"Serafeim Zanikolas" writes:
> Hi Nicholas,
>
>>> can I ask you to both let me know whether you're happy for me to change the
>>> review status to completed?
>
>> Do you mean Salsa/github reviewers? To be honest I don't have time to
>> do a full review...Sorry.
>
> no, I really mean this in the
Hi Serafeim,
"Serafeim Zanikolas" writes:
> Francesco, thanks for the patch! applied and pushed (and additionally added
> you
> as an author)
>
> Nicholas, Francesco, you're now both set as reviewers. can I ask you to both
> let
> me know whether you're happy for me to change the review status
Hello,
Soren Stoutner writes:
> On Wednesday, June 26, 2024 3:13:38 PM MST Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>> Soren Stoutner writes:
>
> When debian/copyright contains a “Files: *” without a separate “Files:
> debian/*” section, it is
> making an explicit statement that the en
Hi,
Thanks for your work.
"Serafeim Zanikolas" writes:
> right, I guess that's why the wikipedia diagram distinguishes between MPL-2
> and
> MPL-2-no-copyleft-exception. I think that we don't have to worry about that
> because spdx.org/licenses defines a distinct license identifier for the
> -
Soren Stoutner writes:
> As an additional followup, as the original debian/* files were licensed
> GPLv2+,
> if you edit a file you can choose to make your contribution GPLv3+, which
> would
> convert the entire file to GPLv3+. If you end up editing all of the files in
> debian/* at least o
Francesco Poli writes:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 10:14:41 +0300 Andrius Merkys wrote:
>>
>> [Please keep me in CC, I am not subscribed]
>>
>> I encountered a package EvoEF2 [1] which is licensed under Expat and has
>> the following in its README.md:
>>
>> "EvoEF2 is free to academic users."
>>
>
Hi Athos,
Thank you for working on this RFP, and for doing all the work involved
with reintroduction the package.
I'm CCing the debian-legal team who I hope will be able to help with
the stylesheet question and related issues; I've given it my
best-effort, but would appreciate someone else's pers
Hi,
I found a problematic change in one of my packages:
https://github.com/KDE/kio-gdrive/commit/6321fda6294e3d021b7a2758c1200aa42debb021
This looks like a regression of license validity to me, because the
fulfillment of §17 of the GPL was removed from the affected files, and I
suspect that w
Hi,
Adrian Bunk writes:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 07:48:31PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>
>> it would still not be DFSG-free, because it
>> fails the "desert island test" for snail mail. Were OmniTI Computer
>> Consulting would accept email, it w
Hi Adrian,
Adrian Bunk writes:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 06:33:32PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>> Adrian Bunk writes:
>> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:38:57PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>> >>...
>> >> * Neither name of the company nor the na
Hi Adrian,
Adrian Bunk writes:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:38:57PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>>...
>> * Neither name of the company nor the names of its contributors may be used
>> to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific
>&g
Hi Aron,
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 01:56:14PM -0400, Aron Reman wrote:
>Hi,
>Thank you for the response. I just wanted some clarification. Under the
>Debian license, I do not have to release source code as long as I am
>writing my source code on top of the existing system correct? As
Hi Joël,
On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 01:38:56PM +0100, Joël Krähemann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Do I need to mention the person submitted 3 patches in
> debian/copyright file, containing a total of 5 lines changed in my
> package?
>
> I have attached the patches. Upstream did a notice in ChangeLog and
> AUTH
Hi Francesco,
Thank you for your reply, and sorry for the delay in my own. Reply
follows inline.
On Sat, Feb 02, 2019 at 10:18:39AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 16:46:07 -0700 Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>
> > Dear Ola, Pontus, and Debian Legal team
Hi Giacomo!
Thank you for your reply, and sorry for the delay in my own.
On Sat, Feb 02, 2019 at 10:54:32AM +, Giacomo wrote:
> I'm one of the old contributors: years ago I did the port from PHP4 to PHP5.
>
Wow, thank you for that work upstream :-)
> To be honest I can't recall if my contri
point I
suspect it does, but I am erring on the side of caution.
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 05:46:27PM +0200, pon...@ullgren.com wrote:
>This is acceptable by me.
>// Pontus
>
> > On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 09:01:30PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> >
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 08:50:56PM +0200, Andrej Shadura wrote:
>
>I was going to have a look but got distracted by writing kernel drivers
>â** fascinating stuff :D
>I will try and spend some time this week on this. If not, I'll post an
>update here.
Thank you Andrej! Very much a
Hi Francesco,
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:37:46PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 16:39:28 -0500 Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>
> [...]
> > This is one of the reasons the FSF demands copyright
> > assignment for their projects...they want to be able to relic
Update
Sorry for my deplorable memory and lack of organisation wrt this bug;
I committed some initial work and then forgot about it. Given my work
schedule for Oct and Nov it is unlikely that I will be able to prevent
the scheduled autoremoval. If someone else would like to fix it asap
please go
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 09:12:47AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Hong Xu writes:
>
> > For example, /usr/share/doc/bash/copyright reads "Copyright (C)
> > 1987-2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc." Although the author of the
> > packaging "Matthias Klose " is mentioned, there is no
> > license claime
Hi Hong,
On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 12:32:28PM -0700, Hong Xu wrote:
> On 09/08/2018 09:51 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Hong Xu writes:
> >
> >> I understand that each piece of software has its own license in Debian
> >> and they can be easily looked up. However, I have trouble finding the
> >> licens
Hi Ian, Francesco, John, and everyone else reading this,
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:28:43AM -0500, John Lindgren wrote:
> On 12/10/2017 06:12 PM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> > In particular I'm concerned about lines like this from
> > d/copyright:
> >
> > "
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:23:47AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 18:12:39 -0500 Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>
> [...]
> > GPL-incompatible 2-clause BSD
> [...]
>
> A nitpick: the 2-clause BSD license is not GPL-incompatible (it's
> indeed comp
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:36:49AM -0500, John Lindgren wrote:
> Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>
> > Both BSD 3-clause and BSD 2-clause allow relicensing as GPL, thus so
> > long as the licensing terms are complied with correctly BSD code can
> > perpetually and unidirectiona
Hi Francesco, John, and everybody else reading this,
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 11:10:40AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 22:39:41 -0500 Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
[...]
> Failing to retain the license text in the package distribution is in
> fact lack of compliance w
Dear Debian Legal Team,
I've CCed you for my reply to this bug, because I don't have the
experience to be able to tell if Debian implicitly relicensed
Audacious as GPL-3 from 2012-2016, how potentially falling out of
BSD-2-clause license compliance might have affected this, and also how
this shoul
Hi Ian,
Thank you for the quick reply, and sorry for the delay. I have a bit
of free time today, but after that I (again) won't have much time for
Debian work for the next two weeks.
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 09:12:04PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Nicholas D Steeves writes ("File
Dear Debian Legal Team,
I am wondering if Lintian correctly detected a file's copyright as BCP
78, or if it's a false alarm. I want to believe that it's a false
alarm, but have submitted a patch to make the package dfsg-free in
case it is not a false positive (Bug #868258).
The file in question
Hi Paul,
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 10:19:16AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>
> > Do you think it's ok to internally provide backwards compatibility?
> > eg, for a library, newname provides/fulfils oldname, for a
Hi Ian,
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 12:27:12PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Nicholas D Steeves writes ("advice for free software package named almost
> identically to non-free software"):
> > An upstream has named their GPL software almost identically to a
> > proprietary
On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 09:52:35AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>
> > An upstream has named their GPL software almost identically to a
> > proprietary piece of software.
>
> I think it would be best to pro-actively
On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 09:52:35AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>
> > An upstream has named their GPL software almost identically to a
> > proprietary piece of software.
>
> I think it would be best to pro-actively
Dear Debian Legal Team,
Thank you very much for your help. I've read each email in this
thread with care, and at last can consider this issue closed.
On 9 June 2017 at 02:27, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On 06/08/2017 06:52 PM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>>
>>
>>
Hi Ben,
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:24:11AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Nicholas D Steeves writes:
>
> > I pushed updates here:
> >
> > https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-emacsen/pkg/muse-el.git/tree/debian/COPYING.emails
>
> That's a good record. Better
Dear Debian Legal,
An upstream has named their GPL software almost identically to a
proprietary piece of software. Both the free and the proprietary
software are developed in the U.S.A. The upstream has confirmed that
the name is not a registered trademark in the U.S.A, but the
proprietary softw
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 02:54:57PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes:
>
> > Do you agree that my mail exchange as found in the sympathy package is
> > a good example of how to ask these questions, and how to record the
> > answers ?
>
> Ian Jackson writes:
>
> > I meant this, which
Dear Debian Legal Team,
I'm adopting src:muse-el, and the old d/copyright file does not state
which license the old debian/* uses. I used "comm" to see what
remained after transitioning the package to use dh-elpa, current
debhelper and compat, et al, and only the contributions of Michael
Olson an
37 matches
Mail list logo
