* Guus Sliepen , 2016-08-01, 14:01:
Virtualbox is under GPL-2 with a lot of exception, allowing it to be
used with MPL, Apache 2.0, OpenSSL.
So, LGPL-3 will be too restrictive I think for them.
It should be fine to combine GPL-2 and LGPL-3.
No, GPLv2 and LGPLv3 are not compatible:
https://w
On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 11:24:46AM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> SeaBIOS license is not used by VirtualBox,
I was just mentioning it because it is a BIOS and it is compiled by GCC,
so it was an argument that OpenWatcom is not a requirement to build
working BIOS code.
> and I think a good
Hi,
>Maybe I don't quite understand what VirtualBox upstream meant by this
>sentence, but if the SeaBIOS license does not allow modification,
>then it would not be DFSG-free, so the fact that VirtualBox is in
>contrib would actually be an error, because it should rather be in
>non-free. And that w
On 08/01/2016 12:56 PM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> We are not allowed to touch SeaBIOS for licence reasons. Not our decision.
Maybe I don't quite understand what VirtualBox upstream meant by this
sentence, but if the SeaBIOS license does not allow modification,
then it would not be DFSG-free,
Hi Guus
>I don't see that anything has changed in the past ten years, so I don't
>think a clarification will do any good. Why does VirtualBox keep relying
>on the OpenWatcom provider? There's bcc and faucc. QEMU's SeaBIOS is
>compiled with GCC (but looking at the source, all the 16-bit code is in
On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 12:24:12PM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> Why does VirtualBox keep relying on the OpenWatcom provider? There's bcc
> and faucc.
AFAIK, VirtualBox upstream decided to use non-standard OpenWatcom extensions.
> QEMU's SeaBIOS is compiled with GCC (but looking at the source, al
(I'll drop -devel starting from next email, following up on debian-legal
isntead)
>If you agree, I think it's better to ask the question instead at
>‘debian-legal’.
Hi Debian-Legal list :)
forwarding the discussion from -devel here
Basically, we thought OpenWatcom license wasn't DFSG for Debain
Hi Paul
>I didn't see a question in your mail :)
would a clear statement from them satisfy Debian standards? or should them
relicense?
>Is there any reason they can't relicense to something more standard?
Not sure, big company, legal issues, difficult to track people for changing it,
I don't
On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 09:44:33AM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hi, this is a question mainly for ftpmasters, but I think some public
> discussion here
> might be beneficial for me :)
>
> Basically, we thought OpenWatcom license wasn't DFSG for Debain standards,
> and now since
> I wou
Gianfranco Costamagna writes:
> Hi, this is a question mainly for ftpmasters, but I think some public
> discussion here might be beneficial for me :)
IMO this is what the ‘debian-legal’ discussion group is for: to save the
many people who read ‘debian-devel’ but don't want intricate discussions
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hi, this is a question mainly for ftpmasters, but I think some public
> discussion here
> might be beneficial for me :)
I didn't see a question in your mail :)
> Basically, we thought OpenWatcom license wasn't DFSG for Debain standa
Hi, this is a question mainly for ftpmasters, but I think some public
discussion here
might be beneficial for me :)
Basically, we thought OpenWatcom license wasn't DFSG for Debain standards, and
now since
I would like to put Virtualbox back in main, I'm trying to see if some statement
clarifying
12 matches
Mail list logo
