On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 07:48:49PM +0100, Sam Geeraerts wrote: > Robert Millan schreef: >> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 07:04:43PM +0000, Marco Oliva wrote: >>> http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00365 >> >> His newest copyright assertion dates from 1998. His mail is from 2002. >> The license in headers needs updating with a quote from Mark's email. >> Just reopen the bug in Debian so they update the file and clarify this. >> >> Even without the clarification, I believe debian/copyright (which is what >> we point users to for licensing information) has the right license (please >> check). > > The Debian bug report was about the glut package, and its > debian/copyright file was updated with the "Yes, that's fine" statement. > Our bug report is about the mesa package, which at first glance seems to > contain much of the same code. However, its debian/copyright doesn't > contain the statement. It just says "Mark's license" for the GLUT part. > > Anyway, I've sent an email to licens...@fsf.org about it.
Oh, I missunderstood. Then I guess someone should file a bug in Debian? Please don't get the impression that Debian ignores all licensing-related bug reports, it depends on a lot of factors whether they're ignored or not. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." _______________________________________________ gNewSense-dev mailing list gNewSense-dev@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-dev
