On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 03:24:58PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Hm unsure. It really depends on how far you acknowledge the
> virality of the GPL – Debian, AFAIK, tends to go more with
> the FSF’s extreme interpretation…
I don't think my view is out of line with the FSF's.
This applies to sour
Paul Tagliamonte dixit:
>This is a GPL restriction. Since the upstream code isn't GPL, why are
>you using a GPL argument about build scripts? -- in theory this would apply
>to build scripts for the GPLv3'd debian/* files, but there are none that
Hm unsure. It really depends on how far you acknowl
Given the lack of specific mention of a different license for debian/*
in d/copyright, I think it's fair to say that debian/* was licensed
under CPL, whether intended or not. Still, upstream has changed to
EPL, and Soeren has refused to relicense his work under EPL (and has
offered GPL-3 as an alte
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 01:06:27PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Paul Tagliamonte debian.org> writes:
>
> > So, the way *I* see this is so long as the GPL code isn't being put into
> > a combined work with anything (e.g. GPL'd patches), it *should* be OK.
>
> Unfortunately, GPLv3 considers bui
Paul Tagliamonte debian.org> writes:
> So, the way *I* see this is so long as the GPL code isn't being put into
> a combined work with anything (e.g. GPL'd patches), it *should* be OK.
Unfortunately, GPLv3 considers build scripts (thus, d/rules plus the
input for the declarative dh* commands, pl
Le Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:18:58AM -0400, Miles Lubin a écrit :
>
> Here's the issue:
> - Since the last upload, upstream has switched from the CPL (Common
> Public License) to the EPL (Eclipse Public License).
> - The debian directory had no explicit license mentioned in the
> copyright file. It
There is something implicit in paultag's mail, I'll try to make it
explicit. The new license must not be used for any of the existing
files, unless there is a complete rewrite. For example,
debian/changelog is likely to get new copyrightable content and having
that under the two licenses would not
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:37:12AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> It's a skitch hazy, but I don't think there's an issue with
> distributing CC-BY and GPL code in the same tarball -- the only issue is
> this *MAY* result in GPL issues if *upstream* is GPL, if you've checked
> out some of the CDDL
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:18:58AM -0400, Miles Lubin wrote:
> Dear debian-legalers,
Yo, Miles!
> - The debian directory had no explicit license mentioned in the
> copyright file. It was pointed out by Paul Tagliamonte that the
Oh yes, I remember this.
> previous maintainer(s) must agree to the
Dear debian-legalers,
Under the sponsorship of Sébastien Villemot and the Debian science
team, I am in the process of adopting the COIN-OR scientific packages
for linear programming and extensions (incl. coinutils, coinor-osi,
clp, coinor-cbc, etc.).
Here's the issue:
- Since the last upload, ups
10 matches
Mail list logo
