xinetd license possibly violates DFSG #4

2004-07-03 Thread Andreas Metzler
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:24:44AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: [...] > > 1. The version number will be modified as follows: > > a. The first 3 components of the version number > > (i.e ..) will remain unchanged. > > b. A new component will be appended to the version number to

Re: xinetd license possibly violates DFSG #4

2004-07-03 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 07:12:51AM -0500, Andreas Metzler wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 10:24:44AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > [...] > > > 1. The version number will be modified as follows: > > > a. The first 3 components of the version number > > > (i.e ..) will remain unchang

Re: definitions of free

2004-07-03 Thread Zenaan Harkness
On Sat, 2004-07-03 at 10:42, Josh Triplett wrote: > Consider this sentence from the GNU Project's Free Software Definition: > > It is also acceptable for the license to require that, if you have > > distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks for a > > copy of it, you must send on

Re: xinetd license possibly violates DFSG #4

2004-07-03 Thread Matthew Garrett
Andreas Metzler wrote: >I do not consider this to "go much further than that". The intention is >imho the one DFSG4 tries to carter for. The author wants: >a) derivatives being detectable as such. >b) derivatives have to keep out of xinetd's namespace. He wants to >forbid a derivative being number

Re: definitions of free

2004-07-03 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 23:55:23 +1000 Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On Sat, 2004-07-03 at 10:42, Josh Triplett wrote: > > Consider this sentence from the GNU Project's Free Software > > Definition: > > > It is also acceptable for the license to require that, if you have > > > > > > distributed a modified

GPL violation in shadow? (was: Re: Bug#244297: Still in license violation. (was: Re: Bug#244297 acknowledged by developer (Bug#244297: fixed in shadow 1:4.0.3-29)))

2004-07-03 Thread Robert Millan
Hello, This seems like a GPL violation. The debian version of "shadow" package includes GPLed code from GNU su. This is allowed since shadow's license is 3-clausse BSD (GPL-compatible) but it looks to me that we aren't complying with Section 2 of the GPL which requires that the whole modified wor

Re: GPL violation in shadow? (was: Re: Bug#244297: Still in license violation. (was: Re: Bug#244297 acknowledged by developer (Bug#244297: fixed in shadow 1:4.0.3-29)))

2004-07-03 Thread Glenn Maynard
("kcr" dropped, 244297 added) On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 10:51:37PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > This seems like a GPL violation. The debian version of "shadow" package > includes GPLed code from GNU su. This is allowed since shadow's license is > 3-clausse BSD (GPL-compatible) but it looks to me th