[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Fwd: Hello

I sent this email to thomas only by mistake, this brings up my old
question, why is the default reply-to-author and not reply-to-list?

Anyway this was my old reply, whit a few comments added... 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: muzzle <muzzle@gmail.com>
Date: 11-ago-2005 23.58
Subject: Re: Hello
To: Thomas Weber <weber@num.uni-sb.de>

2005/8/11, Thomas Weber <weber@num.uni-sb.de>:
> Hi,
> > > http://root.cern.ch/root/License.html
> > > Imagine your are the package maintainer -- do you really want to ask the
> > > upstream authors for every typing error you fix in the documentation?
> >

I knew there must have been licencing issues... sometimes I wonder if
Debian is taking this game a little too far.

/me ducks for cover

Ill add this note to clarify my original words:
I think sometimes it could just be ok to go on and package something
untill the author actually complains instead of spending so much time
on licencins issues and then decide that some great piece of sofware
has no place in Debian because of legal issues.
Of course I Am Not A Lawyer...
> > I am far from expert at licenses, but it seems to me that the phrasing "Users of
> > the software are asked to feed back problems, benefits, and/or suggestions about
> > the software to the ROOT Development Team" doesn't actually force people who
> > make changes to the software back to the ROOT people.
> I was referring to
> "Additionally, the authors grant permission to modify this software and
> its documentation for any purpose, provided that such modifications are
> not distributed without the explicit consent of the authors and that
> existing copyright notices are retained in all copies."
> So you need to get the consent for any modification.
> A discussion from 2003 on debian-legal:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/01/msg00278.html
> My concerns are for "main"; I can't judge wether non-free would be
> appropriate.

In the discussion someone notices that beeing linked to (and beeing
distributed inside) cernlib (covered by the GPL) ROOT
must be released under the GPL and the sentence you quote is
in violation of the licence. If someone is really interested in
packaging ROOT, (s)he should probably politely mail the upstream
author and make them aware of the problem, they could possibly just
release ROOT under the GPL making it perfectly suitable for main (a
great coup!)


> Regards
>         Thomas
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

"Aspetto un'emozione sempre piu' indefinibile" (CCCP Fedeli alla linea)

Reply to: