Control: tags -1 wontfix
On 11/04/2012 03:23 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I hereby grant you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license to eat
> cheese with salami, subject to the following conditions:
>
> - You do not use the name of debian-legal while talking with food in your
>mouth.
On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 02:56:27PM -0600, Michael Shuler wrote:
> Among other suggestions, Francesco Poli recommended including a verbatim
> copy of this license.
You should not. If the license has no legal force, you should not propagate
it and give people the impression that it does.
> > The C
I meant to include a note that I'm fine with not removing CAcert from
ca-certificates, as long as there is consensus with a) include the
license in d/copyright, or b) ignore it (for now). We can work on this
after wheezy, when we can add another package, if that is what we need
to do. Sorry if th
On 11/03/2012 08:15 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 03:28:08PM -0500, Michael Shuler wrote:
>> After reading the -legal thread, comments above, the CAcert mailing list
>> thread, the Fedora explanation, and carefully reading the licensing
>> myself, the cautious side of me says
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 03:28:08PM -0500, Michael Shuler wrote:
> Control: severity -1 serious
> Control: tags -1 pending
> (Setting to serious, due to policy violation)
> After reading the -legal thread, comments above, the CAcert mailing list
> thread, the Fedora explanation, and carefully read
Control: severity -1 serious
Control: tags -1 pending
(Setting to serious, due to policy violation)
After reading the -legal thread, comments above, the CAcert mailing list
thread, the Fedora explanation, and carefully reading the licensing
myself, the cautious side of me says the right thing to
* Raphael Geissert:
> TL;RD; RDL looks non-free, Philipp Dunkel from CAcert says Debian is fine (to
> distribute) because of the disclaimer re the certificates included in ca-
> certificates, Fedora says it is non-free.
>
> What do the others think about it?
If we take CA certificate license sta
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 12:35:09 -0500 Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Hi everyone,
Hello Raphael,
>
> mejiko: thanks for pointing it out, I'm forwarding your report to our
> debian-legal mailing list to seek their opinion.
Thanks for asking.
Please note that you may receive multiple and possibly diff
Package: ca-certificates
Version: 20090814+nmu3squeeze1
Severity: normal
Hello.
ca-certificates packeages included Cacert Root certificates.
This certificates licensed under Cacert Root Distribution License (RDL).
I think that Cacert RDL is DFSG-free. (Permissive/BSD-like License ?)
Suggests:
9 matches
Mail list logo
