Brian M. Carlson writes:
> Package: libgcc1
> Version: 1:4.0-0pre0
> Severity: serious
>
> The copyright file includes a copy of the GNU Free Documentation
> License, which has been judged by debian-legal to be non-free. Please
> remove the non-free material from the package or move the package to
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
CC'ing debian-legal, please could you have a look at the license?
* Package name: drdsl
Version : 1.0.3
Upstream Author : AVM
* URL : http://www.avm.de/
* License : non-free, see below
Description: DSL Assistant for AVM DSL/ISD
Josh Triplett writes:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
> > CC'ing debian-legal, please could you have a look at the license?
>
> The question being "is this acceptable to go into non-free"?
exactly.
[...]
> Up to this point, the license seems acceptable for non-free; it
Josh Triplett writes:
> > I asked to clarify the paragraph, the current text now has append "and
> > the terms of the LGPL".
> >
> > "The Proprietary Source Software, which is delivered in object code
> > format only, such as the ".o files", shall in no event be
> > disassembled, reverse engineere
GFDL1.2olfc] contains non-free documentation
> Package: libstdc++6-4.0-doc (required; Debian GCC Maintainers et al.)
> [gcc-4.0/4.0.2-9 ; 4.0.2-10] [add/edit comment]
> 321780 [ ] [NONFREE-DOC:GFDL1.1] contains non-free documentation
>
> These bugs were reconfirmed as RC by t
Andrew Suffield writes:
> Package: cpp
> Severity: serious
>
> The manpages fsf-funding(7), gpl(7), and gfdl(7) are included in the
> cpp package. These are clearly non-free (non-modifiable).
this doesn't make sense. you are not allowed to change a copyright,
even for software distributed in main
Henning Makholm writes:
> Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > gpl(7): that can be replaced with a reference to
> > /usr/share/misc/common-licenses
>
> > gfdl(7): that's included (as text, rather than a tagged manpage) in
> > /usr/share/cpp-3.3/copyright already, and is therefore re
Jim Pick writes:
> Torsten Landschoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 21, 1999 at 07:16:08PM +0200, Bart Schuller wrote:
> >
> > > Before you do that, I seem to remember that the license for ILU had been
> > > cleared up a couple of months ago. Looking at
> > > ftp://ftp.par
Yannick Jestin writes:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 10:48:21AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > It lloks like the blackdown JDK has to be removed (according to the
> > weekly bug summary). As an alternative I would like to package an
> > installer for the ibm-jdk1.1 mach
severity 498857 important
severity 498477 important
thanks
> I don't know the real implication on the license
if you're unsure then don't make it RC in the first place
> reopen 498857
> reopen 498477
> thanks
>
> OoO En cette nuit nuageuse du vendredi 19 septembre 2008, vers 00:53,
> Thomas
The bug submitter of #516997 apparently did ask for help on debian-legal before
submitting this report, but didn't give any feedback on the upstream response.
Please could the people involved with this followup on this report?
thanks, Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@li
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi schrieb:
> [I posted this on debian-gcc before. I have not gotten any reply there. So I
> am trying my luck here]
>
> Currently the default gfortran in Debian Sid points to 4:4.3.3-9 . The
> gfortran-4.4 is already available, quite stable. Is there any reason why
> gfortran 4
On 29.04.2009 04:49, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Florian Weimer:
I've asked the FSF for a clarification (the second time, the first
clarification resulted in the Java bytecode exception). Until we know
for sure how to interpret the exception, it's probably best not to
make GCC 4.4 the default comp
On 16.08.2009 10:50, Luk Claes wrote:
Matthias Klose wrote:
On 29.04.2009 04:49, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Florian Weimer:
I've asked the FSF for a clarification (the second time, the first
clarification resulted in the Java bytecode exception). Until we know
for sure how to interpre
On 21.11.2009 06:20, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Steve Langasek:
It's been suggested to me that it might help Debian move forward on this
issue if I provide some background on why Canonical has chosen to not regard
this issue as critical for Ubuntu.
My personal impression is that Debian does not
On 22.11.2009 19:49, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Matthias Klose:
On 21.11.2009 06:20, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Steve Langasek:
It's been suggested to me that it might help Debian move forward on this
issue if I provide some background on why Canonical has chosen to not regard
this iss
[debian-legal, how do other packages handle the md5 stuff?]
Joe Wreschnig writes:
> Package: python
> Severity: serious
>
> The license for the Python profiler[0] does not allow it to be copied or
> modified independently of other Python programs. This is a violation of
> DFSG #3 (and also is jus
17 matches
Mail list logo
