Bug#728716: RFS: xchroot/2.3.2-9 [ITP] -- Hi Debian!

On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 05:19:31PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > The GNU GPL is the appropriate license here, please use it instead of > contributing to license proliferation, as recommended by Debian's > guide for upstreams: As someone who has written Free Software for nearly 20 years, I completely ag

Bug#728716: RFS: xchroot/2.3.2-9 [ITP] -- Hi Debian!

On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Elmar Stellnberger wrote: >Do you know a license somehow similar in spirit than mine which I could > use? > It would be nice to have something that oblidges 'closed distributions' to > publish > at least their sources as required by some software in RHEL which i

Bug#728716: RFS: xchroot/2.3.2-9 [ITP] -- Hi Debian!

Dear Gergely Nagy, Dear members of Debian-legal Do you know a license somehow similar in spirit than mine which I could use? It would be nice to have something that oblidges 'closed distributions' to publish at least their sources as required by some software in RHEL which is what puts the

Bug#728716: RFS: xchroot/2.3.2-9 [ITP] -- Hi Debian!

Elmar Stellnberger writes: > S-FSL v1.3.3 uploaded at http://www.elstel.org/license/ > > Having clearly considered your critics I have published a reworked > edition > of S-FSL which should more strictly adhere to the terms of OSS-software. > As you can understand and as I have already partial

Bug#728716: RFS: xchroot/2.3.2-9 [ITP] -- Hi Debian!

On Nov 4, 2013, at 4:16 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > I'm going to copy this (and bounce the last mail here) to debian-legal. > > Again, I'd like to stress how much I really dislike the idea of another > license written for fun. +1. > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 10:13:33PM +0100, Elmar Stellnbe

Bug#728716: RFS: xchroot/2.3.2-9 [ITP] -- Hi Debian!

I'm going to copy this (and bounce the last mail here) to debian-legal. Again, I'd like to stress how much I really dislike the idea of another license written for fun. Thanks for your work, Paul On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 10:13:33PM +0100, Elmar Stellnberger wrote: > > S-FSL v1.3.3 uploaded at

Bug#728716: RFS: xchroot/2.3.2-9 [ITP] -- Hi Debian!

S-FSL v1.3.3 uploaded at http://www.elstel.org/license/ Having clearly considered your critics I have published a reworked edition of S-FSL which should more strictly adhere to the terms of OSS-software. As you can understand and as I have already partially described there are still issues t

Bug#728716: RFS: xchroot/2.3.2-9 [ITP] -- Hi Debian!

Elmar Stellnberger writes: > Am 04.11.13 18:43, schrieb Paul Tagliamonte: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Paul Tagliamonte >> mailto:paul...@debian.org>> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 06:22:15PM +0100, Elmar Stellnberger wrote: >> > Is it really a problem? If yes then

Bug#728716: RFS: xchroot/2.3.2-9 [ITP] -- Hi Debian!

Am 04.11.13 18:43, schrieb Paul Tagliamonte: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Paul Tagliamonte > wrote: On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 06:22:15PM +0100, Elmar Stellnberger wrote: > Is it really a problem? If yes then I can add an exception for > distributors l

Bug#728716: RFS: xchroot/2.3.2-9 [ITP] -- Hi Debian!

Am 04.11.13 18:43, schrieb Paul Tagliamonte: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Paul Tagliamonte > wrote: On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 06:22:15PM +0100, Elmar Stellnberger wrote: > Is it really a problem? If yes then I can add an exception for > distributors l

Bug#728716: RFS: xchroot/2.3.2-9 [ITP] -- Hi Debian!

Am 04.11.13 17:56, schrieb Paul Tagliamonte: Control: tag -1 moreinfo On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 05:31:40PM +0100, Elmar Stellnberger wrote: The xchroot S-FSL v1.3.1 license would need some legal review. It was especially designed for distributions available free of charge like Debian

Bug#728716: RFS: xchroot/2.3.2-9 [ITP] -- Hi Debian!

On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 06:22:15PM +0100, Elmar Stellnberger wrote: > > Is it really a problem? If yes then I can add an exception for > > distributors like Debian. > > Perhaps you're interesting in reading our guidelines: > > http://www

Bug#728716: RFS: xchroot/2.3.2-9 [ITP] -- Hi Debian!

On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 06:22:15PM +0100, Elmar Stellnberger wrote: > Is it really a problem? If yes then I can add an exception for > distributors like Debian. Perhaps you're interesting in reading our guidelines: http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines point 8 is "License Must Not B

Bug#728716: RFS: xchroot/2.3.2-9 [ITP] -- Hi Debian!

Control: tag -1 moreinfo On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 05:31:40PM +0100, Elmar Stellnberger wrote: > The xchroot S-FSL v1.3.1 license would need some legal review. It was > especially designed for > distributions available free of charge like Debian. The license has been > revised thouroughl

Bug#728716: RFS: xchroot/2.3.2-9 [ITP] -- Hi Debian!

Package: sponsorship-requests Subject: RFS: xchroot/2.3.2-9 [ITP] -- Hi Debian! Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "xchroot": * Package name: xchroot Version : 2.3.2-9 Upstream Author : Elmar Stellnberger * URL : https:/