On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:13:25PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 13:01, Ondrej Sury wrote:
> > OK, it's very much annoying (since the tarball is huge and the updated
> > module won't hit PHP 5.5), but I will comply.
>
> This seems like a paper exercise which I doubt is worth
On Mon, May 13, 2013 15:31, Walter Landry wrote:
> "Thijs Kinkhorst" wrote:
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 13:01, Ondrej Sury wrote:
>>> OK, it's very much annoying (since the tarball is huge and the updated
>>> module won't hit PHP 5.5), but I will comply.
>>
>> This seems like a paper exercise which I
"Thijs Kinkhorst" wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 13:01, Ondrej Sury wrote:
>> OK, it's very much annoying (since the tarball is huge and the updated
>> module won't hit PHP 5.5), but I will comply.
>
> This seems like a paper exercise which I doubt is worth our efforts.
>
> I seems extremely unli
On Mon, May 13, 2013 13:01, Ondrej Sury wrote:
> OK, it's very much annoying (since the tarball is huge and the updated
> module won't hit PHP 5.5), but I will comply.
This seems like a paper exercise which I doubt is worth our efforts.
I seems extremely unlikely that the author of the software c
OK, it's very much annoying (since the tarball is huge and the updated
module won't hit PHP 5.5), but I will comply.
O.
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>
>> But my point is that it's not illegal to distribute those source f
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> But my point is that it's not illegal to distribute those source files
> per se, it's just not permitted to use the "software" for Evil.
Right. The non-free part of the archive is for such software. Debian
main consists only of free software (
But my point is that it's not illegal to distribute those source files
per se, it's just not permitted to use the "software" for Evil.
And since we will not be using those source files, it seems to be ok
to distribute them as part of upstream tarball. But IANAL...
Ondrej
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> Would it be OK to distribute those source files ("no-evil") and not
> use them to compile the extension?
Source packages are part of main too and thus should not contain non-free stuff.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To U
Hey,
just to clarify.
Would it be OK to distribute those source files ("no-evil") and not
use them to compile the extension?
Remi from Fedora has prepared patch on top of json-c, which will
replace this extension, so I will patch those files away. I just want
to avoid the dfsg-repacking if possi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Ondřej,
On 11/16/2012 10:12 AM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> please, keep the trolling out of this list. Your comment was
> neither constructive nor helpful.
maybe I was reading to much threads of communication between Stefan
Esser and php-internals, sorr
On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 19:32 +0100, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> I think the best course of action is to contact debian-release team
> and ask for an exception (e.g. in Cc:).
>
> Unless we get upstream to change the license (which is unlikely), it's
> too late in release cycle for any radical change (like
Jan,
please, keep the trolling out of this list. Your comment was neither
constructive nor helpful.
Ondřej Surý
On 16. 11. 2012, at 9:45, Jan Wagner wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/15/2012 07:00 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> They seem to think it's a self-mad
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/15/2012 07:00 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> They seem to think it's a self-made, Debian-only problem.
Isn't it a common attitude of this upstream team to get other people
responsible for issues?
Just my 2 cents, Jan.
- --
Never write mail to , yo
I think the best course of action is to contact debian-release team
and ask for an exception (e.g. in Cc:).
Unless we get upstream to change the license (which is unlikely), it's
too late in release cycle for any radical change (like stripping the
json out completely).
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:0
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
>
> Since Fedora doesn't consider the json license as "good" [1], it seems
> we are not the only ones having this problem.
>
> Have you checked what other distros are doing about that, especially
> Fedora?
>
Fedora says it's bad, but they sti
On 15.11.2012 18:51, Michael Biebl wrote:
>
> Since Fedora doesn't consider the json license as "good" [1], it seems
> we are not the only ones having this problem.
>
> Have you checked what other distros are doing about that, especially Fedora?
>
>
> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensin
Since Fedora doesn't consider the json license as "good" [1], it seems
we are not the only ones having this problem.
Have you checked what other distros are doing about that, especially Fedora?
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing
--
Why is it that all of the instrume
Package: src:php5
Version: 5.4.4-7
Severity: serious
The upstream tarball for php5 contains files under the non-free JSON
license:
% rgrep 'The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.' .
./README.REDIST.BINS:The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
./ext/json/utf8_to_utf16.c:The Software
18 matches
Mail list logo
