Hi,
>
> Assuming that someone versed in Japanese can verify that the above
> license corresponds to a normal 2-clause BSD license, you may indeed
> include the software in Debian main. Debian main requires DFSG-free
> licenses; it does not require English licenses. That said, you might
> consid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>1. The C header files containing the address assignments in the tarball
> are not source code in the GPL sense, ie. 'the preferred form of the
> work for making modifications'. This means that we're technically
> violating the GPL distributing the ipv6calc package i
Hi,
I'm working on a set of packages for Open-XChange and I would like to
know if it's current license made it able to enter non-free.
When I started to work on the package, I thought, that all Open-Xchange
files are covered by GPL but it turned out that the web interface were
copyrighted.
In t
Hello,
On Sat, 20.05.2006 at 16:18:44 -0500, Anthony Towns
wrote:
> three times the usual examination, and was done given the inability to
> examine the license in public),
this sounds _very_ strange to me.
I can see why SUN might want their Java in Debian, but your statements
just fuel consp
Hello,
On Sun, 21.05.2006 at 13:38:57 +0200, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know how much Sun decision-makers are worried that a move
> against Debian could be bad PR...
additionally, it harms *Debian's* PR a great deal if it turns out that
Debian needs to pull the package.
Hello,
I have created a package [0] for PyGaim. Their SourceForge project page
says that PyGaim is distributed under the GPL. There is no mention of
this, however, in the source release.
The _only_ place I have seen licensing terms mentioned is under "Project
Details" on the SourceForge page
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 07:37:21PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > I really hope we can solve the issues in a graceful manner.
>
> ...and fast, too. This is urgent while that the package is in the
> archive with the broken license. I think we should set a strict
> deadline for pulling it, if not im
Balint Reczey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So please comment it wether the CC license + disclaimer allows the
> inclusion of the open-xchange package in the official Debian packages
> in the non-free section.
The disclaimer, by itself, is not a problem for non-free. It does not
create any problem
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 07:37:21PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > Unfortunately many many people out there are not very interested in
> > dissecting licenses and in telling "real" and "fake" free software
> > apart. Even less in examining potential issues with non-free packages.
> Debian would beco
9 matches
Mail list logo
