Robert Millan schreef:
On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 12:28:03AM +1030, Karl Goetz wrote:
http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00323
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=559444
I think they might have a point here.
I'd say we run it by licensing@ to get a third opinion, but they've been
rather unresponsive lately. Maybe Debian folk do have a point. It could
be that the "real" source code was just a one off thing that was deleted
after this file was generated, which would make this (being the next
best thing) the preferred source. It looks like linux-libre doesn't
remove it. We could present this case to Alexandre and/or
gnu-linux-libre to get some more opinions. We should work more closely
with them on this kind of stuff anyway.
http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00351 partly fixed upstream, forwarded
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=559443
Files without explicit copyright notice aren't necessarily unlicensed. It
is generally understood that the global license notice applies to them.
It's good practice to put a license notice in each file though.
A question was once posed to rms about files without copyright in Linux
[1]. The email is missing some context, but he seemed to suggest that no
license notice = non-free. We should have taken the effort to clarify it
at the time.
http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00354 not sure if debian would consider this a
bug.
They wouldn't. Actually I'm not even sure it's a bug myself. The person
running the non-free software that could connect to this isn't necessarily
the same who runs the server. In fact, they might not even know each other.
If there are no known free clients that can connect to it then I think
it is indeed similar to ndiswrapper and thus a valid bug.
[1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnewsense-users/2008-12/msg00015.html
_______________________________________________
gNewSense-dev mailing list
gNewSense-dev@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-dev