Re: Bug#251983: libcwd: QPL license is non-free; package should not be in main

just pretended to be on your side? (don't worry... purely hypothetical) > We'd exchange some emails and things would be settled out of court > without travel or lawyer expenses. What we need is clarity in the > license - I am not anticipating on dealing with people who > w

Re: Bug#251983: Please remove libcwd from main

L is assumed to be DFSG-compatible though not favourable. Until I hear a majority of votes that this is not the case, I will not take any steps and I will vigorously oppose any requests to remove it from main. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. ma

Re: Bug#251983: Please remove libcwd from main; it is licensed under the QPL, which is non-free.

y the debian-legal thread and I don't have the time to go through it again. Thus, until you read all the relevant information and give some valuable input, I ask you to please stop trolling. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin

Re: "remove this package from another developer" (was: Bug#251983: Please remove libcwd from main; it is licensed under the QPL, which is non-free.)

libcwd freed. I just can't stand when people get into a discussion without having read everything and think they need to take immediate action. No, Branden, it's not you whom I'm talking about. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`.

Moving libcwd to Debian non-free

heers, -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP

Re: Moving libcwd to Debian non-free

bt there is a single package that depends on libcwd. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to

Re: Moving libcwd to Debian non-free

e if they want to re-license :). Unlikely. But you never know. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better

Re: Moving libcwd to Debian non-free

, maybe I'll just drop it alltogether. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fi

a legal problem with 'filters' in germany

means no punishment, but it would be possible. Joey Hess is refusing to do anything about it. Please advise. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `&

Re: a legal problem with 'filters' in germany

Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature

The QPL licence

licence, but if I don't succeed... can I package libcwd for Debian? Thanks, -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when yo

Re: The QPL licence

s as libcwd. We'll see what comes. In the mean time, I appreciate your time and effort. Thanks for any forthcoming (and previous) suggestions and thoughts! -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :

Death of a copyright holders (was: [debian-vote] Amendment: invariant-less in main (Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement)

k topic. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing

linux gpl question

[please cc me on responses] hey wise people, i have a question that's stunning us over here. there's someone selling a complete firewall appliance atop a linux kernel. he advertises it as hardened and as super-secure because he patched the kernel here and there, and because he added userland stuf

Re: linux gpl question

also sprach John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.04.27.0106 +0200]: > >However, his patches are patches *of Linux*, and so if he distributes > >the patched Linux, he is required to distribute the full source, > >because Linux is copyable only under the terms of the GPL and that's > >what the GPL req

is this DFSG?

[please CC me on replies] "Those whose work is in agreement with [1] may freely use, modify, or distribute this under the same terms. Those who don't may not." 1. http://www.debian.org/social_contract/ This is kinda meta-DFSG and kinda not. it has me confused. -- m

Re: is this DFSG?

also sprach Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.09.22.1632 +0200]: > Please contact the author to change that. DFSG is not a license, but a > set of conditions a license should meet so that the program > distributed with such license can be part of Debian. I am the author ;^> > You can't lice

Re: is this DFSG?

also sprach Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.09.22.1734 +0200]: > I concur with Santiago on this. Alright, I give in. It has been changed. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMAIL PROTECTED] my other comput

Re: is this DFSG?

also sprach Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.09.24.2247 +0200]: > Mostly though sloppy writing, I think. If the intention was something > like: i understand. it has been changed to pure GPL v2. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"