for what it's worth, http://dotlocal.org/mdnsd/ appears to be a
GPL/BSD dual licensed implementation of multicast dns... not sure how
elegant the code is, but it's at least a start. Hasn't been updated
in about 2 years though, so there may not be any upstream at this
point.
-Joe
--
To UNSUBSC
clone 289856 -1 -2 -3
reassign -1 daapd
retitle -1 Build-depends on libhowl-dev, which will become non-free or removed
reassign -2 gnome-vfs2
retitle -2 Build-depends on libhowl-dev, which will become non-free or removed
reassign -3 supercollider
retitle -3 Build-depends on libhowl-dev, which will
Hi sorry if i missed th point or came too late.
There are not much zeroconf implementations. Only two aims at
being free. The only alternative is :
http://www.freedesktop.org/Software/Avahi
The project is stalled for monthes.
http://groups.google.fr/groups?q=howl+apple+code&hl=fr&lr=&selm=cm02q7%2
> There are not much zeroconf implementations. Only two aims at
> being free. The only alternative is :
> http://www.freedesktop.org/Software/Avahi
> The project is stalled for monthes.
I am in regular contact with the developer, and tracking its progress.
> Also what s wrong with howl implemen
> Above and beyond the issue of distributing code without proper license
> notices, the APSL 2.0 is not, in the opinion of many (and AFAICT,
> according to the consensus of the debian-legal mailing list), a free
> license under the DFSG.
Hi, my apologies for the late response.
After the origina
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Fri, Jan 21, 2005:
> I don't really think it's acceptable to move half of gnome into contrib.
> Fortunately, if the package dependencies of libhowl0 are accurate, this
> shouldn't be required; mdnsresponder isn't a dependency of libhowl0, only a
> recommends: w
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 09:58:21AM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Fri, Jan 21, 2005:
> > Do you suggest removing from the archive all packages whose licenses
> > impose uncommon restrictions or just this one?
> In this software the problem is two folds, some parts
Marco wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > [...] the APSL 2.0 is not, in the opinion of many (and AFAICT, according
> >to the consensus of the debian-legal mailing list), a free license under the
> Where "many" in this context should be read as "an handful of people on
> the debian-legal mailing l
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Fri, Jan 21, 2005:
> Do you suggest removing from the archive all packages whose licenses
> impose uncommon restrictions or just this one?
In this software the problem is two folds, some parts of the software
are clearly free, and some other parts are a fork o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Above and beyond the issue of distributing code without proper license
>notices, the APSL 2.0 is not, in the opinion of many (and AFAICT, according
>to the consensus of the debian-legal mailing list), a free license under the
Where "many" in this context should be read as
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - The copyright license is terminated if you attempt to defend your patent
> rights against Apple.
It should be emphasised that this is the case if you defend /any/ patent
rights against Apple. It's not limited to software patents, and it's not
limite
Jeff,
Above and beyond the issue of distributing code without proper license
notices, the APSL 2.0 is not, in the opinion of many (and AFAICT, according
to the consensus of the debian-legal mailing list), a free license under the
DFSG. Although there's been extensive discussion about *which* poin
Package: mdnsresponder
Version: 0.9.8-2
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 12.5
*** Please type your report below this line ***
copyright file installed along with mdnsresponder contains standard BSD
license. Hovewer:
1) COPYING file from original source states that portions of code are cove
13 matches
Mail list logo
