Re: JavaMail and JAF

2006-08-31 Thread MrDemeanour
Marcus Better wrote: MrDemeanour wrote: Hmm, to me it seems that oddly enough FSF considers it free: That seems to mean that it's Debian-compatible There is apparently no consensus on this point. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/08/msg00028.html Thanks, that's a very helpful

Re: JavaMail and JAF

2006-08-31 Thread Mark Wielaard
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 15:15 +0200, Marcus Better wrote: > Matthias Klose wrote: > > what do you mean by "out of the box"? > > Sorry for being unclear. Can the classpathx versions work as drop-in > replacements for the Sun packages? > > (JBoss contains jar files for JavaMail 1.3.1 and JAF 1.0.2. I

Re: JavaMail and JAF

2006-08-31 Thread Marcus Better
MrDemeanour wrote: >> Hmm, to me it seems that oddly enough FSF considers it free: > That seems to mean that it's Debian-compatible There is apparently no consensus on this point. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/08/msg00028.html Marcus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT

Re: JavaMail and JAF

2006-08-31 Thread Andrew Haley
Timo Juhani Lindfors writes: > Hi, > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 05:33:03PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > > It certainly doesn't appear on the FSF list of free licences. It is, > > Hmm, to me it seems that oddly enough FSF considers it free: > > $ lynx -dump http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/l

Re: JavaMail and JAF

2006-08-31 Thread MrDemeanour
Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote: Hi, On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 05:33:03PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: It certainly doesn't appear on the FSF list of free licences. It is, Hmm, to me it seems that oddly enough FSF considers it free: $ lynx -dump http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html | grep

Re: JavaMail and JAF

2006-08-31 Thread Timo Juhani Lindfors
Hi, On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 05:33:03PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > It certainly doesn't appear on the FSF list of free licences. It is, Hmm, to me it seems that oddly enough FSF considers it free: $ lynx -dump http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html | grep -A 5 "(CDDL)" [101]Common

Re: JavaMail and JAF

2006-08-31 Thread Marcus Better
Tom Marble wrote: > Why not use Sun's JavaMail and JAF? It seems that the CDDL is not considered sufficiently free for Debian. At least that's what I gathered from the lengthy discussions on mailing lists. Or is there a decision to the opposite effect? Anyway I would rather leave it to someone el

Re: JavaMail and JAF

2006-08-31 Thread Andrew Haley
MrDemeanour writes: > Tom Marble wrote: > > Marcus Better wrote: > >> the pkg-jboss project needs DFSG-free versions of Sun's JavaMail > >> and Java Activation Framework libraries. Can anyone tell me whether > >> the GNU versions (already in Debian) will work out of the box? > > > > Why not

Re: RFS: nekohtml

2006-08-31 Thread Marcus Better
Arnaud Vandyck wrote: > Why did you put the original tarball in subversion? It needed to be repackaged (upstream contained binaries). So the tarball needs to be stored somewhere, to enable collaborative development. This location was suggested by Russ Allbery: http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/notes/d

Re: JavaMail and JAF

2006-08-31 Thread MrDemeanour
Tom Marble wrote: Marcus Better wrote: the pkg-jboss project needs DFSG-free versions of Sun's JavaMail and Java Activation Framework libraries. Can anyone tell me whether the GNU versions (already in Debian) will work out of the box? Why not use Sun's JavaMail and JAF? As of April they are n

Academic Survey on European Patents

2006-08-31 Thread Steph Meslin-Weber
Hi Everyone,As an active lurker (and infrequent participant) of these mailing lists, I thought there would be interest in research on software patents.As a quick background, my dear wife is studying for a MScIT in Information Systems and Technology at the City University, London. She has chosen to

Re: JavaMail and JAF

2006-08-31 Thread Tom Marble
Marcus Better wrote: > the pkg-jboss project needs DFSG-free versions of Sun's JavaMail and Java > Activation Framework libraries. Can anyone tell me whether the GNU versions > (already in Debian) will work out of the box? Why not use Sun's JavaMail and JAF? As of April they are now Free software

Re: RFS: nekohtml

2006-08-31 Thread Arnaud Vandyck
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marcus Better wrote: > Second attempt: Anyone willing to sponsor this please? [...] >> The source is in the pkg-java svn repository: >> http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-java/trunk/nekohtml/nekohtml/ Why did you put the original tarball in subversion?

Re: JavaMail and JAF

2006-08-31 Thread Matthias Klose
Marcus Better writes: > Hello, > > the pkg-jboss project needs DFSG-free versions of Sun's JavaMail and Java > Activation Framework libraries. Can anyone tell me whether the GNU versions > (already in Debian) will work out of the box? what do you mean by "out of the box"? If they don't work, plea

Re: JavaMail and JAF

2006-08-31 Thread Marcus Better
Matthias Klose wrote: > what do you mean by "out of the box"? Sorry for being unclear. Can the classpathx versions work as drop-in replacements for the Sun packages? (JBoss contains jar files for JavaMail 1.3.1 and JAF 1.0.2. I intend to replace them with the ones from classpathx.) Marcus --

Re: RFS: nekohtml

2006-08-31 Thread Marcus Better
Second attempt: Anyone willing to sponsor this please? Marcus Better wrote: > Hello, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "nekohtml". > > - > * Package name    : nekohtml > Version         : 0.9.5 > Upstream Author : Andy Clark > * URL or Web page : http:

JavaMail and JAF

2006-08-31 Thread Marcus Better
Hello, the pkg-jboss project needs DFSG-free versions of Sun's JavaMail and Java Activation Framework libraries. Can anyone tell me whether the GNU versions (already in Debian) will work out of the box? Thanks, Marcus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscri