On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Martin Steghöfer wrote:
> Sure, replacing the interfaces with our own ones (or the free ones from
> freehep) and patching all reverse dependencies can work. But as you've
> probably guessed from my choice of words ("crippling"), presenting an altered
> interface to all current and future reverse dependencies doesn't sound like a
> proper solution to me.
The interface must not be altered for this. An interface is an
interface, it does not contain any code.
If there are actual code parts involved, we’re talking implementation.
Can you, or anyone really, give some detail on what exactly is
the problem here (which files)? If the interface is already in
Debian, it’s not a problem if it’s an interface and not imple‐
mentation…
> Certainly keeping the original interfaces would be the cleanest solution. So I
> think I take your advice and try to contact some external expert on this legal
> issue (there's also a list for legal issues in Debian) and report any results
Do not bother with debian-legal on this. They are no body of
Debian, just a mailing list with parties interested in discussing
legal issues, not even lawyers, and often disagreeing with the
formal project opinion.
Either ask ftpmasters, or ask the DPL.
But, again: at the current point, this is not necessary.
List me a number of files (full paths plus names of the
source package) I can look at.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
tarent solutions GmbH
Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn • http://www.tarent.de/
Tel: +49 228 54881-393 • Fax: +49 228 54881-235
HRB 5168 (AG Bonn) • USt-ID (VAT): DE122264941
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Stefan Barth, Kai Ebenrett, Boris Esser, Alexander Steeg
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.11.1502241737421.28...@tglase.lan.tarent.de
