Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le dimanche 11 janvier 2009 à 21:25 +0100, Hendrik Weimer a écrit :
>> The only
>> case I am aware of where another distro refuses to distribute a
>> package found in Debian is Fedora's stance on afio. If you know of
>> other cases, I would be interested to learn about
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le dimanche 11 janvier 2009 �Á� 21:25 +0100, Hendrik Weimer a �Á�crit :
>> The only
>> case I am aware of where another distro refuses to distribute a
>> package found in Debian is Fedora's stance on afio. If you know of
>> other cases, I would be interested to learn ab
Le dimanche 11 janvier 2009 à 21:25 +0100, Hendrik Weimer a écrit :
> The only
> case I am aware of where another distro refuses to distribute a
> package found in Debian is Fedora's stance on afio. If you know of
> other cases, I would be interested to learn about them.
There’s also the case of M
MJ Ray writes:
> Hendrik Weimer wrote:
>> It is a fact that Debian more often rejects packages present in other
>> distros than the other way around. Which I believe is a good sign,
>> BTW.
>
> Is that a fact? Where's the evidence? A quick web search didn't find
> a good study, but it might ex
On Sunday 11 January 2009 15:22:25 MJ Ray wrote:
> Hendrik Weimer wrote:
> > It is a fact that Debian more often rejects packages present in other
> > distros than the other way around. Which I believe is a good sign,
> > BTW.
>
> Is that a fact? Where's the evidence? A quick web search didn't f
Hendrik Weimer wrote:
> It is a fact that Debian more often rejects packages present in other
> distros than the other way around. Which I believe is a good sign,
> BTW.
Is that a fact? Where's the evidence? A quick web search didn't find
a good study, but it might exist. I found some evidence
* MJ Ray:
> Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please don't state it as
> fact. I believe that Debian's policy on licensing is generally to try
> to do what we think the software and licence authors intended, but to
> be fairly cautious because we don't have big money or fast lawyers and
* Kern Sibbald:
> Problems of mismatched licenses apparently occur when forming and
> distributing a "mixed" binary program or when mixing different
> licenced source code in the same file and distributing it. As far
> as I know Bacula 2.4.x does not mix source code with different
> licenses in t
(Here goes an email with actual content, since I messed up...)
> > I suggest you Google up "user does the link". [...]
> I suggest you just post the URL(s) you mean. Google results pages are
> highly volatile and vary by browser location: what you saw then may
> not be what I see now.
You don't
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote:
> Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:04:00 +
> From: MJ Ray
> To: k...@sibbald.com
> Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: enabling transport and on storage encryption in bacula on
> debian build
> Resent-Date: Fri, 9 Jan 200
MJ Ray writes:
> Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please don't state it as
> fact. I believe that Debian's policy on licensing is generally to try
> to do what we think the software and licence authors intended, but to
> be fairly cautious because we don't have big money or fast lawyer
Hendrik Weimer wrote:
> [...]. However, Debian's policy on licensing
> usually involves taking the high road rather than doing what you can
> get away with. [...]
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please don't state it as
fact. I believe that Debian's policy on licensing is generally to
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> I suggest you Google up "user does the link". [...]
I suggest you just post the URL(s) you mean. Google results pages are
highly volatile and vary by browser location: what you saw then may
not be what I see now. It also seems unkind to tell upstream
developers to use non
Kern Sibbald writes:
> I personally don't believe that such distribution is a problem --
> after all Debian does distribute pure GPLv2 code and OpenSSL source
> code on the same ISO image.
This should not be a problem anyway as it falls under the "mere
aggregation" clause.
> Problems of mismatc
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> 1. Build it from source yourself (perfectly legal -- only distribution
> violates the GPL license).
>>> Isn't it the FSF's position that "user does the link" violates GPL?
>> No. Please read the GPL.
>
> I suggest you Google u
On Wednesday 07 January 2009 21:59:45 Hendrik Weimer wrote:
> Kern Sibbald writes:
> > 1. Build it from source yourself (perfectly legal -- only distribution
> > violates the GPL license).
>
> The question is whether it is legal to distribute the Bacula sources
> (including parts depending on Open
Kern Sibbald writes:
> 1. Build it from source yourself (perfectly legal -- only distribution
> violates the GPL license).
The question is whether it is legal to distribute the Bacula sources
(including parts depending on OpenSSL) to begin with. These are
uncertain legal grounds to say the leas
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > > > 1. Build it from source yourself (perfectly legal -- only distribution
> > > > violates the GPL license).
> >
> > Isn't it the FSF's position that "user does the link" violates GPL?
>
> No. Please read the GPL.
I suggest you Google up "user does the
On Monday 05 January 2009 23:08:33 Ken Arromdee wrote:
> > > 1. Build it from source yourself (perfectly legal -- only distribution
> > > violates the GPL license).
>
> Isn't it the FSF's position that "user does the link" violates GPL?
No. Please read the GPL.
>
> Of course, even then, that only
> > 1. Build it from source yourself (perfectly legal -- only distribution
> > violates the GPL license).
Isn't it the FSF's position that "user does the link" violates GPL?
Of course, even then, that only applies to distribution--which means that
the user can build it from source himself, but t
Hello everybody,
thanx for all your answer's.
I think Version 3 wont make it into Debian 5.0 Lenny :(
so the only solution for me would be to compile the version by my own on
each needed machine, what is imho unhappy, but if this is the only
solution :(
hopefully the licence's of version 3 are co
* Kern Sibbald [090104 19:21]:
> The current released version (2.4.x) series under an interpretation that
> OpenSSL is not a system library routine, which is Debian's position, means
> that they cannot distribute Bacula with OpenSSL enabled (Bacula
> communications and data encryption).
substitut
Hello,
The current released version (2.4.x) series under an interpretation that
OpenSSL is not a system library routine, which is Debian's position, means
that they cannot distribute Bacula with OpenSSL enabled (Bacula
communications and data encryption).
The source code does exist, but is sim
Thomas Stegbauer wrote:
> hello everybody,
>
> a happy new year to all.
>
> as i figured currently out, bacula on debian is unable to encryption
> the data.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00144.html
>
>
> what can be done this get solved within debian 5.0 lenny?
Please se
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
hello everybody,
a happy new year to all.
as i figured currently out, bacula on debian is unable to encryption
the data.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00144.html
what can be done this get solved within debian 5.0 lenny?
greetin
25 matches
Mail list logo
