* Daniel Baumann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Eric Dorland wrote:
> > If there was no final decision/consensus, isn't it a bit premature to
> > start filing bugs against packages?
>
> Well, I first thought there is no 'license-mix' at the code-base, so
> there is just a wrong/incomplete debian/co
Eric Dorland wrote:
> If there was no final decision/consensus, isn't it a bit premature to
> start filing bugs against packages?
Well, I first thought there is no 'license-mix' at the code-base, so
there is just a wrong/incomplete debian/copyright which can easily be
corrected.
Now that I know
* Daniel Baumann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Alexander Sack wrote:
> > You still fail to give reasons why MPL is non-free. I don't see that.
> >
> > Yes, its not gpl-compatible, but again, that is not the same as non-free.
>
> debian-legal has some problems with the license, it is not clearly
>
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 07:59:26PM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Alexander Sack wrote:
> > You still fail to give reasons why MPL is non-free. I don't see that.
> >
> > Yes, its not gpl-compatible, but again, that is not the same as non-free.
>
> debian-legal has some problems with the license,
Alexander Sack wrote:
> You still fail to give reasons why MPL is non-free. I don't see that.
>
> Yes, its not gpl-compatible, but again, that is not the same as non-free.
debian-legal has some problems with the license, it is not clearly
stated that it is 100% DFSG-compliant, therefore, if it i
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 07:22:48PM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Alexander Sack wrote:
> > What makes you believe that this is really the case?
>
> Reading debian/copyright implies that the whole mozilla-firefox is only
> licensed under MPL which is non-free. Therefore I request the correction
>
Alexander Sack wrote:
>>documented in the BTS)? The current package is non-free. This should be
>
>
> What makes you believe that this is really the case?
Reading debian/copyright implies that the whole mozilla-firefox is only
licensed under MPL which is non-free. Therefore I request the correct
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 03:43:39PM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> documented in the BTS)? The current package is non-free. This should be
What makes you believe that this is really the case?
--
GPG messages preferred. | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
Alexander Sack| : :' : T
Alexander Sack wrote:
> AFAIK, this has been discussed before and since there are still some
> parts left that are not yet relicensed, we cannot distribute it under
> GPL et al.
If so (which I didn't know), why is it then left as-it-is (and even not
documented in the BTS)? The current package is n
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 12:36:09PM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Package: mozilla-firefox
> Version: all
> Severity: serious
>
> The debian/copyright file states that mozilla-firefox is licensed only
> under MPL 1.1 which is a non-DFSG compliant license.
>
> Please fix the file mentioning at lea
Package: mozilla-firefox
Version: all
Severity: serious
The debian/copyright file states that mozilla-firefox is licensed only
under MPL 1.1 which is a non-DFSG compliant license.
Please fix the file mentioning at least that it is licensed under GPL.
Please do also s/Upstream Authors/Copyright Ho
11 matches
Mail list logo
