyC9-00044c-00;
In-Reply-To=[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a
significant amount of work should be done to restore
support for a processor that has not been manufactured
for 10 years? While slightly degrading performance for
the 99.9% of x86 users who have Pentium/Athlon/or
Nick Jacobs wrote:
In-Reply-To=[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a
significant amount of work should be done to restore
support for a processor that has not been manufactured
for 10 years? While slightly degrading performance for
the 99.9% of x86 users who
* Nick Jacobs:
You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a
significant amount of work should be done to restore
support for a processor that has not been manufactured
for 10 years?
I think AMD still makes them.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
No, todos command is in the sysutils package. Todos means to do or something like next
steps :) I also resolved this problema, thanks to all.On 11/3/05, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 21:24 +, schreef Jean-Luc Coulon (f5ibh): Le 02.11.2005
22:20:15, João Silva a
Erast Benson wrote:
btw, Solaris 10 is absolutely free available for
download, so, one could try to install and see.
Sun Microsystem's Solaris 10 binary release is available without fee,
but it's not free as in Free Software (despite that the underlying
source code is largely licensed
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you mean that every package that offers to edit conffiles based on
debconf questions is policy-buggy?
Of course, see 10.7.3:
| These two styles of configuration
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Peter Samuelson
[Henning Makholm]
Do you mean that every package that offers to edit conffiles based on
debconf questions is policy-buggy?
'conffile' is dpkg jargon that has a specific meaning: configuration
files that dpkg handles
Wouter Verhelst writes:
Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 18:21 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:
GPL:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
Erast Benson wrote:
But are you seriosly saying that SUN violates GPL?
I believe you've misunderstood Thomas.
What Thomas is trying to get across, I think, is that whatever Sun does
or does not do has little to no significance for your own case. In
particular, but Sun does it too does not
Le mercredi 02 novembre 2005 à 21:04 -0800, Erast Benson a écrit :
FreeBSD kernel under BSD license and not GPL-compatible.
Native GNU libc do not make any difference since it is a part of system
runtime which includes: kernel, libc, compiler, etc (as per GPL). In
fact, it is even more
On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 11:15:35PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Speaking as a co-maintainer of libkrb5-dev, no, this Conflicts assumes
that the two packages, er, conflict. Namely, they provide
identically-named include files which define different ways of
implementing roughly the same API.
On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 12:46:47AM +0200, Rolf Kutz wrote:
The admin should know whether he messed with the
account and if he did just remove the package
instead of purging it. It's not like packages get
purged by themself.
Messing with the _account_ is not the same as messing with config
On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 10:21:13PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
An other issue that always annoyed me is that assuming a NIS server
and a NIS client which both install say exim. I want to give some
users membership in the group Debian-exim. I can't easily.
The UID picked by Debian-exim is
Hi,
in the woody-to-sarge upgrade, tetex-base has taken over a file that was
previously a conffile of the texdoctk package. In sarge,
tetex-base: Replaces: texdoctk
tetex-bin: Replaces/Conflicts/Provides: texdoctk
so usually texdoctk is left in state rc.
However, since the file has changed
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 09:18 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op wo, 02-11-2005 te 18:21 -0800, schreef Erast Benson:
GPL:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(a) to ship packaged OpenSolaris core on main CD, and the rest of
GPL-filtered software, will go on Companion CD, or through APT
repository later on. This is doable, since OpenSolaris core has
everything it needs to be installed as a base system. We will
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Rafael Laboissiere [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: slang-tess
Version : 0.1.2
Upstream Author : Michael S. Noble [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://space.mit.edu/cxc/software/slang/modules/tess/
* License : MIT [*]
[was Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Remember that dpkg is GPLed, so there's a slightly awkward bootstrapping
issue.
This reminds me of an issue which I feel needs change but I've never felt
worked up enough to do anything about.
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Rafael Laboissiere [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: slang-slirp
Version : 1.7.6
Upstream Author : Michael S. Noble [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://space.mit.edu/cxc/software/slang/modules/slirp/
* License : MIT [*]
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Rafael Laboissiere [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: slang-gtk
Version : 0.5.15-r2
Upstream Author : Michael S. Noble [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://space.mit.edu/home/mnoble/slgtk/
* License : MIT [*]
Description
Erast Benson wrote:
any others ideas?
(c) Have whoever is in charge of the CDDL remove the parts from CDDL
that make it GPL incompatible in the next revision of CDDL.
That should most of your problems at once.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
to, 2005-11-03 kello 11:06 -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas kirjoitti:
I submit anything written specifically for the Debian Project should
either have some more permissive yet DFSG-compliant license or at
the most GPL + an exemption for linking to other DFSG compliant software.
One of Debian's main
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
[was Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Remember that dpkg is GPLed, so there's a slightly awkward bootstrapping
issue.
This reminds me of an issue which I feel needs change but I've never felt
worked up
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Dalibor Topic wrote:
If your core feature is GPLd code coming from Debian, I'd kindly suggest
to take the concerns of Debian developers regarding compliance with the
license of that code seriously, and to argue your points accordingly.
And I will unkindly *demand* that
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Often the Debian packaging scripts are GPLed and we are the copyright
holders of those. Not to mention a bunch of Debian-specific packages that
are also GPLed, and whose copyright holders are Debian developers (and I am
one of them).
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Is there any source with a copyright assignment for The Debian Project?
You mean to SPI? No. On purpose, I'd say. Those of us who would assign
over copyright of our works would probably do so to the FSF, but that's
IMHO.
--
One disk to rule them
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ken Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: link-grammar
Version : 4.1b
Upstream Author : Daniel Sleator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Davy Temperley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Lafferty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL
In June I asked whether it would be possible to start a libglade to
libglade2 transition [1]. As it turns out, migrating applications to
libglade2 can be harder than expected and we can therefore assume that
libglade will stay with us for quite a while.
Unfortunately, libglade has been orphaned
Gabor Gombas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 11:15:35PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I don't consider this to be a good solution. #include krb5.h is part
of the API, and forcing all packages that want to build with Kerberos
to use special compiler flags to find include files
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 15:51 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(a) to ship packaged OpenSolaris core on main CD, and the rest of
GPL-filtered software, will go on Companion CD, or through APT
repository later on. This is doable, since OpenSolaris core has
On Thursday 03 November 2005 04.37, Erast Benson wrote:
If don't, Nexenta will continue its way more like Ubuntu does.
You'll hire heaps of Debian developers and actually pay people to contribute
their stuff back to Debian? Now there's a thing! Which Debian developers
are in your pay (just
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:45:52AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
If Debian really wans to be system runtime independent, and would like
to have Debian GNU/Solaris port, it should release dpkg as LGPL
software. This should help FreeBSD and GNU/Solaris non-glibc ports to
suvirve.
Please stop
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:45:52AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
If Debian really wans to be system runtime independent, and would like
to have Debian GNU/Solaris port, it should release dpkg as LGPL
software. This should help FreeBSD and GNU/Solaris non-glibc ports to
suvirve.
Being
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Nick Jacobs:
You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a
significant amount of work should be done to restore
support for a processor that has not been manufactured
for 10 years?
I think AMD still makes them.
If so,
I am looking for an embedded solution for AMD SC520 @133MHz
processor, was wondering about the embedded Debian package.
Dawn Nash
Sr. Software Engineer
ISE Corporation
http://www.isecorp.com/
12302 Kerran Street
Poway, CA 92064 USA
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Why do programs written specifically for Debian such as dpkg or apt,
have a license which is not compatible with some other DFSG-compliant
licenses?
Because the authors chose so.
Obviously. But the question was why they chose to do so when it goes
On Thursday 03 November 2005 08.32, Erast Benson wrote:
Matthew:
[...] whether you want to be part of A Debian Release.
Hard to say right now... Lets see how all this thing will progress.
But, *yes* we are willing to cooperate.
So I guess this summarizes the technical side of this
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
to, 2005-11-03 kello 11:06 -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas kirjoitti:
I submit anything written specifically for the Debian Project should
either have some more permissive yet DFSG-compliant license or at
the most GPL + an exemption for linking to other DFSG
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 11:35:22AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Nick Jacobs:
You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a
significant amount of work should be done to restore
support for a processor that has not been
Scripsit Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I strongly suggest we continue the current practice where the authors
get to choose their license as they wish.
Of course there is no other way we _can_ go. If somebody decides to
write cool, useful OS infrastructure software and license it under the
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once
it
stabilizes?
Yes.
Wasn't this already discussed regarding CDDL being not compatible with
DFSGs?
Otherwise, hit myself with a cluebat :)
Bastian Venthur wrote:
Maybe renaming Debians i386 into something more accurate like x86 or
even IA32 (in consistency with IA64) would suppress discussions like
this in the future?
Good idea :-)
--
ksig --random|
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Why do programs written specifically for Debian such as dpkg or apt,
have a license which is not compatible with some other DFSG-compliant
licenses?
Because the authors chose so.
Obviously. But the question was why they
Erast Benson wrote:
There are things like forums, mailing list, blogs,
web-based Debian repository browser, etc. which need
^
Trademark point. Are you referring to a browser for *Debian's* FTP archive?
If you are not, you must not call this a Debian
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Dalibor Topic wrote:
They can't have deliberately chosen the GPL to be incompatible with a
DFSG-(non?)compliant CDDL for two reasons:
I was not specifically referring to the CDDL. There are other non-GPL
compatible free software licenses.
I strongly agree that if the
Scripsit Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Why do programs written specifically for Debian such as dpkg or apt,
have a license which is not compatible with some other DFSG-compliant
licenses?
Because the authors chose so.
Obviously. But the
Steve Langasek wrote:
We're only talking about keeping old binary packages around which
are no longer available from the new source package, which is precisely the
case that is at issue with library transitions.
Ahhh. I get it. Just don't remove the old binaries unless they're manually
Erast Benson writes:
This should help FreeBSD ... non-glibc ports to suvirve.
In what way does the GPL licensing of dpkg harm such FreeBSD ports?
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I personally with community help will re-write stripped down CDDL
variant of dpkg. Will Debian community be happy? But this is sort of
duplication of work. I do not think that the goal of Debian community is
to force developers do duplicate their work.
Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Obviously. But the question was why they chose to do so when it goes
against the spirit of the DFSG?
I disagree. It does not go against the spirit of the DFSG.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is clear tension between this and the mere aggregation clause.
However, given that source code is only required for *contained*
modules, shared libraries or the kernel would seem to be more governed
by the mere aggregation clause than the
Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is anyone who maintains a package depending on libglade up to this, or
could the GNOME team adopt libglade?
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/06/msg01199.html
Since I'm the de facto gnome 1 weenie, being the last maintainer of a
big
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 14:32 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Dalibor Topic wrote:
If your core feature is GPLd code coming from Debian, I'd kindly suggest
to take the concerns of Debian developers regarding compliance with the
license of that code seriously,
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nexenta community willing to make appropriate changes to the system and
make it absolutely Debian legal OS. And more I'm looking into it, i'm
sure it is quite easy possible by making main Nexenta OS CD to be
GPL-free. All GPL software will be distributed
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is clear tension between this and the mere aggregation clause.
However, given that source code is only required for *contained*
modules, shared libraries or the kernel would seem to be more governed
by the mere
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 17:31 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:45:52AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
If Debian really wans to be system runtime independent, and would like
to have Debian GNU/Solaris port, it should release dpkg as LGPL
software. This should help FreeBSD
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 18:31 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:45:52AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
If Debian really wans to be system runtime independent, and would like
to have Debian GNU/Solaris port, it should release dpkg as LGPL
software. This should help FreeBSD
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My reading of the interface definition files clause is that it only
applies to those associated with the modules contained in the
executable. That is, it means header files as well as implementation
files (plus Makefile-equivalents, through the build
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let me enlighten you in regards of CDDL benefits. The great thing about
CDDL is that it is file based. So, all files which are licensed under
CDDL-terms works exactly as GPL does. i.e. any change made by anybody
(including propriatery distributors)
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 11:25:22AM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
To make it happen, we need to resolve dpkg issue and initial boot
strapping process. Which is quite possible to re-write dpkg as CDDL
software. But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise for Debian
community to release dpkg
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please stop mentioning the FreeBSD port as an example of your licensing
problems. There is no license problem with the BSD kernel, and
GNU/kFreeBSD uses dpkg for a long time now.
ok. lets assume Debian and Nexenta communities needs to sort out
At Thu, 3 Nov 2005 02:38:51 -0800 (PST), Nick Jacobs wrote:
You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a significant amount of
work should be done to restore support for a processor that has not
been manufactured for 10 years? While slightly degrading performance
for the 99.9% of x86
Kenneth Pronovici [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Besides that, you haven't even given us very many good reasons why we
should care about your problems. You insist on making it sound like
somehow by not conforming to your needs, we're missing a great
opportunity. I've got news for you: the great
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To make it happen, we need to resolve dpkg issue and initial boot
strapping process. Which is quite possible to re-write dpkg as CDDL
software. But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise for Debian
community to release dpkg under LGPL license. Of
Jaldhar H Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I strongly agree that if the CDDL is non-DFSG free then we should not
make any compromises. If however it or any other otherwise
DFSG-compliant license is merely GPL incompatible then we (or rather
they who hold copyright) ought to consider it.
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is not clear to me that
standard library header files qualify as associated interface
definition files.
Wrong. Library header files that you link against are exactly what it
covers.
Then we will have to disagree on
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 17:31 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Being system-runtime independent is a great goal, but helping free
software is a better one. Releasing dpkg under the LGPL would allow
people to build proprietary software on top of dpkg, and we
Erast writes:
But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise for Debian community to
release dpkg under LGPL license.
That's entirely up to the authors. You are free to contact them.
Of course, if Debian community serious about non-glibc ports.
Again you imply that the BSD license is not
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 18:51 +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
On Thursday 03 November 2005 08.32, Erast Benson wrote:
Matthew:
[...] whether you want to be part of A Debian Release.
Hard to say right now... Lets see how all this thing will progress.
But, *yes* we are willing to
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 -0600, David Moreno Garza wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once
it
stabilizes?
Yes.
Wasn't this already discussed regarding CDDL being not compatible with
DFSGs?
OK. We will change it to Nexenta repository browser. Point taken.
Thanks.
Erast
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 13:34 -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Erast Benson wrote:
There are things like forums, mailing list, blogs,
web-based Debian repository browser, etc. which need
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is not clear to me that
standard library header files qualify as associated interface
definition files.
Wrong. Library header files that you link against are exactly what it
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
World is changed since then, and today we have Nexenta OS. This forces
community to re-think/re-work all these CDDL vs. GPL issues.
You seem to be saying that if a bunch of people are already violating
the GPL, we are forced to do something other than
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:10 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I personally with community help will re-write stripped down CDDL
variant of dpkg. Will Debian community be happy? But this is sort of
duplication of work. I do not think that the goal of
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:10 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I personally with community help will re-write stripped down CDDL
variant of dpkg. Will Debian community be happy? But this is sort of
duplication
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:29 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nexenta community willing to make appropriate changes to the system and
make it absolutely Debian legal OS. And more I'm looking into it, i'm
sure it is quite easy possible by making main
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:01:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I haven't heard anything about the CDDL that would cause me to argue
against inclusion of CDDL-covered software in the archive, for instance.
(It's possible that it isn't DFSG-free in some obscure way -- I haven't
investigated it
Erast Benson writes:
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 -0600, David Moreno Garza wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once
it
stabilizes?
Yes.
Wasn't this already discussed regarding CDDL being not
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 13:55 -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
It really seems like you jumped into this base our system on Debian
thing without really understanding what Debian is about. Consider what
you're asking for. You're asking Debian to make changes to the license
of some of its core
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Existense of problem in Debian project not be able scale very well on
non-glibc ports should be addressed and resolved.
Debian scales fine on non-glibc ports. It doesn't do so well on non-GPL
compatible ports. These are very much not the same thing.
--
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:57 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please stop mentioning the FreeBSD port as an example of your licensing
problems. There is no license problem with the BSD kernel, and
GNU/kFreeBSD uses dpkg for a long time now.
ok.
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:59 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Kenneth Pronovici [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Besides that, you haven't even given us very many good reasons why we
should care about your problems. You insist on making it sound like
somehow by not conforming to your needs,
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:00 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To make it happen, we need to resolve dpkg issue and initial boot
strapping process. Which is quite possible to re-write dpkg as CDDL
software. But to avoid duplication of work, it will be wise
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then we will have to disagree on this point. When the restriction
supposedly kicks in only by virtue of two pieces of software existing
on the same disk[1], and would not apply to separate distribution, I
have to think the
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:03 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 17:31 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Being system-runtime independent is a great goal, but helping free
software is a better one. Releasing dpkg under the LGPL would allow
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:17 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
World is changed since then, and today we have Nexenta OS. This forces
community to re-think/re-work all these CDDL vs. GPL issues.
You seem to be saying that if a bunch of people are
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:18 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:10 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I personally with community help will re-write stripped down CDDL
variant of
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 15:26 -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Erast Benson writes:
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 -0600, David Moreno Garza wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once
it
stabilizes?
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 12:39:25PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:00 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
However, as has already been pointed out to you, Debian has no control
over the people who hold the copyright on dpkg. Knowing several of them
personally, I'd be surprised
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apparently you misunderstood me.
All I'm saying is that Debian community might want to embrace
GNU/Solaris non-glibc port or reject it. To embrace, some core
components, like dpkg, should be dual-licensed CDDL/GPL.
Not every dpkg copyright holder is
1 - 100 of 247 matches
Mail list logo
