On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 01:13:49AM +0200, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote:
> Package: mpg123
> Severity: normal
>
> Look at this WWW-site:
>
> http://www.mpg123.de/
>
> It clearly says:
>
> "The license of the mpg123 player is GPL and the license of the
> mpglib/ inside the mpg123 package is LGPL"
>
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:29:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On reflection, we've rejected this exact clause (in its MIT Scheme
> incarnation) as non-free in the past, after some heavy analysis of the
> wording.
All I found was the thread starting at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001
Hi!
We're currently trying to sort out the non-free status of scsh within
Debian. Most of the issues are unambiguous, however, I'd like to see
some more opinions on the following two clauses contained in a couple of
source files.
scsh-0.6.4/scheme/big/sort.scm:
;;; 2. Users of this software agre
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 08:15:39PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> Yes. I have no objection to letting the code in, but I do take exception
> to this line of reasoning. Whether or not HP does it makes no difference
> to us. Even it currently being in Debian is no proof of it being
> acceptable; ever
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 01:27:58AM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> It was quite obvious to me that they intended the first sense.
> However, I would think that a clarfication would be crucial. Some
> copyright holders have really tried to abuse wording loopholes (/me
> looks at UW).
Alas the code is
Moi!
I've been trying to merge support for decompressing ADPCM-coded files into
the audiofile library. The patch was taken from upstream CVS. However,
I'm uncertain whether the licence of one of the files included in the
patch clashes with the LGPL that the rest of the code is subject to. I'd
b
6 matches
Mail list logo
