Hi,
>
> Assuming that someone versed in Japanese can verify that the above
> license corresponds to a normal 2-clause BSD license, you may indeed
> include the software in Debian main. Debian main requires DFSG-free
> licenses; it does not require English licenses. That said, you might
> consid
Hi,
> Can you please identify yourself as someone who has legal qualification to
> make the following assertions. I am concerned that any arbitrary Debian user
> can take offence to our license without reasonable legal grounds. I simply
> do not know who you are.
I am a Debian Developer; witho
Hi,
> > I've opened bugs now, I don't know if it hasn't happened before.
> > Please Cc' the respective bugs so that we know it's fixed either way.
> >
> > The possible options that I see are:
> >
> > 1. audacity/portaudio are removed from Debian
> >
> > 2. license text is modified so that it cl
Hi,
> > Can you please identify yourself as someone who has final authority for
> > giving this advice.
>
> I will be very surprised if Don satisfies that request. No
> debian decision is final: we reserve the right to find or admit
> bugs in the future, whether coding, usage or licensing. The m
Package: portaudio
Severity: serious
I'm filing a bug so that we can remember there is an issue here.
regards,
junichi
At Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:19:18 -0800,
Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> [1 ]
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Ross Bencina wrote:
> > [someone said]
> > >Or, if the "request" clause is not
Package: audacity
Severity: serious
Hi,
I'm filing a bugreport against audacity in case we forget at all.
It kind of sneaked in; without a resolution this package should be removed from
Debian.
regards,
junichi
> [1 ]
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Ross Bencina wrote:
> > [someone said]
> >
Hi,
> > However, portaudio looks non-free to me.
> >
> > http://www.portaudio.com/license.html:
> > * Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is
> > requested to send the modifications to the original developer so that
> > they can be incorporated into the canonical version
Hi,
> > However, portaudio looks non-free to me.
>
> According to my reading of the license (and according to the PortAudio
> upstream authors), this clause is a non-binding request, and so it does
> not make the license non-free. Please see this thread:
>
>http://lists.debian.org/debian-le
Hi,
> > On Thursday 16 February 2006 22:49, Junichi Uekawa was like:
> >>>>Audio on the other hand seems to have mostly settled for ALSA and jack.
> >>>>(I'm not sure if portaudio is gone?)
> > Things like portaudio and MIDIshare never really arrived
> It *is* a problem for my hypothetical user that he has to wade through
> his scripts and add "-replacement" in various places. And who is even
> telling him that he needs to? It is possible that the fonts are only
> used in special cases, which are not among the one he tests before
> putting his
Hello,
> I was talking (or at least, thinking) about unstable/testing. I think
> removing from *stable* is a much more serious matter. It ought only to
> happen if a plausible case can be made that keeping the package/file
> in the distribution can actively harm users and/or mirror operators.
W
> please read debian/README.Debian.2 in the source;
> do you think that it is/isn't fit to go into Debian?
This sounds rather silly. I've read over README.Debian.2 and I think
all of what is said in there should go into debian/copyright.
regards,
junichi
Package: hevea
Version: 1.06-7
I am not sure but I kind of feel some problem with the licensing of
hevea and the way it is linked with GPL portions (ocaml).
Reference:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
and many press releases covering the incident where Qt
was released under G
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 13:33:43 +0900
Takashi Okamoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Package name: zebedee
> Version : 2.2.2
> Upstream Author : Neil Winton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://www.winton.org.uk/zebedee/.
> * License : GPL
> Description : Enc
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
> Debian needs permission to modify as well. There has been a substantial
> non-interest in .LZW decompressors since the Unisys thing in '94, so I
> doubt that lha would be put in main
Please tell me what a .LZW decompressor is.
I thought gunzip
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
IANAL.
> The statute in question is 17USC501(b):
>
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/501.html
c.f. Japanese copyright law 117, which basically states that
A copyright holder of a group of copyright holders can act against copyright
infrin
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
> This is because a project containing code under both licenses would impose
> both sets of license restrictions on people. The GPL, however, is not
> miscible with license that impose any more restrictions than it does
> itself.
>
> Thus,
Hello,
I have been looking at gtkipmsg, which is a patched version of
xipmsg, which is a patched version of Windows version of IP Messenger.
Now, IP Messenger (the original program) was released under
the old BSD license, and xipmsg follows that. The latest version
of IP Messenger is released
ch is GPL compatible (not recommended)
What would be the possible problem with making it LGPL ?
For example, would a BSD-licensed program be able to #include
and still stay BSD ?
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 12:22:19AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > ladspa.h is code, and the API spec
grams.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4
20 matches
Mail list logo
