Thanks for several responses -- however the underlying question I had,
whether the upload the new package to unstable or not, was not resolved.
Does anyone see any reason to delay or abstain from the upload? If not,
I'll do the upload within days.
/Simon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-deve
On 12-03-07 at 09:25pm, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 21:03:25 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
> > Julien Cristau writes:
> >
> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 20:35:53 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > >
> > >> I co-maintain the libidn package. As upstream, I recently
> > >> reli
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 21:03:25 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Julien Cristau writes:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 20:35:53 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >
> >> I co-maintain the libidn package. As upstream, I recently relicensed it
> >> from LGPLv2+ to GPLv2+|LGPLv3+.
> >
> > So maybe tha
Julien Cristau writes:
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 20:35:53 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> I co-maintain the libidn package. As upstream, I recently relicensed it
>> from LGPLv2+ to GPLv2+|LGPLv3+.
>
> So maybe that's a stupid question, but... Why? You didn't have enough
> license headaches?
Florian Weimer writes:
(GPLv2-only and LGPLv3+ are incompatible.)
>>>
>>> Nowadays, almost all GPLv2-only programs link to library code licensed
>>> under the GPLv3 (with a linking exception on the library side), so we
>>> pretend that they are, at least to some degree.
>>
>> How does that l
* Simon Josefsson:
> Florian Weimer writes:
>
> (GPLv2-only and LGPLv3+ are incompatible.)
Nowadays, almost all GPLv2-only programs link to library code licensed
under the GPLv3 (with a linking exception on the library side), so we
pretend that they are, at least to some d
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 20:35:53 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> I co-maintain the libidn package. As upstream, I recently relicensed it
> from LGPLv2+ to GPLv2+|LGPLv3+.
So maybe that's a stupid question, but... Why? You didn't have enough
license headaches?
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Des
* Simon Josefsson:
> It wouldn't hurt, but I'm also not sure if it is worth the work. If any
> significant application triggered this particular code path, people
> should have noticed the problem a long time ago. It is at worst an
> easily diagnozed DoS causing the library to busy-loop forever.
Florian Weimer writes:
> * Simon Josefsson:
>
>> I co-maintain the libidn package. As upstream, I recently relicensed it
>> from LGPLv2+ to GPLv2+|LGPLv3+. I'd like to upload the latest version
>> into Debian before Wheezy since a pretty nasty inifinte-loop bug has
>> been fixed.
>
> Should we
Paul Wise writes:
> I would suggest asking the FSF licensing folks and debian-legal.
Good point about debian-legal, I'll repost the question there. I have
talked to the FSF and they suggest LGPLv3+ but will live with
dual-GPLv2+|LGPLv3+ if there are significant GPLv2-only applications in
the fr
* Simon Josefsson:
> I co-maintain the libidn package. As upstream, I recently relicensed it
> from LGPLv2+ to GPLv2+|LGPLv3+. I'd like to upload the latest version
> into Debian before Wheezy since a pretty nasty inifinte-loop bug has
> been fixed.
Should we get that into stable-security, unde
I would suggest asking the FSF licensing folks and debian-legal.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/CAKTj
I co-maintain the libidn package. As upstream, I recently relicensed it
from LGPLv2+ to GPLv2+|LGPLv3+. I'd like to upload the latest version
into Debian before Wheezy since a pretty nasty inifinte-loop bug has
been fixed. However, I am not certain what should be done before
uploading a re-licen
13 matches
Mail list logo
