Bug#785514: RFS: ming/1:0.4.7-1 [RC]

Vincent Cheng vcheng at debian.org
Tue May 19 01:03:48 UTC 2015

Hi Gabriele,

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Gabriele Giacone <1o5g4r8o at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 08:41:02PM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote:
>> Hi Gabriele,
> Hi Vince,
>> About the re-licensing of php_ext/ming.c and php_ext/php_ming.h, does
>> the relevant Github issue [1] mean that the re-licensing wasn't
>> actually ACK-ed by all the contributors of these files? This sounds
>> like this might be a blocker?
>> [1] https://github.com/libming/libming/issues/42
> I've just updated the list few hours ago, just 2 missing contributors, 4
> commits.  Not sure that commits in question are legally significant and
> can block relicensing.  Opinions? [also CC'ing d-legal]

IANAL, so my opinion doesn't actually matter. :)

If you want an authoritative yes/no regarding whether this is legally
acceptable or not, debian-legal is the wrong place; you should be
asking the ftpmasters directly instead.

I don't actually know anything about ming (and the Debian ming
packages); are php_ext/ming.{c,h} actually used to build the binary
packages? Can they be removed just like java_ext?


More information about the pkg-flash-devel mailing list