Re: Bug#785514: RFS: ming/1:0.4.7-1 [RC]
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 06:03:48PM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Gabriele Giacone <1o5g4r8o@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 08:41:02PM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote:
> >
> >> [1] https://github.com/libming/libming/issues/42
> >
> > I've just updated the list few hours ago, just 2 missing contributors, 4
> > commits. Not sure that commits in question are legally significant and
> > can block relicensing. Opinions? [also CC'ing d-legal]
>
> IANAL, so my opinion doesn't actually matter. :)
>
> If you want an authoritative yes/no regarding whether this is legally
> acceptable or not, debian-legal is the wrong place; you should be
> asking the ftpmasters directly instead.
>
> I don't actually know anything about ming (and the Debian ming
> packages); are php_ext/ming.{c,h} actually used to build the binary
> packages? Can they be removed just like java_ext?
They can, they are both extensions but php one is packaged as php5-ming
(java_ext is not) and its popcon is around 2000.
https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=ming
[ CC'ing ftpmaster@d.o ]
Hi ftpmasters,
question is: Ming PHP extension (see #752629) has been relicensed in
both upstream git repo and latest tarballs released few days ago. Should
Debian be concerned about upstream contributors who haven't expressed
any agreement (yet) with license change?
Thanks for your time.
--
G..e
Reply to: