On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:28:14AM -0500, Carlo Segre wrote: > If you sent a request to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, requesting the > autobuild on the non-free buildd network, that should be enough. As long > as your justification for why it is legal to let it be autobuilt is > acceptable.
I already did post an email there. But I'm not a lawyer, so I did not include a justification other than that my sponsor thought it was ok. So again: [EMAIL PROTECTED], please for the sake of users of (at least) sparc, ia64, i386 -- auto build the package libcwd. If there is a problem and this cannot be done - MAIL me with the reason why not. -- Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PS It might be that I'm "impatient", I only mailed them recently. Then that is my fault (probably because I'm myself a very fast response time guy; I read and answer mails many times per day, seven days per week, every day (I haven't had a holiday for 8 years now). A delay of 12 hours is nearly insane for me. (This is also the reason that I think that a license that asks people to sent ME patches so I can merge them - OR distribute patches as PATCHES (next to the original tar ball made by me) is more than fine). If anyone had a bad experience with support of libcwd, especially the merging of patches they sent me-- feel free to speak up and ask me again to change the license to GPL. Otherwise, don't be an ass by treating other volunteers who aren't using your type of license as shit :/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
