On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Robert Millan wrote:
> twolame contains code (MP3 encoding algorithm) which infringes patents of
> the Fraunhofer Institute. This falls in the "Software that can't be packaged"
> cathegory in WNPP:
Except that according to its package description, it does not contain
code to
I don't see any discussion in debian-legal contradicting it.
Would you please remove it from stable, testing and unstable ?
(Yes, this breaks vlc and darkice, but that can be fixed later. Even for
stable, the "can't install" severity justifies a new upload.)
-- System Information
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 18:35:03 +0100 (CET) Santiago Vila wrote:
> reassign 284340 debian-policy
> thanks
Whooops... :p
[...]
> > In other words, I would think that the following licenses belong in
> > /usr/share/common-licenses/ :
> > [...]
>
> You probably have not read base-files FAQ.
You are
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 06:35:03PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> IMHO, the licenses you propose to be added to /usr/share/common-licenses
> are short enough that no disk space is saved at all by having a "single"
> copy in base-files. For this reason I think we could even remove the
> current BSD l
reassign 284340 debian-policy
thanks
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Package: base-files
> Version: 3.0.2
> Severity: wishlist
>
>
> Please remove reference to a specific copyright holder (The Regents of
> the University of California) in /usr/share/co
Package: base-files
Version: 3.0.2
Severity: wishlist
Please remove reference to a specific copyright holder (The Regents of
the University of California) in /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD and
rename it 3-clause-BSD. Including only one narrow variant of the
BSD license seems highly error-prone
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
* 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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
* 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
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-
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 w
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003, at 22:08 -0500, Azhar Abdul-Quader wrote:
> Please remove this page
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg004
> 96.html
I'd say you are out of luck. You *might* be able to talk to the
mailing-list managers, but I doubt
Please remove this page
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg00496.html
passing, this has not yet been done.
Please remove the package from the main archive. It does not belong
there, and I don't see any reason to wait for a new upload to non-free
before resolving this matter.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpqJVzZyjh6b.pgp
Description: PGP signature
nse makes me concerned
that they might _try_ to cause us some trouble
So, unless someone wants to take these over, please remove them
permanently from the non-free archive:
(o) jx-lib
(o) code-crusader
(o) code-medic
(o) arrow
(o) notebook
21 matches
Mail list logo
