Bug#445021: Bug#445020: edict & kanjidic: License discrepancy between the Debian package and upstream, upstream's license being non-free

2007-11-29 Thread Kobayashi Noritada
Hi Florian, > first of all, many thanks to Noritada-san and Kinoshita-san for > bugreport and analysis. > > Just for the record, currently I'm drafting a letter to upstream. I'm > going to ask for a retroactive license change/upgrade to CC by-sa 3.0, > so that this problem can hopefully be resolv

Bug#445020: edict & kanjidic: License discrepancy between the Debian package and upstream, upstream's license being non-free

2007-11-26 Thread Florian Ernst
Hi there, first of all, many thanks to Noritada-san and Kinoshita-san for bugreport and analysis. Just for the record, currently I'm drafting a letter to upstream. I'm going to ask for a retroactive license change/upgrade to CC by-sa 3.0, so that this problem can hopefully be resolved for Etch as

Bug#445020: edict & kanjidic: License discrepancy between the Debian package and upstream, upstream's license being non-free

2007-10-09 Thread Kobayashi Noritada
Hi, From: Tatsuya Kinoshita Subject: Re: Bug#445020: edict & kanjidic: License discrepancy between the Debian package and upstream, upstream's license being non-free Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 08:20:15 +0900 (JST) > On October 3, 2007 at 3:16AM +0900, > nori1 (at dolphin.c.u-tok

Bug#445020: edict & kanjidic: License discrepancy between the Debian package and upstream, upstream's license being non-free

2007-10-05 Thread Tatsuya Kinoshita
On October 3, 2007 at 3:16AM +0900, nori1 (at dolphin.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp) wrote: > Package: edict > Version: 2006.10.09-1 > Severity: serious > Justification: Policy 2.2.1 [...] > Current license for edict and kanjidic seems to be CC by-sa 2.5, which > is different from a custom license described in

Bug#445020: edict & kanjidic: License discrepancy between the Debian package and upstream, upstream's license being non-free

2007-10-03 Thread Tatsuya Kinoshita
On October 3, 2007 at 3:16AM +0900, nori1 (at dolphin.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp) wrote: > * The online license page only says that the license for distribution > is CC by-sa and does not specify its version. However, the license > deed and full license code linked from that page is ones of CC by-sa >

Bug#445020: edict & kanjidic: License discrepancy between the Debian package and upstream, upstream's license being non-free

2007-10-02 Thread Kobayashi Noritada
Package: edict Version: 2006.10.09-1 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.2.1 Hi, Current license for edict and kanjidic seems to be CC by-sa 2.5, which is different from a custom license described in debian/copyright and is not DFSG-free. IMHO the best solution for this situation is propo

Bug#445020: edict & kanjidic: License discrepancy between the Debian package and upstream, upstream's license being non-free

2007-10-02 Thread Florian Ernst
tags 445020 confirmed clone 445020 -1 reassign -1 kanjidic thanks On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 03:16:44AM +0900, Kobayashi Noritada wrote: > >From these facts, I guess that the upstream changed the license from > the custom one to CC by-sa 2.5 without notice. It is obvious from > web.archive.org[2] th

Processed: Re: Bug#445020: edict & kanjidic: License discrepancy between the Debian package and upstream, upstream's license being non-free

2007-10-02 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tags 445020 confirmed Bug#445020: edict & kanjidic: License discrepancy between the Debian package and upstream, upstream's license being non-free There were no tags set. Tags added: confirmed > clone 445020 -1 Bug#445020: edict &