[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] potentially tained/non-free software
From: |
Karl Goetz |
Subject: |
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] potentially tained/non-free software |
Date: |
Thu, 2 Feb 2012 12:16:52 +1100 |
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:08:40 +0100
address@hidden (Michał Masłowski) wrote:
> > batik_1.7 has a non-free file
> > https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?34579
> > -> I'm not sure if its sane to repack a .jar, I'll need to
> > investigate more.
>
> The jar is built from fop. I don't know Debian/gNewSense policy on
> this, in my opinion it should depend on a separate package with fop's
> jars.
It should indeed, in this instance the problem was inherited directly
from debian.
> > bacula has a freedom problem
> > https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?34578
> > - could i get some input on this bug please? Does anyone else agree
> > with jasons interpretation of the licence? if its generally
> > agreed to be a problem i'll report a bug in debian. This appears to
> > be the same as
> > https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=34424 ,
> > so the answer would be good there too :)
>
> I don't see a difference between making derived works or modifying,
> so I agree.
>
> (I've blacklisted all of these packages (including fop) in Parabola,
> except for beav which I couldn't find there.)
Thanks for the input, I'll try to forward them soon.
thanks,
kk
--
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK7FOSS)
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- Re: [GNU-linux-libre] potentially tained/non-free software,
Karl Goetz <=