On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 5:29 PM Simon Josefsson wrote:
> "Andrew M.A. Cater" writes:
> > On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 11:58:00PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > Packaging the software for Debian amounts to modification: minimal
> > modification but modification anyway. That presumably means we
> > ca
to find/replace, the proper copyright holder
will have a claim to be made against the squatting that took place.
From my perspective, it sure looks like they're trying to hostilely squat the
name for as long as they can while pushing out a replacement with a similar
name, currently offering nothin
(forgive the phone formatting)
This project is clearly stating that the intended license is GPLv2+. It
might be specified in just the one file, but that file is also clearly
intended to represent the project.
It's fine as-is, but still worth chatting with upstream. The "LICENSE" file
is a standar
you follow what is spelled out in
the license. (That's also the primary concern behind packages passing through
the NEW queue.)
[1] 1:0.0~git20170407.0.55a552f+REALLY.0.0~git20161012.0.5f31782-1+deb8u1
--
Michael Lustfield
w3.org, is used to generate source, and is
then dropped from the final release tarball. The source header contains
additional information about the origins and history of this file.
--
Michael Lustfield
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
ee, however, I'd urge you to reconsider
your motivations for releasing obfuscated source and refusing to share. Is it
really your desire to make software that's (per DFSG) not free?
--
Michael Lustfield
e assumption that they didn't read the license, or the portion where it
tells you what the brief form looks like.
IANAL
--
Michael Lustfield
> So I agree.
Without any objections, I'll go ahead and ignore patents files that
match this text.
Thanks!
o Debian.
I would really love some expert review/advice on this one. Thanks!
--
Michael Lustfield
pgpihJ1rGT0ip.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
9 matches
Mail list logo
