Ansgar Burchardt writes:
> "Steffen Möller" writes:
>> Formally speaking there is nothing to argue about. We should remove that
>> .jar.
>> To grant us some more time to orchestrate the individuals behind that
>> package and get up to speed with the much progressed upstream
>> developments, may
"Steffen Möller" writes:
>> Andreas Tille writes:
>> > You are mixing up GPL and DFSG. GPL says that the source code needs to
>> > be provided at least at request (and it in this case it is pretty easy
>> > to obtain the source code).
>>
>> "The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you
Hello,
> Andreas Tille writes:
> > You are mixing up GPL and DFSG. GPL says that the source code needs to
> > be provided at least at request (and it in this case it is pretty easy
> > to obtain the source code).
>
> "The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute
> the co
Andreas Tille writes:
> You are mixing up GPL and DFSG. GPL says that the source code needs to
> be provided at least at request (and it in this case it is pretty easy
> to obtain the source code).
"The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute
the complete corresponding s
Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 12:00:10AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> If you think I have misunderstood the GPL,
>
> You are mixing up GPL and DFSG. GPL says that the source code needs to
> be provided at least at request (and it in this case it is pretty easy
> to obtain the
Hi Jonathan,
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 12:00:10AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> If you think I have misunderstood the GPL,
You are mixing up GPL and DFSG. GPL says that the source code needs to
be provided at least at request (and it in this case it is pretty easy
to obtain the source code). So
Hello,
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 08:49:55 +0200
> Von: Andreas Tille
> An: Jonathan Nieder , 645...@bugs.debian.org
> Betreff: [Debian-med-packaging] Bug#645487: ensembl: includes GPL code
> without source
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Se
Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 07:00:23PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Would you be terribly
>> offended if I requested removal of the current package in the
>> meantime,
>
> Yes, we would be terribly offended and I explicitely do not want
> you to request the removal.
That's
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 07:00:23PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> tags 645487 + pending
> quit
>
> Hi,
>
> In October, 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > ensembl's debian/README.source says:
>
> > | Since Jalview is not yet part of Debian, its source code is also not
> > | yet available thro
Le Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 01:01:44PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
> Le Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 07:00:23PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
> >
> > This seems to be fixed in the packaging repo. What is left to do
> > before the updated package is uploaded? Would you be terribly
> > offended if I re
Le Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 07:00:23PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
>
> This seems to be fixed in the packaging repo. What is left to do
> before the updated package is uploaded? Would you be terribly
> offended if I requested removal of the current package in the
> meantime, so we could continu
tags 645487 + pending
quit
Hi,
In October, 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> ensembl's debian/README.source says:
> | Since Jalview is not yet part of Debian, its source code is also not
> | yet available through or distribution. To better comply with the GPL,
> | the source code of Ensembl also sh
Hello,
I would not bet on it. Most likely this needs some adjustments to the
Ensembl code since the Jar of Ensembl is considerably older than what is
now in Debian with a much smaller set of dependencies to additional jars.
Please leave it for after the Sprint.
Steffen
On 11/30/2011 10:42 AM, A
Hi Steffen,
could you please answer the more important piece I'm repeating below?
Thanks
Andreas.
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 10:37:11AM +0100, Steffen Möller wrote:
> > Regarding fixing the actual problem I would like to ask those people
> > directly involved with ensemble packaging (explic
Hello Jonathan,
Thank you for spotting the omission.
On 11/30/2011 09:58 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 09:49:25PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 03:51:18AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>>> Unfortunately no such file exists --- I guess it disap
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 09:49:25PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 03:51:18AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > Unfortunately no such file exists --- I guess it disappeared during
> > some upgrade. The jars in the source package only contain class
> > files, no .java sou
Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 03:51:18AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Unfortunately no such file exists --- I guess it disappeared during
>> some upgrade. The jars in the source package only contain class
>> files, no .java source files.
>>
>> Assuming that what debian/copyri
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 03:51:18AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Unfortunately no such file exists --- I guess it disappeared during
> some upgrade. The jars in the source package only contain class
> files, no .java source files.
>
> Assuming that what debian/copyright says is correct, this wo
Source: ensembl
Version: 63-1
Severity: serious
Justification: distributable?
Hi,
ensembl's debian/README.source says:
| Since Jalview is not yet part of Debian, its source code is also not
| yet available through or distribution. To better comply with the GPL,
| the source code of Ensembl also
19 matches
Mail list logo
