Marco Menardi | 1 Mar 21:17 2006
Picon

Asterisk italian prompts for 1.2 version not yet in debian sid, any clue?

Hi, time ago I wrote to the list informing that I've updated the 
asterisk italian sounds to the 1.2.x version,  but I've received no 
feedback since then.
I've seen that debian sid has asterisk 1.2.x but still 
asterisk-prompt-it is the one of the 1.0.x version.
Could you give me some feedback about it?
The set is available (old and new) here:
http://mirror.tomato.it/ftp/pub/asterisk/suoni_ita/
the readme.pdf  is related to the new stuff, with one paragraphs in 
english to ease your job.
thanks
Marco Menardi (markit in freenode irc)
Debian testing watch | 1 Mar 23:08 2006
Picon

speex 1.1.12-1 MIGRATED to testing

FYI: The status of the speex source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.

  Previous version: 1.1.11.1-1
  Current version:  1.1.12-1

--

-- 
This email is automatically generated; henning <at> makholm.net is responsible.
See http://people.debian.org/~henning/trille/ for more information.
Debian testing watch | 1 Mar 23:08 2006
Picon

iaxclient 0.0+cvs20050725-6 MIGRATED to testing

FYI: The status of the iaxclient source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.

  Previous version: (not in testing)
  Current version:  0.0+cvs20050725-6

--

-- 
This email is automatically generated; henning <at> makholm.net is responsible.
See http://people.debian.org/~henning/trille/ for more information.
Junichi Uekawa | 1 Mar 23:39 2006
Picon

Bug#354899: [Portaudio] Re: portaudio in Debian, license updates?

Package: portaudio
Severity: serious

I'm filing a bug so that we can remember there is an issue here.

regards,
	junichi

At Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:19:18 -0800,
Don Armstrong wrote:
> 
> [1  <text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)>]
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Ross Bencina wrote:
> > [someone said]
> > >Or, if the "request" clause is not removed from the license, I would
> > >like to see it clarified as follows:
> > >
> > > Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is
> > > requested BUT NOT REQUIRED to send the modifications to the original
> > > developer so that they can be incorporated into the canonical version.
> > 
> > If we changed it to this would debian-legal be happy?
> 
> That would be fine; it's not absolutely essential so long as it's
> clear that it's a non-binding request, and that you interpret it as a
> non-binding request. [That said, if you're going to touch the license
> at all, it would be a nice thing to clarify, or move out of the
> license text itself.]
> 
> 
(Continue reading)

Junichi Uekawa | 2 Mar 00:15 2006
Picon

Bug#354899: [Portaudio] Re: portaudio in Debian, license updates?

Hi,

> > Can you please identify yourself as someone who has final authority for 
> > giving this advice.
> 
> I will be very surprised if Don satisfies that request. No
> debian decision is final: we reserve the right to find or admit
> bugs in the future, whether coding, usage or licensing. The most
> positive decision possible is: good enough as far as we know.
> 
> If portaudio is in main and has no open or disputed bugs at
> http://bugs.debian.org/src:portaudio or elsewhere, it's OK now.

I've opened bugs now, I don't know if it hasn't happened before.
Please Cc' the respective bugs so that we know it's fixed either way.

The possible options that I see are:

1. audacity/portaudio are removed from Debian

2. license text is modified so that it clarifies that the 'request' is
   a non-binding request which is optional and not a mandatory section.

regards,
	junichi
--

-- 
dancer <at> {debian.org,netfort.gr.jp}   Debian Project
Glenn Maynard | 2 Mar 00:41 2006

Bug#354899: [Portaudio] Re: portaudio in Debian, license updates?

On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 08:15:05AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> I've opened bugs now, I don't know if it hasn't happened before.
> Please Cc' the respective bugs so that we know it's fixed either way.
> 
> The possible options that I see are:
> 
> 1. audacity/portaudio are removed from Debian
> 
> 2. license text is modified so that it clarifies that the 'request' is
>    a non-binding request which is optional and not a mandatory section.

I'm confused.  d-legal came to the conclusion, as far as I can tell, that
this isn't a problem; that it would be nice to move it out of the license
(wishlist), or to note redundantly on their webpage that this is a request
(also wishlist), but this is unambiguously a non-binding request already;
it uses the very word "request".  Why are you opening bugs?

--

-- 
Glenn Maynard
Steve Langasek | 2 Mar 00:59 2006
Picon

Bug#354899: Bug#354898: [Portaudio] Re: portaudio in Debian, license updates?

severity 354898 wishlist
severity 354899 wishlist
thanks

On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 06:41:19PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 08:15:05AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > I've opened bugs now, I don't know if it hasn't happened before.
> > Please Cc' the respective bugs so that we know it's fixed either way.

> > The possible options that I see are:

> > 1. audacity/portaudio are removed from Debian

> > 2. license text is modified so that it clarifies that the 'request' is
> >    a non-binding request which is optional and not a mandatory section.

> I'm confused.  d-legal came to the conclusion, as far as I can tell, that
> this isn't a problem; that it would be nice to move it out of the license
> (wishlist), or to note redundantly on their webpage that this is a request
> (also wishlist), but this is unambiguously a non-binding request already;
> it uses the very word "request".  Why are you opening bugs?

Agreed.  I don't see anything here that warrants a serious bug.

--

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon <at> debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/
(Continue reading)

Steve Langasek | 2 Mar 01:02 2006
Picon

Bug#354899: [Portaudio] Re: portaudio in Debian, license updates?

On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 08:57:55AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:

> > > I've opened bugs now, I don't know if it hasn't happened before.
> > > Please Cc' the respective bugs so that we know it's fixed either way.

> > > The possible options that I see are:

> > > 1. audacity/portaudio are removed from Debian

> > > 2. license text is modified so that it clarifies that the 'request' is
> > >    a non-binding request which is optional and not a mandatory section.

> > I'm confused.  d-legal came to the conclusion, as far as I can tell, that
> > this isn't a problem; that it would be nice to move it out of the license
> > (wishlist), or to note redundantly on their webpage that this is a request
> > (also wishlist), but this is unambiguously a non-binding request already;
> > it uses the very word "request".  Why are you opening bugs?

> License text does not explain that it is a 'wishlist'; the term
> 'request' can be binding or non-binding depending on interpretation,
> and is not a good word to use without defining the scope. That is
> where the non-clarity lies.  

I think the word "request" is pretty unambiguous.  Anyway, ambiguities
regarding the meaning of a license aren't RC bugs.

--

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon <at> debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/
(Continue reading)

Junichi Uekawa | 2 Mar 00:57 2006
Picon

Bug#354899: [Portaudio] Re: portaudio in Debian, license updates?

Hi,

> > I've opened bugs now, I don't know if it hasn't happened before.
> > Please Cc' the respective bugs so that we know it's fixed either way.
> > 
> > The possible options that I see are:
> > 
> > 1. audacity/portaudio are removed from Debian
> > 
> > 2. license text is modified so that it clarifies that the 'request' is
> >    a non-binding request which is optional and not a mandatory section.
> 
> I'm confused.  d-legal came to the conclusion, as far as I can tell, that
> this isn't a problem; that it would be nice to move it out of the license
> (wishlist), or to note redundantly on their webpage that this is a request
> (also wishlist), but this is unambiguously a non-binding request already;
> it uses the very word "request".  Why are you opening bugs?

License text does not explain that it is a 'wishlist'; the term
'request' can be binding or non-binding depending on interpretation,
and is not a good word to use without defining the scope. That is
where the non-clarity lies.  

I'd like to see the license text itself updated, rather than the
website adding some clarification outside of Debian archive.

regards,
	junichi
--

-- 
dancer <at> {debian.org,netfort.gr.jp}   Debian Project
(Continue reading)

Debian Bug Tracking System | 2 Mar 01:18 2006
Picon

Processed: Re: Bug#354898: [Portaudio] Re: portaudio in Debian, license updates?

Processing commands for control <at> bugs.debian.org:

> severity 354898 wishlist
Bug#354898: [Portaudio] Re: portaudio in Debian, license updates?
Severity set to `wishlist'.

> severity 354899 wishlist
Bug#354899: [Portaudio] Re: portaudio in Debian, license updates?
Severity set to `wishlist'.

> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Gmane