Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org 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
Hendrik Weimer hend...@enyo.de 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
On Sunday 11 January 2009 15:22:25 MJ Ray wrote:
Hendrik Weimer hend...@enyo.de 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
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes:
Hendrik Weimer hend...@enyo.de 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
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 MP3
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org 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
* 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 the
* 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
it
Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net 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
Hendrik Weimer hend...@enyo.de 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
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop 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
(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
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 up user does the
Kern Sibbald k...@sibbald.com 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
Kern Sibbald k...@sibbald.com 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
On Wednesday 07 January 2009 21:59:45 Hendrik Weimer wrote:
Kern Sibbald k...@sibbald.com 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
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 link. Unless
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
* Kern Sibbald k...@sibbald.com [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
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 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 applies to
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
-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?
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 see
24 matches
Mail list logo
