On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 09:44:33AM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hi, this is a question mainly for ftpmasters, but I think some public discussion here
> might be beneficial for me :)
>
> Basically, we thought OpenWatcom license wasn't DFSG for Debain standards, and now since
> I would like to put Virtualbox back in main, I'm trying to see if some statement
> clarifying the license is sufficient to make it dfsg.
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=376431
> https://github.com/open-watcom/open-watcom-v2/issues/271
I don't see that anything has changed in the past ten years, so I don't
think a clarification will do any good. Why does VirtualBox keep relying
on the OpenWatcom provider? There's bcc and faucc. QEMU's SeaBIOS is
compiled with GCC (but looking at the source, all the 16-bit code is in
asm statements). If Sybase doesn't provide a new license, I think it's
better to spend some effort in porting the BIOS to something that
doesn't require OpenWatcom.
--
Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards,
Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature