On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:07:33 +0200 Arne Wichmann wrote: > begin quotation from Francesco Poli (in > <20120625215725.69523c3a3df0a27f62672...@paranoici.org>): > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:36:50 +0200 Arne Wichmann wrote: > > > > > So, at least as far as I can see, there are a number of things to be done > > > in various time frames: > > > - Alert enough people to the problem (via debian-user, messages in the > > > packaging, other mailing lists and similar means) > > > > I am not sure debian-user is the appropriate place for such a call for > > help... > > Well, if you are trying to reach your users, this seems to be a possible > vector to me
I am trying to reach people who may be able *and* willing to help me in persuading an upstream company to re-license a library under GPL-compatible terms. Many users are, unfortunately, totally uninterested in licensing issues. I am afraid that such a call for help would be ignored (or even considered annoying) on debian-user... > > > What do you mean by "messages in the packaging"? > > At least I get mails by apt-listchanges... Other tactics may also be > available - but I am not the epigon of debian packaging. You mean that netgen and other affected packages should mail to root@localhost saying "please help to keep this package in Debian..." ?!? I am afraid that this would annoy users and would therefore be counterproductive. > > > As far as other mailing lists are concerned, I tried to see if other > > debian-legal participants could join me in this persuasion effort, but > > I unfortunately received no reply: > > I do not think that debian-legal is a good starting point for a massive > campaign. As I said above, I need people with at least a bit of interest in licensing issues: debian-legal seemed to be the ideal starting point. Please note that I am a debian-legal regular myself... > > > Maybe debian-science could be another appropriate mailing list, but I > > suspect that a good number of its participants are already aware of the > > issue, due to the various bug reports filed against packages maintained > > by the Debian Science team: #617613, #617931, and #618968 (that is to > > say, this one). > > A mail there might still help a bit. I am writing a message to debian-science and debian-legal right now. Let's hope to obtain some help this time... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgp1ZmkhMAYhJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature