Bug#618968: Ping - netgen license problems

[Francesco Poli]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:07:33 +0200 Arne Wichmann wrote:

> begin  quotation  from Francesco Poli (in <20120625215725.69523c3a3df0a27f62672538 at paranoici.org>):
> > On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:36:50 +0200 Arne Wichmann wrote:
> > 
> > > So, at least as far as I can see, there are a number of things to be done
> > > in various time frames:
> > > - Alert enough people to the problem (via debian-user, messages in the
> > >   packaging, other mailing lists and similar means)
> > 
> > I am not sure debian-user is the appropriate place for such a call for
> > help...
> 
> Well, if you are trying to reach your users, this seems to be a possible
> vector to me

I am trying to reach people who may be able *and* willing to help me in
persuading an upstream company to re-license a library under
GPL-compatible terms.
Many users are, unfortunately, totally uninterested in licensing
issues. I am afraid that such a call for help would be ignored (or
even considered annoying) on debian-user...

> 
> > What do you mean by "messages in the packaging"?
> 
> At least I get mails by apt-listchanges... Other tactics may also be
> available - but I am not the epigon of debian packaging.

You mean that netgen and other affected packages should mail to
root at localhost saying "please help to keep this package in
Debian..." ?!?
I am afraid that this would annoy users and would therefore be
counterproductive.

> 
> > As far as other mailing lists are concerned, I tried to see if other
> > debian-legal participants could join me in this persuasion effort, but
> > I unfortunately received no reply:
> 
> I do not think that debian-legal is a good starting point for a massive
> campaign.

As I said above, I need people with at least a bit of interest in
licensing issues: debian-legal seemed to be the ideal starting point.
Please note that I am a debian-legal regular myself...

> 
> > Maybe debian-science could be another appropriate mailing list, but I
> > suspect that a good number of its participants are already aware of the
> > issue, due to the various bug reports filed against packages maintained
> > by the Debian Science team: #617613, #617931, and #618968 (that is to
> > say, this one).
> 
> A mail there might still help a bit.

I am writing a message to debian-science and debian-legal right now.
Let's hope to obtain some help this time...


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
 New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-science-maintainers/attachments/20120628/04dadf3e/attachment-0001.pgp>