On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:25:16 -
Rogério Theodoro de Brito wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 18:36, KarlGoetz wrote:
> > Given this was filed against ubuntu when Gobuntu was being
> > developed, I'm tempted to suggest this bug should be marked
> > 'invalid'.
>
> OK, Took the suggestion into ac
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 18:36, KarlGoetz wrote:
> Given this was filed against ubuntu when Gobuntu was being developed,
> I'm tempted to suggest this bug should be marked 'invalid'.
OK, Took the suggestion into account and changed things.
Regards,
--
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.co
** Changed in: vrms (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
Title:
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
To manage notifications about this bug go
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:37:20 -
Rogério Theodoro de Brito wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 08:37, KarlGoetz wrote:
> > please explain why you think this is opinion
>
> Debian opinion != FSF opinion
Indeed. And != Ubuntu opinion too.
> Furthermore, vrms works by looking at the section of th
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 08:37, KarlGoetz wrote:
> please explain why you think this is opinion
Debian opinion != FSF opinion
Furthermore, vrms works by looking at the section of the package to
base its decisions on. If it reports something incorrectly, then there
are two possibilities (which not
please explain why you think this is opinion
** Changed in: vrms (Ubuntu)
Status: Opinion => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
Title:
CC-by-sa reported as non-fr
** Changed in: vrms (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Opinion
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
Title:
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
To manage notifications about this bug go
Changed the incorrectly set status back to confirmed
** Changed in: vrms (Ubuntu)
Status: In Progress => Confirmed
--
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubu
** Changed in: vrms (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => In Progress
--
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.u
You've conviced me that cc-by-sa 2.5 is DFSG-nonfree, but the real
question is: is ubuntu following DFSG?
Back in the days of gobuntu, ubuntu was officially following FSF guidelins
rather than the DFSG.
And if I understand correctly, cc-by-sa 2.5 is considered free for non-sw work
by the FSF (ht
Some of the information here in the previous comments is old/outdated or
incorrect. Here is the real story.
According to the DFSG and the FSF, CC-BY-SA >= 3.0 is Free. See
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#CreativeCommonsAttributionShare-
Alike.28CC-BY-SA.29v3.0
tangerine-icon-theme is licensed
Tell me if I've understood correctly: vrms should show me only packages
that I've installed from restricted or multiverse?
--
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubu
CC-by-sa is considered free for artistic content by the FSF, and the
packages listed as non-free by vrms contains icons et similia.
The meaning of "vrms" is indeed Virtual Richard Matthew Stallman, but
it lists packages considered non-free by Debian (that's because was
written by Debian developers
What about CC-BY-SA 3.0? Debian does consider 3.0 to be free according
to DFSG, but not previous versions.
--
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu
The package is called virtualRichardMStallman, I want it to list
packages considered non-free by FSF.
--
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs
CC-by-sa it's free for ubuntu (there was a discussion on the
gobuntu-devel mailing list).
I know that vrms is a debian project, so that it's impossible for us
to send a patch upstream (unless debian itself decide that older
CC-by-sa licences are indeed free), but ubuntu can do and apply a
patch to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/04/msg00031.html
--
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
Is CC-by-sa non-free?
How so?
--
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mail
** Changed in: vrms (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
** Tags added: gobuntu
--
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubu
> GNU FDL is DFSG free provided the invariant section clauses are not
> used.
Yes, but e.g. autoconf-doc uses the FDL and is still list as non-free;
this is because, as long as I know, software from FSF uses the FDL
entirely (invariant sections included).
--
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
https:/
GNU FDL is DFSG free provided the invariant section clauses are not
used.
--
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-b
> I also see autoconf-doc, gdb-doc, manpages-posix, manpages-posix-dev and
> make-doc between non-free packages, is it right? It sounds strange.
Forgive me for the delay, please.
Well, vrms is a debian software, so even packages with the GNU FDL are
listed as non-free (such as autoconf-doc, for ex
I also see autoconf-doc, gdb-doc, manpages-posix, manpages-posix-dev and
make-doc between non-free packages, is it right? It sounds strange.
--
CC-by-sa reported as non-free
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/144006
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
23 matches
Mail list logo
