Marco D'Itri wrote:
I do, and I stand by my opinion: the package license is intended to be
applied to everything, and pretending otherwise is useless pedantry.
Modern copyright law, unfortunately, demands pedantry. If you think it's
useless, that's your opinion, but as far as I can tell that'
Russ Allbery wrote:
While it would be nice to clean up this sort of thing just to avoid future
confusion, this doesn't strike me as a serious problem worthy of removing
the software from Debian unless the upstream copyright holders indicate
that they really had intended to offer no license for th
On Sep 15, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You apparenly don't understand the difference between a license and a
> copyright notice.
I do, and I stand by my opinion: the package license is intended to be
applied to everything, and pretending otherwise is useless pedantry.
--
ciao,
Marco D'Itri wrote:
No, maybe it's you who do not understand english, or probably just like
armchair lawyering.
Please stop being rude when you're wrong.
You apparenly don't understand the difference between a license and a
copyright notice. Actually, it's
quite possible the authors of NTP d
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There are several files that are BSD with advertising clause, including
> > libntp/memmove.c, libntp/mktime.c, libntp/random.c, libntp/strerror.c,
> > libntp/strstr.c, ntpd/refclock_jupiter.c, and ntpd/refclock_mx4200.c.
> > These
On Sep 15, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I see nothing wrong libparse/*, just because the files have an
> >extra warranty disclaimer it does not mean that the package license does
> >not apply.
>
> Then you don't understand copyright law.
> The package copyright notice and licens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I've just been through the ntp source tree looking at all the
copyright and license assertions. Executive summary is that there are
indeed some problems, but it's not bad, and I believe it can be fixed
with an upload that elides certain bits from the upstream sources
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 01:02:51AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:03:36 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > What are you going to replace it with? AFAIK, ntp is the only package
> > we have in Debian which supports useful clock synchronization, which
> > is essential for a nu
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:03:36 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> What are you going to replace it with? AFAIK, ntp is the only package
> we have in Debian which supports useful clock synchronization, which
> is essential for a number of other services (e.g., Kerberos).
Isn't chrony a possible replacem
Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The file util/ansi2knr.c is also GPL. I'm pretty sure it's unused, but
> an easy reference in debian/copyright would cover it.
This may be a problem if it is used, as:
> There are several files that are BSD with advertising clause, including
> libntp/me
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 00:03 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The maintainers should have a chance to clear up this question first.
Ok, I've just been through the ntp source tree looking at all the
copyright and license assertions. Executive summary is that there are
indeed some problems, but it's
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 00:03 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The maintainers should have a chance to clear up this question first.
I'll have a look at it today.
Bdale
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Matthijs,
>> I've never tested openntpd, but it is the obvious replacement in case
>> of legal problems with ntp and it has been released with sarge.
>
> I use openntpd and that works better then ntp IMHO.
Last time i checked,
- it doesn't support attached clocks, so no stratum 1
- it only se
George Danchev wrote:
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 10:03, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:07:30AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I just discovered that the ntp source is a nest of licensing problems.
The arlib subdir isn't distributable.
Neither is the entire libparse subd
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 10:03, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:07:30AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > I just discovered that the ntp source is a nest of licensing problems.
> >
> > The arlib subdir isn't distributable.
> > Neither is the entire libparse subdir, or anyt
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:07:30AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I just discovered that the ntp source is a nest of licensing problems.
> The arlib subdir isn't distributable.
> Neither is the entire libparse subdir, or anything else by Frank Kardel.
> I'm not actually sure it will build witho
16 matches
Mail list logo
