On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 12:55:45AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:59:18 +0100 Sven Luther wrote:
>
> [...]
> > Nope, because you can ship the source code and the object file if you
> > wanted.
> >
> > Already now, major parts of debian/main are not cleanly buildable out
> >
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:50:19 +0100 Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hi Mathew
>
> (Anyone on debian-legal: please note and maintain the Cc:s)
Again assuming that this means you and Matthew want to be Cc:ed as
well...
[...]
> > That's perfectly acceptable. Upstream can do whatever they want.
> > However,
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:59:18 +0100 Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
> Nope, because you can ship the source code and the object file if you
> wanted.
>
> Already now, major parts of debian/main are not cleanly buildable out
> of the box, due to cyclic bootstraping dependencies.
But those major parts of
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 09:06:50PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hi Sven
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:32:02PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> ...CUT...
> > > Will all reverse engineered drivers with hardcoded values be considered
> > > as closed source? Must you always release everything that you kn
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:29:45 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:16:11 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
[...]
> > One thing that was not yet pointed out is that this license, besides
> > the other issues, also has a choice of venue clause. Thi
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:26:38 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 05:00:15PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>
> (Anyone on debian-legal: please note and maintain the Cc:s)
Including the From: field (that is you) and the To: field (that is Ola
Lundqvist)? Let's assume the answer i
Hi Sven
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:32:02PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
...CUT...
> > Will all reverse engineered drivers with hardcoded values be considered
> > as closed source? Must you always release everything that you know
> > when you release somehting as open source?
> > Must we release the i
Hi Mathew
(Anyone on debian-legal: please note and maintain the Cc:s)
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 04:26:38PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 05:00:15PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>
> (Anyone on debian-legal: please note and maintain the Cc:s)
>
> > As you say you need the p
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 04:52:13PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> The only thing is #2 above. The question is if someone must release
> all it knows when it release open source software (according to DFSG)
> or if you can release only enough to make something work. I can also
> put it as if you want
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
No, the preferred form *for* modification.
The only requirement on the original author (as I can determine) is that
you get source code for it, not that it is in preferred form for making
mod
Em Ter, 2006-10-31 às 11:27 -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 02:19:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Goedson Teixeira Paixao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Version 1.2 of gnomemm (which is the one involved in this bug) is
> > > licensed under the GPL.
> >
> Wouldn't it be
Em Ter, 2006-10-31 às 15:28 +, MJ Ray escreveu:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be possible to link to libgnutls instead of libssl? It seems
> > that GNU TLS provides an API compatible with OpenSSL.
>
> The compatible API is part of GNUTLS-EXTRA, which is also GPL. See
> http://jos
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
No, the preferred form *for* modification.
The only requirement on the original author (as I can determine) is that
you get source code for it, not that it is in preferred form for making
modification.
That's perfectl
Hi Goswin
Thanks for your response, and interesting new view (option C)
on this matter.
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 02:20:44PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...CUT...
> > Let me take two examples:
> > * Person A create a driver by reverse engineering,
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 05:00:15PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
(Anyone on debian-legal: please note and maintain the Cc:s)
> As you say you need the prefered form of _modification_, which means
> that if we change things, we are not allowed to obfuscate it. I can not
> see anything that enfoce th
Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, you are probably right if the person use an automated tool to make
> this obfuscation. (Not sure though, see below).
>
> However as it is impossible to know if someone use a obfuscation program
> or if the person use a text editor to edit this, I can
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Wouldn't it be possible to link to libgnutls instead of libssl? It seems
> that GNU TLS provides an API compatible with OpenSSL.
The compatible API is part of GNUTLS-EXTRA, which is also GPL. See
http://josefsson.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/gnutls/includes/gnutls/openssl.h?
Sorry, the following message should have been sent to all of you.
Please, include MJ Ray in the reply.
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#395961: gabber: Links with GPL-incompatible licensed OpenSSL
On Tue,
Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi
>
> First I want to tell to you Kyle and Matthew, that this is not a personal
> thing against you, and that I have noted the question mark in the end of the
> subject ("Contains obfuscated source code, DFSG violation?"). I actually want
> to thank you
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 02:19:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Goedson Teixeira Paixao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Version 1.2 of gnomemm (which is the one involved in this bug) is
> > licensed under the GPL.
>
> ACK. I jumped version somewhere. Probably its upstream is not averse
> to relicensin
Goedson Teixeira Paixao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Version 1.2 of gnomemm (which is the one involved in this bug) is
> licensed under the GPL.
ACK. I jumped version somewhere. Probably its upstream is not averse
to relicensing or giving extra permissions, as 1.3 onwards is LGPL, but
this is
Em Ter, 2006-10-31 às 11:08 +, MJ Ray escreveu:
> http://gtkmm.sourceforge.net/ says: 'gtkmm is free software distributed
> under the GNU Library General Public License (LGPL).' The COPYING in
> the stable libgnomemm*tar.bz2 seems to confirm that.
>
> Why is debian distributing libgnomemm und
[gnomemm maintainer added to cc]
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this exception should be copied into the debian/copyright,
[...]
I agree. As well as breaking policy, it means the same report may
appear again.
> Moreover: it seems that one of the libraries the package depend
23 matches
Mail list logo
