Could you open a lintian bug with:
- md5sum
- sha1
- sha256
of the previous file.
I will add to not distributable list of file
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Paul Gevers wrote:
> On 20-04-14 17:57, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
>> Please find below a discussion about a licence issue found during re
On 20-04-14 17:57, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> Please find below a discussion about a licence issue found during review
> of FPC 2.6.4 packaging. The complete discussion could be followed on [1]
> and/or [2].
Bug has been filed, and the file has been removed from fpc yesterday.
http://bugs.freepasc
Dear FPC core team,
Please find below a discussion about a licence issue found during review
of FPC 2.6.4 packaging. The complete discussion could be followed on [1]
and/or [2].
Can you please advice about this and especially about [3].
Cheers,
Abou Al Montacir,
[1]
http://lists.alioth.debian.o
On 19/04/14 20:36, Paul Gevers wrote:
> We don't even use the file (it is removed in clean target and will
> be stripped from source in my next upload), but I like to convince
> upstream as well. Do they have a problem distributing this file?
Yes, I think that they do have a problem. *Unless* they
On 19-04-14 12:28, Riley Baird wrote:
> I don't think that the name of the file is important, so long as the
> license has the same name. Since the Novell Developer License
> Agreement applies here:
>
> -The SDK is definitely nonfree, so it must be removed from main
> -For the reason that you ment
On 19/04/14 20:06, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Well, I think the license stated in my original e-mail covers all
> files in Novell SDK releases as in the release I looked into there
> is a file SDK_README.html that reads at the bottom: """All files
> provided in this release are subject to the Novell Deve
On 19-04-14 11:22, Riley Baird wrote:
> Use of the Software and Documentation is subject to the
> restrictions contained in this Agreement. The Software contains various
> software programs with different license rights.
> .
> .
> .
>Open Source Software. Your license to use software that is pr
On 19/04/14 17:52, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi Debian-legal readers [Please CC the Pascal list on reply]
>
> I believe that I (well Lintian to be honest) found a file [1] in fpc
> that is not distributable.
Some more problems:
* Developer Products may not "substantially duplicate the
capabilities or
Hi Debian-legal readers [Please CC the Pascal list on reply]
I believe that I (well Lintian to be honest) found a file [1] in fpc
that is not distributable. The license of the SDK follows at the end of
this e-mail. The sentence that I found most problematic is the following:
"""Novell grants You t
9 matches
Mail list logo
