[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: Michał Masłowski
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] potentially tained/non-free software
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:08:40 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)

> batik_1.7 has a non-free file
> -> 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

> bacula has a freedom problem
> - 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 ,
>   so the answer would be good there too :)

I don't see a difference between making derived works or modifying, so I

(I've blacklisted all of these packages (including fop) in Parabola,
except for beav which I couldn't find there.)

Attachment: pgpnT5ZS9H2Vg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]