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.)

2004-07-15 Thread Branden Robinson
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:23:00PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: > * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-14 02:55]: > > I fail to see why debian-legal's "undelegated" status is at all relevant > > given our current leadership philsophy. > > The difference is tha

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.)

2004-07-14 Thread Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-14 02:55]: > Okay, fair enough. Archive administration is done by those who roll up > their sleeves and do it -- the people on other end of > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > By the same token, public DFSG-based analysis of licenses and how they are > appli

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.)

2004-07-14 Thread Branden Robinson
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:09:13PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:35:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > > debian-legal is an undelegated advisory body. Ultimately, the final > > > decision lies with the

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.)

2004-07-12 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.07.12.1409 +0200]: > IIRC, Martin mentioned this the last time you asked about > delegations, too. Thanks Colin. I would appreciate if this issue was left to myself. I am working with the author through the problems and hope to get libcwd freed.

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.)

2004-07-12 Thread Colin Watson
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:35:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > debian-legal is an undelegated advisory body. Ultimately, the final > > decision lies with the archive maintainers. > > I see. Where are the archive maintainers' o

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.)

2004-07-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > debian-legal is an undelegated advisory body. Ultimately, the final > decision lies with the archive maintainers. I see. Where are the archive maintainers' official delegations? -- G. Branden Robinson| The grea

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.)

2004-07-10 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
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: "remove this package from another developer" (was: Bug#251983: Please remove libcwd from main; it is licensed under the QPL, which is non-free.)

2004-07-10 Thread Colin Watson
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 09:54:04AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > 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; t

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

2004-07-10 Thread Andreas Barth
* 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 bugs. See the -legal > discussion [0]. Sorry, but t

Re: Bug#251983: Please remove libcwd from main; it is licensed under the QPL, which is non-free.

2004-07-09 Thread martin f krafft
severity 258497 wishlist tags 258497 + moreinfo thanks also sprach Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.07.09.2322 +0200]: > debian-legal has adjudged the QPL non-free, and the maintainer > refuses to move this package to non-free; You are misrepresenting. I was not convinced by the debian-

Re: Bug#251983: Please remove libcwd from main

2004-07-09 Thread martin f krafft
tags 251983 + wontfix moreinfo thanks also sprach Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.07.09.2243 +0200]: > Please remove libcwd from main and put it in non-free. I will > request removal of this package if you do not. As long as there is no official statement on the QPL, I will not move th