Bug#367970: bacula: hyper-retaliation clause does not comply with the DFSG

2006-05-20 Thread Francesco Poli
On Thu, 18 May 2006 17:46:53 -0500 John Goerzen wrote: > severity 367970 important > thanks > > On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 12:12:08AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > > This "hyper-retaliation" clause does *not* comply with the DFSG: > > upstream should be persuaded to drop it. > > Hello Frances

Bug#367970: bacula: hyper-retaliation clause does not comply with the DFSG

2006-05-18 Thread John Goerzen
severity 367970 important thanks On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 12:12:08AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > This "hyper-retaliation" clause does *not* comply with the DFSG: > upstream should be persuaded to drop it. Hello Francesco, Thank you for pointing this out. The thread on debian-legal just beg

Bug#367970: bacula: hyper-retaliation clause does not comply with the DFSG

2006-05-18 Thread Francesco Poli
Package: bacula Version: 1.38.9-9 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.2.1 The copyright file states that parts of Bacula are licensed under the GNU GPL v2, plus additional conditions, among which the following one: | Termination for IP or Patent Action: | In addition to the termination cla