-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear Steve
Steve Langasek wrote:
> I agree that the GPLv3 is not "compatible" with the OpenSSL license, in the
> sense that code licensed under the OpenSSL license cannot be included in a
> GPLv3 work. However, the GPLv3 does include a broader (if no
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kern Sibbald wrote:
> Well, it is pretty general purpose. None of the FSF code is network or TLS
> related. The FSF files involved are:
> src/lib/fnmatch.h FSF
> src/lib/fnmatch.c FSF
> src/lib/enh_fnmatch.h FSF
> src/lib/enh_fnmatch.c FSF (f
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could someone explain to me why firebird is in main?
Because some ftpmaster hit approve, no-one found a bad enough
bug to change it and this plan didn't happen yet:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00562.html
> It is my opinion that the M
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 11:58:09PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> It is my opinion that the MPL license fails to meet the DFSG.
> This opinion seems to be shared by other debian-legal regulars:
The MPL is an accepted license for main. I'm sorry your opinion differs,
and that the views of other non
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 04:22:06PM +0200, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
> ===
> We do not believe that OpenSSL qualifies as a System Library in Debian.
> The System Library definition is meant to be read narrowly, including
> only code that accompanies genuinely fundamental components of the
> system.
* Anthony Towns ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 04:22:06PM +0200, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
> > We do not believe that OpenSSL qualifies as a System Library in Debian.
> > The System Library definition is meant to be read narrowly, including
> > only code that accompanies genuin
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 11:58:09PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > It is my opinion that the MPL license fails to meet the DFSG.
> > This opinion seems to be shared by other debian-legal regulars:
>
> The MPL is an accepted license for main. I'm sorry yo
I agree with AJ's statements and add only this:
Apt is priority important. That is the same priority as openssl.
Apt has relativly few revese dependencies (it appears to have less than
openssl does). But libapt is without any doubt
a system library under the GPLv3. It accompanies apt which is wi
8 matches
Mail list logo
