On 13 December 2020 20:19:42 UTC, Salvatore Bonaccorso
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Cc'in the security-team alias.
>
>It is actually unlikely for the moment that we will revert the
>200-disable-ghostscript-formats.patch patch again, which was firstly
>included in the 8:6.9.10.23+dfsg-2.1+deb10u1 upload. It
Additional information from upstream at
https://imagemagick.org/discourse-server/viewtopic.php?t=36287
suggests it was disabled because of something in ghostscript 9.26
I think buster already has 9.27 from security so I think we could update
the imagemagick default configuration. Is there good rea
y personal view
only)
>From e2319e4dd2cc94742e1a0a75e2d612af13e74d68 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: MJ Ray
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 12:17:10 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] * debian/patches/10_vendor_update_command.patch: add a
reasonable default (Closes: #928814) * debian/tests/control: add test for
update-command default b
Thank you to both of you for your excellent improvements to reduce the
number of broken links on the web.
--
MJR http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Member of http://www.software.coop/ (but this email is my personal view
only)
pgpKuCXyahUhN.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 12:26:13 +0200
Laura Arjona Reina wrote:
> BSD, and
>
> I have checked that the content of the bsd.license file matches the
> BSD-3-Clause license at opensource.org, so I've updated the links to
>
> https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
>
> and removed the file.
Coul
Missed the bug off the CC for this. Sorry.
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 13:34:13 +
From: MJ Ray
To: debian-le...@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#919356: dwarves-dfsg: Copyright/licensing is unclear
Domenico Andreoli skribis:
> the situation of dwarves-d
Christian Seiler wrote:
> I'm open to improving the package description, but I do want to keep
> the work "offload" in a prominent position there, as that is the
> standard technical term in this field, and people who want to use that
> functionality will search for that word.
I agree that "offl
Package: hwinfo
Version: 21.49-1
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
Running "hwinfo --bios" displays things overtyping itself then hangs forever
with "> bios.2: ram" displayed.
Running it in strace shows that this is just after it opens /dev/mem
Thanks for any assistance or advice you can offer.
Package: iceowl-extension
Version: 24.7.0-1~deb7u1
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
* What led up to the situation?
I was creating an event in the calendar and adding remote (not on my caldav
server) attendees.
* What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or
ineffective
Package: lxlauncher
Version: 0.2.2-3
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
lxlauncher only shows a small subset of the installed applications, while I
would expect it to offer access to as many as possible.
It seems capable of using the full debian menu with only a few changes, so
please would you f
Steve McIntyre <93...@debian.org>
> Slightly taken aback by the severity: important bug, but whatever...
It's debatably correct: "important: a bug which has a major effect on
the usability of a package, without rendering it completely unusable
to everyone."
Being unable to recover a password has
Holger wrote:
> The Debian UK Society, by Branden Robinson (Debian Project Leader at the time
> of decision).
That line is rather moot. That business no longer exists and I think
zack has just terminated its licence for that reason.
http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/webwml/webwml/english/trademar
Package: dtc-common
Version: 0.34.6-1~bpo60+1
Severity: normal
Tags: patch upstream
In client panel: domain: Cron jobs, the option "Each 10 minutes"
actually runs the job every 15 minutes, the "Each 15 minutes" runs
it every 20 and so on.
This seems to be a misplaced closing comment around line 5
cause my trigger for the error
was the RSS module, which I think doesn't use getUrlFd but passes
the URL as-is to feedparser, which copes with it.
Is Limnoria in debian?
Regards,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter
Package: supybot
Version: 0.83.4.1.ds-2
Severity: normal
Any commands that are defined as expecting a URL will reject some
valid URLs if they contain a username and/or password and an @ before
the hostname. I have checked and it is not fixed upstream at sourceforge.
I have a possible patch for th
Package: evolution
Version: 2.30.3-5
Severity: normal
Even if access to many services on a server uses one username and
password, evolution still needs the details entering 5 or more times.
Each user has imap, smtp, cal, shared caldav calendars, and so on.
Each of these has to be set up manually
Package: mpt-status
Version: 1.2.0-7
Severity: normal
lspci reports LSI Logic / Symbios Logic 53c1030 PCI-X Fusion-MPT Dual Ultra320
SCSI
mpt-status -p returns "Nothing found, contact the author"
Package sends an email saying that every two hours.
-- System Information:
Debian Rel
Paul Wise
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Francesco Potortì wrote:
>
> > There is a field named "ReCaptcha (required)" without any picture or
> > input field. And I am refused subscription because I entered no captcha.
>
> It is likely that you will need to enable JavaScript, accept
> third
Package: wiki.debian.org
Severity: normal
The account creation page
http://wiki.debian.org/FrontPage?action=newaccount requires people to
pass a reCaptcha, which is annoying for able-bodied users and
downright impossible for some users with disabilities.
The login page http://wiki.debian.org/Fron
Package: wiki.debian.org
Severity: normal
Every page on the wiki says "Immutable Page" even when they can
be edited if one logs in. If registration is required,
change the message to "Login to Edit" or just hide it for
unauthenticated users.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ.
Package: lists.debian.org
Severity: normal
Pages like http://lists.debian.org/debian-bugs-dist/
for lists with no archive still include
You can link to the most recent page in the archives
for this list.
right above the text that says there is no archive.
Unsurprisingly, the link doesn't work.
ather for users to dismiss or
attackers to spoof.
Could that one be moved to /etc/dtc, please?
Thanks,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.o
Here is a little more info. I think that I have encountered a similar
problem and in my case, I believe it was because I had got in a muddle
with GPG keys in the initial setup, then corrected it after the first
full backup, so the backup chain was not all using the same key. It
does seem to be a
r material on the website if
asked, so long as the previous licence(s) also held.
Hope that informs,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ema
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> We feel that it is infeasible for Debian to be in complete compliance
> with the current GNOME trademark license. [...]
OK, sorry if this is an old chestnut, but do we actually need a
licence in general? Is most of the use in Debian more than honest
description of the sourc
Thank you for fixing this.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Package: dtc-common
Version: 0.29.17-1+lenny1
Severity: normal
After installing the security update for DSA-2179-1, the control panel
was not working (some php missing file error that I did not note -
sorry), so I ran /usr/share/dtc/admin/install/install and it failed
with the output ending:
===>
Modestas Vainius wrote:
> this bug is serious (i.e. the file is not shippable), isn't it? Problematic
> copyright notice is below.
The copyright notice is false (the confidentiality has been broken)
but I see no permission to distribute, so your claim seems correct.
Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef
Guido Trotter wrote:
> According to my understandment:
>
> - OpenSSL is released under a license which is GPL incompatible, unless an
> exception to the GPL is used in the software compiled with it. Debian cannot
> distribute GPL software released under the unmodified GPL and linked against
>
retitle 357791 ITP: irc2html.scm -- Convert IRC chat logs into valid HTML with
valid CSS
owner 357791 !
thanks
That was a really unhelpful automatic email, making work for busy
developers. This would be a fairly quick package, but I've not had
time for it. I still intend to package it, when tim
retitle 186958 ITP: koha -- Web-based library automation package
owner 186958 !
thanks
That was a really unhelpful automatic email, making work for busy
developers. People over at koha-community.org are working on
packaging right now.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists
Russ Allbery
> Could you add a link to the IBM Public License 1.0 to
> www.debian.org/legal/licenses/? This license is used by Postfix and
> OpenAFS and has been accepted in Debian main since 2000.
I suspect it didn't appear there because the name isn't
distinctive and varies a bit (see below).
Thibaut Paumard suggested:
> there is a growing body of packages (or at least files) under
> [1]CeCILL license in the archive. [...]
> [1] http://www.cecill.info/licences.en.html
Roughly how many packages/files are under the licence?
CeCILL Article 5.3.4 states "The Licensee can include a code th
o drawRenewalsConfig and related
places and send a patch when we can.
Hope that's OK,
--
MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster and LMS developer at | software
www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk| co
IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html | op
--
To UNSUBSCR
Package: dtc-common
Version: 0.29.17-1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
There does not seem to be an option to switch off the renewal email
reminders, which is desirable on shared hosting servers. The attached
patch adds the feature for shared hosting, where a zero-size reminder
message file in /e
Package: dtc-common
Version: 0.29.17-1
Severity: important
I think shared_renewal_shutdown may be unreachable
through the dtcadmin web. I expected it to be in
/usr/share/dtc/admin/inc/dtc_config.php function drawRenewalsConfig.
Is it somewhere else? If not, would that be the right place to ad
cate wrote:
> Eugen Dedu wrote:
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=532456, about licenses
> I think there is a problem in terminology. AFAIK (but IANAL), the
> "any use" doesn't include distribution of software.
> For this reason I think it is safe to classify it as non distributa
Thomas Goirand wrote:
> If I'm not mistaking, this has been fixed on the 0.30.x series of DTC.
> Please upgrade to it, our Lenny repository at GPLHost has this version
> and the necessary dependency back-ported:
> deb ftp://ftp.gplhost.com/debian lenny main
That contradicts the instruction on the
Package: dtc-common
Version: 0.29.17-1
Severity: minor
Tags: patch
The email for "A customer has submitted a support ticket" says
hostingame instead of hostname.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 5.0.2
APT prefers stable
APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: L
Christian Perrier wrote: [...]
> Another option would be dropping the british task and use "iamerican"
> and "ibritish" in a general "english" task (after all, is it correct
> to only have iamerican for en_IN, en_AU or en_ZA?)
As I understand it, en_AU and en_NZ use words from both iamerican and
Package: dtc-common
Version: 0.29.17-1
Severity: minor
It is not possible to enter MX records in uppercase. The data
entry page for DNS and MX silently deletes them. The DNS RFCs
often user uppercase as examples, so this is probably a bug.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 5.0.2
APT pre
It looks like this package would be based on MyDNS-ng, rather than
MyDNS. That is a good thing.
Would it be based on the old packaging removed after
http://bugs.debian.org/382656 ?
I have an only-updated git tree of that which builds 1.2.8.27
with lots of lintian warnings that should be fixed be
Package: libdbix-searchbuilder-perl
Version: 1.54-1
Severity: normal
I upgraded a system to lenny and many "rt ls" searches stopped working.
Viewing the logs discovered that request-tracker3.6 command line client
was resulting in a call to lower() on a timestamp, which isn't a common
function in p
"Angel Abad \(Ikusnet SLL\)" wrote:
> [...] No computer program can read
> distorted text as well as humans can, so bots cannot navigate sites
> protected by CAPTCHAs.
This sentence is false. It depends on the ability of the humans.
Also, many other sorts of CAPTCHAs exist besides distorted text
Rene Engelhard wrote:
> [...] I'd close the bug then EXCEPT that I am not sure what
> is correct hyphenation for o'clock? none? o'-clock like OOo with
> openoffice.org-hyphenation-en-us on lenny does?
I believe o'clock should not be hyphenated. Neither the Collins nor
(as far as I understand it)
ply because I was avoiding the OFL-fu and didn't
understand editing it could possibly change the postcard clause.
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > While not a DFSG problem, I think it's misleading to call this
> > cooperative font creation when the sale restriction limits economic
> >
Theppitak Karoonboonyanan wrote:
> * License : OFL-alike, with written notification requirement (see
> below)
I believe this font is postcard-ware, so does not follow the DFSG, so
cannot be part of debian. cc'ing debian-legal to check.
> * License:
>
> Font Computer Program License Agr
clone 521448 -1
retitle -1 p3nfs: applet build requires packages which are not in debian
stop
Michal Čihař wrote:
> MJ Ray napsal(a):
> > This email is to reopen bug 521448. As I understand the close
> > message, while gammu's source does contain source code for
> >
he section of debian-policy is
http://www.fr.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-contrib
The email discussion of gammu's gnapplet.sis and a similar case starts at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/03/msg00127.html
It finished with:-
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009
> License: Creative Commons
What CC licence is being used? I found no reference to it on the
URL given or in the download. Is this even CC?
Thanks,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
--
due to the large amount of
> architecture-independent data files) and as there are apparently 50MB
> of translation files, possible also seperate koha-language-
> packages.
Yes, I'd agree with that split as a minimum. I'm open to suggestions
about whether we want libkoha-perl
> * URL : http://www-sop.inria.fr/odyssee/software/OpenMEEG/
> * License : CeCILL-B
There is a concern that CeCILL-B contaminates other software (the
debian websites) because of the advertising requirement in 5.3.4.3, as
explained in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/12
> * URL : https://libre.adacore.com/polyorb/
> * License : GMGPL
Is that a typo? Looks like GNU GPL from here.
Thanks,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
> * URL : http://wiki.debian.org/getData
> * License : AGPL
http://wiki.debian.org/getData says:-
"distributed under the terms of the GNU Public License (GPL)."
The packager is also the copyright-holder, but this isn't a serving
application, so I beg you not to change to Af
one
of the common DFSG-free licenses.
Summarised from the emails by Paul Wise, Mark Weyer, Ben Finney and
myself.
Hope that helps,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(N
Hi - I've been cc'd on the change request, but I thought I was
told to leave it to the consultants team, so I'm not acting on it.
Hope that's OK,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
--
To UNSUBSCRI
Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> [Please Cc me on replies. Thanks]
> Most of the code is licensed under "the same terms as Perl itself",
[...]
> In addition to that, some icons are licensed under LGPL-3+, and some
> more icons are licensed under GPL-2.
>
> From how I understand it, if we choose GPL-2 for t
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * MJ Ray:
>
> > 3. is the licence any obstacle to meeting DFSG?
>
> It doesn't mention the act of running the program or using it.
> Or does this activity fall under "display"?
The licence does mention using it, in "Your use
I hope no-one minds, but I'd like some smart analysis of this software's
licence, so I'm asking debian-legal for their views.
Please keep the Cc to the ITP report on replies.
juanro...@gmail.com wrote:
* Package name: s3sync-ruby
* URL : http://s3sync.net/
* License : Othe
Hideki Yamane wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:58:44 +
> MJ Ray wrote:
> Just search with "nihonlinux" :)
> http://slashdot.jp/linux/article.pl?sid=02/10/29/1244228
>
> # or ask DDs in slashdot.jp (ODSN, http://osdn.jp/).
Should we stop linking to a debi
nnouncement on
http://www.debian.org/consultants/info though. Might be worth
emailing them just to check that they still work with debian.
Hope that helps,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.to
This module does not appear on URL : http://datetime.perl.org/
according to the search box on that site.
Also, is the licence GPL+Artistic or "as Perl"? That's what I was
trying to check.
Thanks for any replies,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please
Jani Uusitalo wrote:
> On http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/hurd-devel there's a link, labeled
> 'Development of the Hurd', which refers to
> http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/devel.html - this page doesn't exist on the
> server (it responds with a 404 - Page Not Found).
New link probably should
"brian m. carlson" wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 11:19:42AM +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> >* License : other
> > - Thou shalt not claim ownership of unmodified materials.
> > - Thou shalt not claim whole ownership of modified materials.
> > - Thou shalt grant the indemnity of the provid
Stephane Glondu wrote:
> * Package name: ssreflect
> * URL : http://www.msr-inria.inria.fr/Projects/math-components
> * License : CeCILL-B
RFC from debian-legal regarding the license:-
I think we've consensus on software that uses CeCILL (upgradeable to
GPL, so meets DFSG
Package: www.debian.org
X-Debbugs-Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Forwarded: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm putting this report into the bug tracker so someone else can
complete it before I do, if appropriate.
Frank Lin
I'll only comment on point 1, the use fee, because I think others have
answered the other questions and found solutions for the problem.
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We do not think that this is a severe enough problem to restrict the
> freeness of a work licensed using the AGPL.
>
Paul Gevers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] Could you help by explaining what needs to be done
> (if anything) with the current old-stable, stable and testing sources?
> It looks like we should take this seriously, but I fear this is slightly
> above my head. Especially the fact that upstream re
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> I repeatedly stated my opinion on the PHP license and its unfixed
> issues: I personally think that the PHP License (up to version 3.01),
> fails to meet the DFSG, even for PHP itself!
> However I failed to gain consensus on debian-legal about the p
Just rounding off a few loose edges. Stopping for reasons explained
near the end:-
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > For example, a PHPBB service page is about 20k, while PHPBB source is
> > 2.19MiB.
> You have a mighty uninteresting f
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > I thank you for your personal view (which will be useful for software
> > where you are a licensor), but this is essentially the same anecdotal
> > advocacy which has been covered in previous discussion
Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -legal: can a final concensus be reached on whether this licence is DFSG-free?
I'm happy to support
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00128.html
To summarise:-
- unacceptable name approval restrictions for anything except PHP
(DFSG 4);
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008-11-24 15:06:03.00 MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As it was not a mistake, this bug is not serious, but the desire for
> > some users to avoid unlimited download costs remains, so is it OK with
> > you if I
There have been some changes in this. Firstly, the relevant FAQ has
clarified some problems about whether servers must have the opportunity
to download client source code; see
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.mobile.funambol.user/1391
Secondly, ftpmasters have a "working opinion" that AGPL m
ake, so the bug report was valid.
As it was not a mistake, this bug is not serious, but the desire for
some users to avoid unlimited download costs remains, so is it OK with
you if I reopen this bug but downgrade it to wishlist?
Thanks,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and o
David Bremner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You might want to follow up on the thread in debian-legal
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/11/msg00046.html
> I understand someone from Funambol is following that thread.
>
> It would be nice to have some concensus about what, if any excep
libfunambol-cpp-client-api appears to be under a plain AGPLv3.
Clause 13 of the AGPLv3 requires hosting users to provide "access
to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge" to
every visitor to the web pages generated by this software. If used to
produce a public website, this
Source: yocto-reader
Version: 0.9.3
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.2.1
yocto-reader is under the AGPLv3 with no clarifications.
Clause 13 of the AGPLv3 requires any hosting user to provide "access
to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge" to
every visitor to the w
Alex Brotman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also meant the ones just above those two links, the "Power By" images.
>
> "Here are some more buttons that have been made for Debian: "
>
> The images are hosted on the debian servers, but there is no license
> associated with them.
I believe those ima
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
host celiknet.com [212.175.105.24]: 550 5.1.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User
unknown; rejecting
Ouch.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org
> > - 2channel (http://www.2ch.net)
> > - Shitaraba (http://rentalbbs.livedoor.com/jbbs/)
> > - Machi-BBS (http://www.machi.to/)
> > * END *
Other than that, no errors leaped out at me.
Hope that helps,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop
Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Context: the creation of a debian-mediation@ mailing list is requested
> in #437842.
>
> I support the proposal. [...reasons...]
I support the proposal if:-
"exempt of banning and other abuse commonly seen in when these issues
are handled in other debia
a
list would usually be read as "both". I hope you're right, though.
Hope that helps,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.htm
Maximilian Gaß <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm currently packaging libopenoffice-oodoc-perl and stumbled upon its
> license:
>
> > This software is free software. It is subject to the terms and
> > conditions of both
> >
> > - the GNU Lesser General Public Licence, version 2.1, of
Peter De Wachter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OpenArena contains a copy of the lcc compiler in the code/tools/lcc
> directory, which does not seem free software as it does not allow
> commercial distribution.
I agree. The early parts make it look like a BSD-style licence, but
the license part sta
it
> in fact redirects to www.us.debian.org instead of the generic
> www.debian.org.
OK. That's not what the bug report said (see Subject). I see later
email from Josip Rodin about this, so I'll bow out now.
Thanks for your help,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online sh
like "output" and the
second "throw out". Probably the second is less confusing, because
"output" appears in other situations in computing and it's closer to
the msgid literally.
Hope that helps,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop b
Giancarlo Niccolai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Anyway, this is the show-stopper. Contaminates other software. DFSG 9.
> > It's the parts of FPL sections 1, 2 and 5 about Scripts. Clear enough?
> >
> Yes, your position is now clear, thanks
Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You might need to explain us in more details what is a "kexec'able" kernel.
I think I would write either kexec-enabled or kexec-ready, depending
on whether it is the kernel that can kexec, or the kernel to be loaded
by kexec, respectively.
Hope that
Giancarlo Niccolai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skribis:
> MJ Ray wrote: [...]
> > In general, I'm disappointed to see this licence proliferation.
> I am too.
>
> There isn't any single open source mainstream programming language or
> even compiler I know, includin
Giancarlo Niccolai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> The license is tightly based on Apache 2, with extra clarifications
> and permissions. [...]
Summary: I believe that any interpreter under this Falcon P.L. licence
will contaminate other software and so fail DFSG 9. Also, I think the
licence c
These two bugs are being discussed by DPL candidates after
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/03/msg00065.html
and the current DPL has been asked the current status by an SPI
board member, as reported in
http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2008-March/002538.html
One candidate's te
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> > I'm proud about the work that's been done, but I'm not proud that
> > 3.1 has security support for only a year after 4.0 was released.
>
> You yourself may not be, but
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> If there are serious numbers of developers and contributors who don't
> feel proud about the work that's been done, then they should voice
> support for some modification to the text. [...]
Sorry, but that's a misleading requirement. I'm proud abou
Package: www.debian.org
Tags: help
http://www.debian.org/partners/ includes Black Cat Networks and links
to http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk/ which says
Black Cat Networks are pleased to announce that RapidSwitch have taken
over running all our services. All sales and support enquiries for
e too
surprised when people expect project systems to be open and allow
autonomous direct action more readily.
Cc'ing BTS for the debian-faq [please trim submit from followups].
Please resend to anyone else calling the debian project a cooperative.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org
g-dev to Build-Depends due to cidr.c:21 wanting
+pgtypes_timestamp.h
+
+ -- MJ Ray (Debian) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:06:34 +
+
mydns (1:1.1.0-7) unstable; urgency=low
* Added new translations, l10n-only update
diff -ruN mydns-1.1.0/debian/control mydns-1.2.4/debi
Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ti, 2007-10-23 kello 09:44 -0500, Steve Greenland kirjoitti:
> > But the license on the package itself doesn't make that restriction.
>
> If I have understood things correctly, in England (and the rest of the
> UK?) the copyright is owned by the crown and
Package: listarchives
Severity: normal
The following message:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-apache/2005/05/msg00105.html
is spam. Since it predates the addition of the spam-reporting feature to
our list archives, though, I cannot use the newer means of reporting this
message.
This particular
Laurent Chretienneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The CPAL is an OSI approved license.
That's informative, but not sufficient to show that *software* under that
licence follows the DFSG. (OSI has lawyers advocating licences, while
debian looks at software for users.)
Would you explain:-
- can s
1 - 100 of 236 matches
Mail list logo
