On 22.11.2009 19:49, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Matthias Klose:
On 21.11.2009 06:20, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Steve Langasek:
It's been suggested to me that it might help Debian move forward on this
issue if I provide some background on why Canonical has chosen to not regard
this issue
On 16.08.2009 10:50, Luk Claes wrote:
Matthias Klose wrote:
On 29.04.2009 04:49, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Florian Weimer:
I've asked the FSF for a clarification (the second time, the first
clarification resulted in the Java bytecode exception). Until we know
for sure how to interpret
On 29.04.2009 04:49, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Florian Weimer:
I've asked the FSF for a clarification (the second time, the first
clarification resulted in the Java bytecode exception). Until we know
for sure how to interpret the exception, it's probably best not to
make GCC 4.4 the default
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi schrieb:
[I posted this on debian-gcc before. I have not gotten any reply there. So I
am trying my luck here]
Currently the default gfortran in Debian Sid points to 4:4.3.3-9 . The
gfortran-4.4 is already available, quite stable. Is there any reason why
gfortran 4.4
The bug submitter of #516997 apparently did ask for help on debian-legal before
submitting this report, but didn't give any feedback on the upstream response.
Please could the people involved with this followup on this report?
thanks, Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
severity 498857 important
severity 498477 important
thanks
I don't know the real implication on the license
if you're unsure then don't make it RC in the first place
reopen 498857
reopen 498477
thanks
OoO En cette nuit nuageuse du vendredi 19 septembre 2008, vers 00:53,
Thomas
Package: libstdc++6-4.0-doc (required; Debian GCC Maintainers et al.)
[gcc-4.0/4.0.2-9 ; 4.0.2-10] [add/edit comment]
321780 [ ] [NONFREE-DOC:GFDL1.1] contains non-free documentation
These bugs were reconfirmed as RC by the recent GR. Matthias Klose
has said he's working on them
[debian-legal, how do other packages handle the md5 stuff?]
Joe Wreschnig writes:
Package: python
Severity: serious
The license for the Python profiler[0] does not allow it to be copied or
modified independently of other Python programs. This is a violation of
DFSG #3 (and also is just
Josh Triplett writes:
I asked to clarify the paragraph, the current text now has append and
the terms of the LGPL.
The Proprietary Source Software, which is delivered in object code
format only, such as the .o files, shall in no event be
disassembled, reverse engineered, decompiled or
Josh Triplett writes:
Matthias Klose wrote:
CC'ing debian-legal, please could you have a look at the license?
The question being is this acceptable to go into non-free?
exactly.
[...]
Up to this point, the license seems acceptable for non-free; it seems to
permit redistribution
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
CC'ing debian-legal, please could you have a look at the license?
* Package name: drdsl
Version : 1.0.3
Upstream Author : AVM
* URL : http://www.avm.de/
* License : non-free, see below
Description: DSL Assistant for AVM
Brian M. Carlson writes:
Package: libgcc1
Version: 1:4.0-0pre0
Severity: serious
The copyright file includes a copy of the GNU Free Documentation
License, which has been judged by debian-legal to be non-free. Please
remove the non-free material from the package or move the package to
Henning Makholm writes:
Scripsit Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gpl(7): that can be replaced with a reference to
/usr/share/misc/common-licenses
gfdl(7): that's included (as text, rather than a tagged manpage) in
/usr/share/cpp-3.3/copyright already, and is therefore redundant
Andrew Suffield writes:
Package: cpp
Severity: serious
The manpages fsf-funding(7), gpl(7), and gfdl(7) are included in the
cpp package. These are clearly non-free (non-modifiable).
this doesn't make sense. you are not allowed to change a copyright,
even for software distributed in main.
Yannick Jestin writes:
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 10:48:21AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
It lloks like the blackdown JDK has to be removed (according to the
weekly bug summary). As an alternative I would like to package an
installer for the ibm-jdk1.1 machine.
Why not include
Jim Pick writes:
Torsten Landschoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 07:16:08PM +0200, Bart Schuller wrote:
Before you do that, I seem to remember that the license for ILU had been
cleared up a couple of months ago. Looking at
16 matches
Mail list logo
