Re: GPL-3 & openssl: provide a -nossl variant for a library

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Jelmer Vernooij dixit: > >Samba is unlikely to add such an exception. > > So just make OpenSSL a system library finally. It has always been a system library in Debian. The problem is that Debian is the operating system distributing the system librari

Re: Is this license acceptable for non-free?

(PLEASE CC REPLIES TO ME) On Sun, 28 Jul 2013, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 13286 March 1977, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > The new license for AMD microcode updates seems to be quite obnoxious. > > Yes. > > > Is it acceptable for non-free? > > Yes. non-fr

Is this license acceptable for non-free?

** PLEASE CC: ME ON REPLIES ** The new license for AMD microcode updates seems to be quite obnoxious. Is it acceptable for non-free? The full license text is reproduced below: Copyright (C) 2010-2013 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted by Advanced M

Re: "remove this package from another developer"

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Ben Pfaff wrote: > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > As far as licenses go, if the consensus in debian-legal is that something is > > non-free, you lose. > > Where in official Debian documents (e.g. constitution, policy

Re: "remove this package from another developer" (was: Bug#251983: Please remove libcwd from main; it is licensed under the QPL, which is non-free.)

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Brian M. Carlson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040709 23:40]: > > debian-legal has adjudged the QPL non-free, and the maintainer refuses > > to move this package to non-free; therefore, I am requesting its > > removal in an effort to lower the number of RC bug

Re: ITP with caution: libdvdcss

msg.pgp Description: PGP message