On 8/16/07, Justin M. Wray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You are right, and none of us (as far as I know) are lawyers, nor Dev's > for MSF. But it is clear to me that modifications are allowed, and they > would result in a cleaner package. Just throwing everything together, > without fixing the current linda/lintian issue, will most likely get the > package rejected, meaning it may not make it in Gutsy at all.
Agreed. But if the Metasploit license requires that any changes must NOT be distributed, then we may have an issue. I think we know the license's intention, but we are not allowed to take a risk on behalf of Ubuntu regarding this. The guidelines are there to protect them. So, if we want to default to the least amount of risk, let's go with unmodified. Your only issue with adding it unmodified is that it may be rejected. When we submit it, we could let them know that the issues are only warnings at that they will be resolved in Gutsy+1. If they reject it then, we can send the modified version... > But to answer the question at hand, Yes. Metasploit runs fine, exactly > the way it is packaged, even with the Ruby path issues, and the > permissions etc. We would still have a .desktop (Menu Entry) and > everything else, so it works. Excellent... -- Kristian Erik Hermansen -- [needs-packaging] Metasploit Framework 3.0 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/102212 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
