use most of my packages myself, and I don't think it was a
> mistake to package them. The reason to package it was that I think they
> are important to the community, and I feel competent enough to support
> them.
>
> Cheers
>
> Ole
It could be argued that Bitkeeper is only
On 12.05.2016 03:07, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-05-11 at 13:55 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Daniel Stender writes:
>>>
>>> Distributed source control management/revision control system. Known as
>>> being used for the Linux kernel development before Git was created. The
>>> now have put
On Wed, 2016-05-11 at 13:55 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Daniel Stender writes:
>
> >
> > Distributed source control management/revision control system. Known as
> > being used for the Linux kernel development before Git was created. The
> > now have put the code under the Apache-2.0 license. M
Jakub Wilk writes:
> I strongly recommend against packaging software you don't personally
> use. This never goes well. (I say this as someone who did this mistake
> in the past, multiple times.)
I don't use most of my packages myself, and I don't think it was a
mistake to package them. The reason
do no harm to have it as a Debian
package.
This sounds as if you're not a Bitkeeper user yourself. I strongly
recommend against packaging software you don't personally use. This
never goes well. (I say this as someone who did this mistake in the
past, multiple times.)
--
Jakub Wilk
On 11.05.2016 22:55, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Daniel Stender writes:
>
>> Distributed source control management/revision control system. Known as
>> being used for the Linux kernel development before Git was created. The
>> now have put the code under the Apache-2.0 license. Maybe some would
>> lik
http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/05/10/5 <-- link to
that discussion!
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Daniel Stender writes:
>
>> Distributed source control management/revision control system. Known as
>> being used for the Linux kernel development before Gi
Daniel Stender writes:
> Distributed source control management/revision control system. Known as
> being used for the Linux kernel development before Git was created. The
> now have put the code under the Apache-2.0 license. Maybe some would
> like to use this, so it would do no harm to have it
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Daniel Stender
* Package name: bitkeeper
Version : 7.2ce
Upstream Author : Wayne Scott
* URL : https://www.bitkeeper.org/
* License : Apache-2.0
Programming Lang: C
Description : source code management system
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 01:13:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> OK, perhaps the relicensing rule is not non-free; I'm less sure of
>> that.
>
> I don't think it's obvious from a casual reading of the DFSG that such a
> requirement is non-free
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 01:13:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> OK, perhaps the relicensing rule is not non-free; I'm less sure of
> that.
I don't think it's obvious from a casual reading of the DFSG that such a
requirement is non-free, but perhaps it should be.
--
G. Branden Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> OK, perhaps the relicensing rule is not non-free; I'm less sure of
> that. But the outright prohibition of certain modifications certainly
> kills it.
I only talked about the relicensing issues. I'm sorry it wasn't clear
by my quoting (I can see
Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>
> > Bitkeeper is (as you note) not free. Not only the usage restrictions
> > are a problem, but also the requirement that changes you make may be
> > distributed
> "Peter" == Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> There is nothing in the DFSG saying the a licens can't
Peter> require you to give the original autor all rights to you
Peter> changes. So that single part of the license I refered to
Peter> does not makes it even more
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 02:52:01AM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> (crossposted to debian-legal for input on the license; please direct
> followups to -devel or -legal as appropriate)
>
> Has anyone looked into packaging BitKeeper (www.bitkeeper.com)?
We have a package here which w
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please elaborate.
There is nothing in the DFSG saying the a licens can't require you to
give the original autor all rights to you changes. So that single
part of the license I refered to does not makes it even more or even
less non-free.
--
Når folk
Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> > Bitkeeper is (as you note) not free. Not only the usage restrictions
> > are a problem, but also the requirement that changes you make may be
> > distributed by BitOwner "under any license".
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Bitkeeper is (as you note) not free. Not only the usage restrictions
> are a problem, but also the requirement that changes you make may be
> distributed by BitOwner "under any license".
Thats not non-free in any way. The Fre
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Has anyone looked into packaging BitKeeper (www.bitkeeper.com)? The
> license[0] is obviously non-free due to usage restrictions, but people seem
> to like it, and some of the licensing restrictions are arguably in defense
> of othe
(crossposted to debian-legal for input on the license; please direct
followups to -devel or -legal as appropriate)
Has anyone looked into packaging BitKeeper (www.bitkeeper.com)? The
license[0] is obviously non-free due to usage restrictions, but people seem
to like it, and some of the licensing
20 matches
Mail list logo
