Am Thu, 26 Jan 2006 04:49:56 +0100 schrieb Daniel Knabl
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Am Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:26:14 -0700 schrieb Hubert Chan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE FREEBSD PROJECT OR
> >
> > Whoops. There's one other occurrence that needs to be rep
Am Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:26:14 -0700 schrieb Hubert Chan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE FREEBSD PROJECT OR
>
> Whoops. There's one other occurrence that needs to be replaced.
I'll contact the author, this should be "just" a typo ...
Daniel
--
mfg
Danie
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 01:32:35 +0100, Daniel Knabl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> Virtual Exim Copyright Notice
[...]
>THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE VEXIM PROJECT ``AS IS'' AND ANY
> EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
> IMPLIED WARRANTIES
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 23:17 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Stan Vasilyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.01.24.2214 +0100]:
> > I tried convincing the upstream to remove the debian directory, but so far
> > he
> > refused. His argument is that a user should be able to download his tarball
Daniel Knabl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As recommended, I had a discussion about it with the author. Now the
> license has been changed. I think it can be included into
> debian/copyright as follows:
It's fine. There's lots of stuff in Debian with this sort of license.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMA
Am Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:17:55 +0100 schrieb Daniel Knabl
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> please have a look at the following license. In my eyes it is not a
> true BSD license, but also no Artistic license. But, I may be wrong.
> This would not be the first time :-/
> Would it be OK to just include
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:30:22 +0100, Daniel Knabl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Am Wed, 25 Jan 2006 19:11:57 + schrieb Stephen Gran
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > Copyright 2003 Avleen Vig and Virtual Exim Development Team.
>> >
>> > THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE FREEBSD PROJECT ``AS IS'' AND >
Hello,
I am searching for an sponsor for my libsimpledb package.
* Package name: libsimpledb
Version : 1.5
Upstream Author : Russell Kliese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://simpledb.sourceforge.net/
* License : LGPL-2.1
Description : C++ ODBC database
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 14:10, Al Nikolov wrote:
> Package: dsbltesters
> Description: open proxy/relay testing utilities
> License: GPL
> URL: http://dsbl.org/programs
> Upstream Authors: Rik van Riel, Ian Gulliver, Ron Guilmette, Fred Smith
>
> This package contains testing software configur
also sprach Stan Vasilyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.01.24.2214 +0100]:
> I tried convincing the upstream to remove the debian directory, but so far he
> refused. His argument is that a user should be able to download his tarball
> and build it from source, build an rpm package or build a deb pack
also sprach Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.01.24.2229 +0100]:
> People sometimes do this so they can ship something targetted at stable
> (one of my upstreams insists on doing this and also doesn't want to use
> any Debian tools since they don't run Debian).
backports.org
> "You grabbed my
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 09:53:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Martin Meredith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Why not just work with upstream as you seem to be doing - and when the
> > packagings done - download it ... and upload as a debian native package?
>
> > Surely if upstream keep a deb
Am Wed, 25 Jan 2006 19:11:57 + schrieb Stephen Gran
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Copyright 2003 Avleen Vig and Virtual Exim Development Team.
> >
> >THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE FREEBSD PROJECT ``AS IS'' AND
> > ANY
>
> Unless Avleen Vig and the Vexim team are part of the BSD project,
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:17:55 +0100, Daniel Knabl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi, please have a look at the following license. In my eyes it is not
> a true BSD license, but also no Artistic license.
It is, verbatim, the 3-clause BSD license without the 3rd clause.
(Didn't check the disclaimer par
This seems to be sort of a modified BSD. Looks DFSG compliant.
Carlo
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Daniel Knabl wrote:
Hi,
please have a look at the following license. In my eyes it is not a
true BSD license, but also no Artistic license. But, I may be wrong.
This would not be the first time :-/
Wou
This one time, at band camp, Daniel Knabl said:
> Hi,
>
> please have a look at the following license. In my eyes it is not a
> true BSD license, but also no Artistic license. But, I may be wrong.
> This would not be the first time :-/
> Would it be OK to just include this license into the debian/
Hi,
please have a look at the following license. In my eyes it is not a
true BSD license, but also no Artistic license. But, I may be wrong.
This would not be the first time :-/
Would it be OK to just include this license into the debian/copyright
file? Or is it a common-license that I just don't
* Package name: tams
Version : 2.79
Upstream Author : Matthew Weinstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://tamsys.sourceforge.net
* License : GPL
Description : program for qualitative analysis of marked-up text
TAMS is simply a way of marking up documents
Package: dsbltesters
Description: open proxy/relay testing utilities
License: GPL
URL: http://dsbl.org/programs
Upstream Authors: Rik van Riel, Ian Gulliver, Ron Guilmette, Fred Smith
This package contains testing software configured to work with
the DSBL (http://dsbl.org/) or DSBL-compliant servi
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (24/01/2006):
> Daniel Knabl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Am Sun, 22 Jan 2006 17:55:55 +0100 schrieb Daniel Knabl
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> as i use this piece of software already on my own host, i would like
> >> to provide it to any other users.
>
20 matches
Mail list logo
