Re: GPL-licensed packages with depend-chain to OpenSSL

2004-09-07 Thread Joel Baker
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 07:57:06PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 05:34:29PM +, Joel Baker wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 01:05:27PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 10:03:31PM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote: > > > > > > > and of course that a

Re: Bug#270461: lincvs: No free license & misleading copyright file

2004-09-07 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 03:04:09PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > The notice in the LICENSE file specifies a non-free license. GPL is > usually free, but when, as here, it is applied only under the > condition that one links with (a certain version of Qt) it is not > free. The restriction means th

Re: GPL-licensed packages with depend-chain to OpenSSL

2004-09-07 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 05:34:29PM +, Joel Baker wrote: > On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 01:05:27PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 10:03:31PM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote: > > > > > and of course that any document > > > written in Microsoft Word is derived from Word. > > > >

Re: GPL-licensed packages with depend-chain to OpenSSL

2004-09-07 Thread Joel Baker
On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 01:05:27PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 10:03:31PM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote: > > > and of course that any document > > written in Microsoft Word is derived from Word. > > I can use a word document without a copy of word, these days. There > are

Bug#270461: lincvs: No free license & misleading copyright file

2004-09-07 Thread Henning Makholm
Package: lincvs Version: 1.3.2-3 Severity: serious The copyright file for lincvs claims: | Copyright: (c) 1999-2003 by above named authors. | | This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify | it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by | the Free So

Re: updated: Re: license for eSvn

2004-09-07 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Pierre Chifflier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > So the final license is: > GPL, with an explicit exception allowing linking with any version of > Qt without having to redistribute sources of Qt. (that is the license > of psi package) That seems fine. For DFSG purposes we don't need the explicit

Re: license for eSvn

2004-09-07 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Pierre Chifflier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 08:05:24PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > > and that this kind of license is already used by other debian > > > packages > > Which packages? If that is true, bugs should be filed and packages > > moved to non-free, preferr