Bug#362652: Apache license 1.1 for non-Apache software

2006-04-28 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:57:38 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 03:33:27 +0200 Gregory Colpart wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 12:42:36AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > > > Could you confirm me that my package will be DFSG-compliant ? > > > > > > > > Not entirely, but it

Bug#362652: Apache license 1.1 for non-Apache software

2006-04-28 Thread Francesco Poli
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 03:33:27 +0200 Gregory Colpart wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 12:42:36AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > > Could you confirm me that my package will be DFSG-compliant ? > > > > > > Not entirely, but it looks like it probably will be. > > > > I don't agree. > > The licens

Bug#362652: Apache license 1.1 for non-Apache software

2006-04-27 Thread Gregory Colpart
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 12:42:36AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > Could you confirm me that my package will be DFSG-compliant ? > > > > Not entirely, but it looks like it probably will be. > > I don't agree. > The license under analysis is fully quoted below (for future reference). > I do *no

Bug#362652: Apache license 1.1 for non-Apache software

2006-04-20 Thread Francesco Poli
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:14:30 +0100 MJ Ray wrote: > Gregory Colpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I want to package Forwards (see my ITP [1]), a non-Apache > > software under Apache License 1.1 [2]). > > [2] is not the Apache License 1.1, but is Apache-1.1-like. > I think your ITP License line is incorr

Bug#362652: Apache license 1.1 for non-Apache software

2006-04-19 Thread MJ Ray
Gregory Colpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I want to package Forwards (see my ITP [1]), a non-Apache > software under Apache License 1.1 [2]). [2] is not the Apache License 1.1, but is Apache-1.1-like. I think your ITP License line is incorrect. > I read debian-legal archives to have information about