Status of Corel's Front end to Apt

I'm the Product Development Manager for Corel Linux and I hope it's appropriate to provide a brief clarification on Corel Update (otherwise referred to as the Front end to Apt and formerly known as Get-it) to make sure there is no misunderstanding. Corel Update is an application which dynamically

Re: Corel's apt frontend

On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 03:16:41PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: There is no derived work anywhere else than in your mind. This is a personal statement, not a technical one. Please confine your discussion to the technical issues. -- Raul

Re: Status of Corel's Front end to Apt

Hi Erich and Debian Folks, I had dinner with Pamela Samuelson (Cyberlaw instructor at Berkeley) and Mitchell Baker (Attorney and head of Mozilla) this evening. We discussed the dpkg + get_it issue and various examples of derivation without conventional copying of one work directly into another.

Re: Corel's apt frontend

Raul: This is a personal statement, not a technical one. I think we all got to the point of exasperation on that argument. And having discussed it with attorneys this evening, they don't have a good answer either. So, I think it's best to table it until something changes, like legislation or a

Re: Corel's apt frontend

On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 11:43:12AM -0500, Ben Pfaff wrote: Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Previously Henning Makholm wrote: That's knowledge. Facts are not copyrightable, only particular expressions of facts are. Such as a particular way to express the format for the

Re: ITP: pine (?)

Could anybody explain pine licence? Local modification of this release is permitted as follows, or by mutual agreement: In order to reduce confusion and facilitate debugging, we request that locally modified versions be denoted by appending the letter L to the current version number, and that the

Re: Corel's apt frontend

Raul Miller wrote: On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 04:23:36PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: FWIW, RMS also doesn't see a problem with this. Understood, but RMS didn't write dpkg. I think he'd be a little less sanguine about someone doing this with gcc. I haven't seen RMS claim that Emacs,

Re: Corel's apt frontend

On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 10:15:29AM -0500, Jeff Teunissen wrote: I haven't seen RMS claim that Emacs, using gcc as a backend to compile code, is a derivative work of gcc. Nor has he taken issue with NeXT Project Builder calling gcc to compile code, or any of the other development environments'

Re: SNNS: does it really belong into non-free?

On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 09:54:34AM +0200, Siggy Brentrup wrote: According to Joey the offending section is: 4. If you distribute copies of SNNS you may not charge anything except the cost for the media and a fair estimate of the costs of computer time or network time directly