Re: sybase license and openWatcom DFSGness

* Guus Sliepen , 2016-08-01, 14:01: Virtualbox is under GPL-2 with a lot of exception, allowing it to be used with MPL, Apache 2.0, OpenSSL. So, LGPL-3 will be too restrictive I think for them. It should be fine to combine GPL-2 and LGPL-3. No, GPLv2 and LGPLv3 are not

Re: sybase license and openWatcom DFSGness

On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 11:24:46AM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > SeaBIOS license is not used by VirtualBox, I was just mentioning it because it is a BIOS and it is compiled by GCC, so it was an argument that OpenWatcom is not a requirement to build working BIOS code. > and I think a

Re: sybase license and openWatcom DFSGness

Hi, >Maybe I don't quite understand what VirtualBox upstream meant by this >sentence, but if the SeaBIOS license does not allow modification, >then it would not be DFSG-free, so the fact that VirtualBox is in >contrib would actually be an error, because it should rather be in >non-free. And that

Re: sybase license and openWatcom DFSGness

On 08/01/2016 12:56 PM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > We are not allowed to touch SeaBIOS for licence reasons. Not our decision. Maybe I don't quite understand what VirtualBox upstream meant by this sentence, but if the SeaBIOS license does not allow modification, then it would not be

Re: Re: sybase license and openWatcom DFSGness

Hi Guus >I don't see that anything has changed in the past ten years, so I don't >think a clarification will do any good. Why does VirtualBox keep relying >on the OpenWatcom provider? There's bcc and faucc. QEMU's SeaBIOS is >compiled with GCC (but looking at the source, all the 16-bit code is in

Re: sybase license and openWatcom DFSGness

On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 12:24:12PM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote: > Why does VirtualBox keep relying on the OpenWatcom provider? There's bcc > and faucc. AFAIK, VirtualBox upstream decided to use non-standard OpenWatcom extensions. > QEMU's SeaBIOS is compiled with GCC (but looking at the source,

Re: Re: sybase license and openWatcom DFSGness

(I'll drop -devel starting from next email, following up on debian-legal isntead) >If you agree, I think it's better to ask the question instead at >‘debian-legal’. Hi Debian-Legal list :) forwarding the discussion from -devel here Basically, we thought OpenWatcom license wasn't DFSG for

Re: Re: sybase license and openWatcom DFSGness

Hi Paul >I didn't see a question in your mail :) would a clear statement from them satisfy Debian standards? or should them relicense? >Is there any reason they can't relicense to something more standard? Not sure, big company, legal issues, difficult to track people for changing it, I don't

Re: sybase license and openWatcom DFSGness

On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 09:44:33AM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > Hi, this is a question mainly for ftpmasters, but I think some public > discussion here > might be beneficial for me :) > > Basically, we thought OpenWatcom license wasn't DFSG for Debain standards, > and now since > I

Re: sybase license and openWatcom DFSGness

Gianfranco Costamagna writes: > Hi, this is a question mainly for ftpmasters, but I think some public > discussion here might be beneficial for me :) IMO this is what the ‘debian-legal’ discussion group is for: to save the many people who read ‘debian-devel’ but don't

Re: sybase license and openWatcom DFSGness

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > Hi, this is a question mainly for ftpmasters, but I think some public > discussion here > might be beneficial for me :) I didn't see a question in your mail :) > Basically, we thought OpenWatcom license wasn't DFSG for Debain

sybase license and openWatcom DFSGness

Hi, this is a question mainly for ftpmasters, but I think some public discussion here might be beneficial for me :) Basically, we thought OpenWatcom license wasn't DFSG for Debain standards, and now since I would like to put Virtualbox back in main, I'm trying to see if some statement