-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:07, PASCHAL,DAVID (HP-Roseville,ex1) wrote: > Since for various reasons I'm trying hard to release hpoj-0.90 by the end > of July, what are the long-term implications if for whatever reason this > issue isn't resolved by then and I have to release 0.90 without the special > exception for OpenSSL?
We are quite flexable in how we handle the licensing issues for HPOJ. The important thing is to get your/HP's intent documented. > Will it be sufficient for me to subsequently update > the license statements in CVS and generate a corresponding patch which you > can apply to your 0.90 package in unstable (preferable), or would I have to > release a whole new tarball with a different version number (not > preferable)? I doubt a new tarball would be required. In fact an email from you to either hpoj-devel and/or [EMAIL PROTECTED] is probably sufficient as if you make your intent clear in public forum, then your intent is clear and Debian will act accordingly. > Thanks for your continued patience. No problem David. There isn't a critical timeline on this, especially since HP are progressing this. The bugs.debian.org archive shows clearly that there is progress so we are quite happy. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9Fx3CoCzanz0IthIRAlESAJ9eqzMNaZLFy6IWwFEajzHH4i43CgCfdPRK ZVnWBKDlMGzP1CbwWWLYAJE= =YERY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
