sn't a problem; that it would be nice to move it out of the license
(wishlist), or to note redundantly on their webpage that this is a request
(also wishlist), but this is unambiguously a non-binding request already;
it uses the very word "request". Why are you opening bugs?
--
Package: libsysfs-dev
Version: 1.3.0-5
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 9.1.1
libsysfs.a is in /lib; static libraries belong in /usr/lib, as they're
not needed to boot the system.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architectur
the code/text being rewritten don't agree with
those reasons, d-legal isn't the place to dispute them.
(Of course, one or the other does need to be done, both in unstable and
in existing stable releases--either credit the author, or stop using it;
nobody is claiming that doing nothing
he material in unstable and future releases seems perfectly reasonable
(or, for faster response, adding attributions to both, and then removing the
material as it's rewritten), as far as I can see. Unless someone has
something new to add, I'm dropping this.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hat. I do know that I see Joey
being reasonable, apologizing, and offering to help fix the problem,
so I have zero tolerance for Karsten's demanding, who-do-you-think-
you-are, you-can't-remove-my-work, fix-it-my-way-or-else, I'm-going-
over-your-head attitude.
--
Glenn Mayn
er 2 years,
> and so we're the bad guys" is unclear here?
Debian has offered to correct it, in a perfectly acceptable and legitimate
manner. In my viewpoint, (a) is not wrong in any ethical or moral way
(legally, I don't know and would prefer not to guess); coercing Debian
k, how can we
> fix this", not "Stop complaining, it's against our policy to attribute
> people so we'll remove your material instead".
I don't see (c) happening; if it is, then Karsten's complaint was
unclear (which shouldn't be surprising, give
cited are reasons why *you* don't want your work
excised, not reasons why it is unacceptable for Debian to do so. I
don't know how you can confuse the two.
The fact that you're trying to coerce a maintainer to include a work
instead of attempting to address his reasons for doing
free to be in Debian. This is not a matter of
controversy, or even significant disagreement; SC2004-003 made this
explicitly clear. Please remove these non-free documents; the grace
period allowed by SC2004-004 expired with the release of sarge.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t
all in the tarball itself, which at the very least isn't a good sign of
the upstream author's licensing diligence.
(Sorry for not spending the time to review #248853 in full, but the derisive,
knee-jerk dismissal of legal issues at its start--a year ago, to be fair--puts
me in lit
10 matches
Mail list logo
