Richard Heck wrote:
> I'll ask again: What is the status of the mingw build? Last I heard, it
> built our executables fine and the only issue was with building the
> installer.
The mingw build works fine in several flavours:
-natively on windows as described in INSTALL.Win32 (uses autotools)
-
On 06/25/2016 12:00 PM, Georg Baum wrote:
> Uwe Stöhr wrote:
>
>> Richard, could you please put it on ftp.lyx.org? Could you please also
>> write a news message that we now have a Vista installer but that this
>> installer should not be used for other Windows versions than Vista.
> This is not
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Richard, could you please put it on ftp.lyx.org? Could you please also
> write a news message that we now have a Vista installer but that this
> installer should not be used for other Windows versions than Vista.
This is not possible for legal reasons. Our own license forbids
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> I am not completely sure why we are having this surreal discussion. Uwe,
> what is wrong with the following?
> 1/ Dima provides a patch that makes a Vista compatible build
> 2/ Kornel checks that the cmake part good enough for inclusion
> 3/ Uwe does his usual builds
Le 25/06/2016 16:45, Richard Heck a écrit :
There is a discussion about this topic in the bug tracker that I
cannot understand. Scott and Richard are concerned that Dima'S build
contains malware. This is not fair. Dima invested some spare time to
fiddle around with Qt to prepare a Vista build
On 06/25/2016 05:13 AM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Dear LyXers,
>
> there is a new Windows installer available that provides support for
> Windows Vista:
> http://ftp.lyx.de/LyX%202.2.0/LyX-220-Installer-Vista-3.exe
>
> Dima kindly prepared the binary from the 2.2.0 tarball, I checked it
> against viruses
On 10/13/2015 07:05 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Hi Richard,
due to bug http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/9733 I released a new
installer:
http://ftp.lyx.de/LyX%202.1.4/
Could you please put it on ftp.lyx.org?
The bug is not our fault but the users of course expect that a basic
thing like the spell
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Pavel Sanda wrote:
on a different note: what about this header?
http://195.113.31.123/~sanda/junk/header.gif
If it's for wiki.lyx.org, I'd like to wait with messing around with it
until we've sorted out a released www.lyx.org.
After that, the room for improving
on a different note: what about this header?
http://195.113.31.123/~sanda/junk/header.gif
If it's for wiki.lyx.org,
no i meant it for www.lyx.org
pavel
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Pavel Sanda wrote:
on a different note: what about this header?
http://195.113.31.123/~sanda/junk/header.gif
If it's for wiki.lyx.org,
no i meant it for www.lyx.org
Ok, I'll bounce that ball to Joost... Joost?
/C
--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Pavel Sanda wrote:
on a different note: what about this header?
http://195.113.31.123/~sanda/junk/header.gif
If it's for wiki.lyx.org, I'd like to wait with messing around with it
until we've sorted out a released www.lyx.org.
After that, the room for improving
>> on a different note: what about this header?
>> http://195.113.31.123/~sanda/junk/header.gif
>
> If it's for wiki.lyx.org,
no i meant it for www.lyx.org
pavel
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Pavel Sanda wrote:
on a different note: what about this header?
http://195.113.31.123/~sanda/junk/header.gif
If it's for wiki.lyx.org,
no i meant it for www.lyx.org
Ok, I'll bounce that ball to Joost... Joost?
/C
--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Rex C. Eastbourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glad you like it Rich! Christian, Joost, Jean-Marc, Pavel, and others
were all instrumental in putting this all together.
I do not think I deserve any credit here...
BTW, is it possible to hide
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You, Jean-Marc, can make the web server rewrite URIs as follows:
www.lyx.org/XXX -- www.lyx.org/index.php/Main/XXX
Users would then never need to see 'index.php/Main' - I've emailed you
about this, it's related to changing some config in
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
OK sorry I thought this was not needed anymore. I'll dig out your mail
and see what I can do.
It's the post I sent yesterday, or maybe on Saturday, not the earlier one.
It's some rewriting of the URI that needs to be done.
Please note that we
Are we sure that all
development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some 'official'
devel pages?).
Hmm... not sure why we'd need that to be honest...
- clear distinction of devel pages we care and we do not
- its good to have some basic info for development newcomers, you
get
* www.lyx.org/Page- ../Main/Page
* wiki.lyx.org/LyX/Page - The group LyX/
* wiki.lyx.org/Devel/Page - .../Devel/Page
This is definitely the outcome I would prefer. Are we sure that all
development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some
'official' devel pages?).
on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What do you mean with two servers? (I want to make sure we understand
each other here... www.lyx.org/ would be used to retrieve the official
web pages even if a single wiki is used).
Yes.
It's trivial[*] to use different skins for different groups. In fact,
a wiki
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
This is definitely the outcome I would prefer. Are we sure that all
development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some
official' devel pages?).
Ok, it sounds like most agree that it's ok to use a single wiki, assuming
we have the
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Are we sure that all
development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some 'official'
devel pages?).
Hmm... not sure why we'd need that to be honest...
- clear distinction of devel pages we care and we do not
- its good to have some basic info
Are we sure that all
development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some 'official'
devel pages?).
Hmm... not sure why we'd need that to be honest...
- clear distinction of devel pages we care and we do not
- its good to have some basic info for development newcomers, you
get
Pavel Sanda wrote:
Are we sure that all
development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some 'official'
devel pages?).
Hmm... not sure why we'd need that to be honest...
- clear distinction of devel pages we care and we do not
- its good to have some basic info for development
combined with the mascot. The colors are already back because of your
request :)
i really can't help it :D
pavel
Joost Verburg wrote:
In my opinion that logo looks just too unprofessional, especially when
combined with the mascot. The colors are already back because of your
request :)
Joost
What if we had some shadow or other contrast behind the letters of that
LyX logo that's currently on
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Rex C. Eastbourne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Glad you like it Rich! Christian, Joost, Jean-Marc, Pavel, and others
were all instrumental in putting this all together.
I do not think I deserve any credit here...
BTW, is it possible to hide
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> You, Jean-Marc, can make the web server rewrite URIs as follows:
>
> www.lyx.org/XXX --> www.lyx.org/index.php/Main/XXX
>
> Users would then never need to see 'index.php/Main' - I've emailed you
> about this, it's related to changing some config in
>
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
OK sorry I thought this was not needed anymore. I'll dig out your mail
and see what I can do.
It's the post I sent yesterday, or maybe on Saturday, not the earlier one.
It's some rewriting of the URI that needs to be done.
Please note that we
>> Are we sure that all
>> development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some 'official'
>> devel pages?).
>
> Hmm... not sure why we'd need that to be honest...
- clear distinction of devel pages we care and we do not
- its good to have some basic info for development newcomers, you
> > * www.lyx.org/-> ../Main/
> > * wiki.lyx.org/LyX/ -> The group LyX/
> > * wiki.lyx.org/Devel/ -> .../Devel/
>
> This is definitely the outcome I would prefer. Are we sure that all
> development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some
> 'official' devel pages?).
on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> What do you mean with two servers? (I want to make sure we understand
> each other here... www.lyx.org/ would be used to retrieve the official
> web pages even if a single wiki is used).
Yes.
> It's trivial[*] to use different skins for different groups. In fact,
> a
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
This is definitely the outcome I would prefer. Are we sure that all
development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some
official' devel pages?).
Ok, it sounds like most agree that it's ok to use a single wiki, assuming
we have the
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Are we sure that all
development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some 'official'
devel pages?).
Hmm... not sure why we'd need that to be honest...
- clear distinction of devel pages we care and we do not
- its good to have some basic info
Are we sure that all
development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some 'official'
devel pages?).
>>>
>>> Hmm... not sure why we'd need that to be honest...
>>
>> - clear distinction of devel pages we care and we do not
>> - its good to have some basic info for
Pavel Sanda wrote:
Are we sure that all
development pages should be in the wiki part (do we need some 'official'
devel pages?).
Hmm... not sure why we'd need that to be honest...
- clear distinction of devel pages we care and we do not
- its good to have some basic info for development
> combined with the mascot. The colors are already back because of your
> request :)
i really can't help it :D
pavel
Joost Verburg wrote:
In my opinion that logo looks just too unprofessional, especially when
combined with the mascot. The colors are already back because of your
request :)
Joost
What if we had some shadow or other contrast behind the letters of that
"LyX" logo that's currently on
It would be a pity to slip on that... Could somebody (Bennett?) generate
a patch so that we can test the proposed new banner and icons easily?
Abdel.
Bennett Helm wrote:
On Apr 2, 2007, at 7:19 PM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007
On Apr 3, 2007, at 4:06 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
It would be a pity to slip on that... Could somebody (Bennett?)
generate a patch so that we can test the proposed new banner and
icons easily?
I'm not sure how to produce a patch for an image file like
banner.png; isn't testing it as
Bennett Helm wrote:
On Apr 3, 2007, at 4:06 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
It would be a pity to slip on that... Could somebody (Bennett?)
generate a patch so that we can test the proposed new banner and
icons easily?
I'm not sure how to produce a patch for an image file like
banner.png;
It would be a pity to slip on that... Could somebody (Bennett?) generate
a patch so that we can test the proposed new banner and icons easily?
Abdel.
Bennett Helm wrote:
On Apr 2, 2007, at 7:19 PM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007
On Apr 3, 2007, at 4:06 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
It would be a pity to slip on that... Could somebody (Bennett?)
generate a patch so that we can test the proposed new banner and
icons easily?
I'm not sure how to produce a patch for an image file like
banner.png; isn't testing it as
Bennett Helm wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2007, at 4:06 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>
>> It would be a pity to slip on that... Could somebody (Bennett?)
>> generate a patch so that we can test the proposed new banner and
>> icons easily?
>
> I'm not sure how to produce a patch for an image file like
>
On Apr 2, 2007, at 7:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 23:14:56 +0200
From: Lorenzo Paulatto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: gmane.editors.lyx.general
Subject: New lyx icon
Dear lyx users,
during the last years I
On Apr 2, 2007, at 7:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 23:14:56 +0200
From: Lorenzo Paulatto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: gmane.editors.lyx.general
Subject: New lyx icon
Dear lyx users,
during the last years
Panayotis == Panayotis Papasotiriou [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Panayotis I have upgraded the ijmpd layout, so that recent changes to
Panayotis the corresponding text class ws-ijmpd.cls are now
Panayotis supported by LyX. I have also created a new LyX layout
Panayotis which supports the IJMPC
> "Panayotis" == Panayotis Papasotiriou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Panayotis> I have upgraded the ijmpd layout, so that recent changes to
Panayotis> the corresponding text class "ws-ijmpd.cls" are now
Panayotis> supported by LyX. I have also created a new LyX layout
Panayotis> which supports
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um... do you mean the wiki or the user's list? (The latter makes sense to
me for getting testers...)
I mean: Add a decription page on the wiki and announce it on the users list.
Jürgen
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um... do you mean the wiki or the user's list? (The latter makes sense to
me for getting testers...)
I mean: Add a decription page on the wiki and announce it on the users list.
Which he just de... :-)
/C
--
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um... do you mean the wiki or the user's list? (The latter makes sense to
me for getting testers...)
I mean: Add a decription page on the wiki and announce it on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Um... do you mean the wiki or the user's list? (The latter makes sense to
> me for getting testers...)
I mean: Add a decription page on the wiki and announce it on the users list.
Jürgen
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Um... do you mean the wiki or the user's list? (The latter makes sense to
> > me for getting testers...)
>
> I mean: Add a decription page on the wiki and announce it on the users list.
Which he just de... :-)
/C
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Um... do you mean the wiki or the user's list? (The latter makes sense to
> > > me for getting testers...)
> >
> > I mean: Add a decription page on the wiki and
John C. McCabe-Dansted wrote:
I have decided to keep my grammar checker small, mostly just a wrapper
around ChkTeX and JLanguageTool. Thus my code is likely to remain small
enough to be included in LyX. However my prototype is easy to distribute
separately from LyX and does not require any
Angus Leeming wrote:
I have decided to keep my grammar checker small, mostly just a wrapper
around ChkTeX and JLanguageTool. Thus my code is likely to remain small
enough to be included in LyX. However my prototype is easy to distribute
separately from LyX and does not require any
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Angus Leeming wrote:
I have decided to keep my grammar checker small, mostly just a wrapper
around ChkTeX and JLanguageTool. Thus my code is likely to remain small
enough to be included in LyX. However my prototype is easy to distribute
John C. McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> I have decided to keep my grammar checker small, mostly just a wrapper
> around ChkTeX and JLanguageTool. Thus my code is likely to remain small
> enough to be included in LyX. However my prototype is easy to distribute
> separately from LyX and does not require
Angus Leeming wrote:
> > I have decided to keep my grammar checker small, mostly just a wrapper
> > around ChkTeX and JLanguageTool. Thus my code is likely to remain small
> > enough to be included in LyX. However my prototype is easy to distribute
> > separately from LyX and does not require any
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Angus Leeming wrote:
> > > I have decided to keep my grammar checker small, mostly just a wrapper
> > > around ChkTeX and JLanguageTool. Thus my code is likely to remain small
> > > enough to be included in LyX. However my prototype is easy to
Bennett == Bennett Helm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would it be a good idea to decide that, when the \server_pipe value
is set to a relative path, then it should be understood as relative
to user_dir?
Bennett I'm not sure of the issues here: why would I be likely to put
Bennett the lyxpipe
> "Bennett" == Bennett Helm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Would it be a good idea to decide that, when the \server_pipe value
>> is set to a relative path, then it should be understood as relative
>> to user_dir?
Bennett> I'm not sure of the issues here: why would I be likely to put
Bennett Helm wrote:
Jean-Marc, can you put this new version on the ftp server?
Done. I have done some renaming for consistency, and the file is now
named LyX-1.3.6-2Mac.dmg
Also, I believe the attached preferences file belongs in
lyx-1_3_x/development/MacOSX/LyX.app/Contents/Resources/LyX.
On Jul 20, 2005, at 4:27 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Bennett Helm wrote:
Jean-Marc, can you put this new version on the ftp server?
Done. I have done some renaming for consistency, and the file is now
named LyX-1.3.6-2Mac.dmg
Thanks. Wiki is updated
Also, I believe the attached
Bennett Helm wrote:
Jean-Marc, can you put this new version on the ftp server?
Done. I have done some renaming for consistency, and the file is now
named LyX-1.3.6-2Mac.dmg
Also, I believe the attached preferences file belongs in
lyx-1_3_x/development/MacOSX/LyX.app/Contents/Resources/LyX.
On Jul 20, 2005, at 4:27 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Bennett Helm wrote:
Jean-Marc, can you put this new version on the ftp server?
Done. I have done some renaming for consistency, and the file is now
named LyX-1.3.6-2Mac.dmg
Thanks. Wiki is updated
Also, I believe the attached
Ruurd == Ruurd Reitsma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ruurd Hi, Just created another win32 build, based on 1.3.0:
Ruurd http://www.home.zonnet.nl/rareitsma/lyx/
Ruurd This fixes the preferences bug and the table bug. Stripped-down
Ruurd versions of Perl and Python are now included.
Did you check
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Ruurd == Ruurd Reitsma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ruurd Hi, Just created another win32 build, based on 1.3.0:
Ruurd http://www.home.zonnet.nl/rareitsma/lyx/
Ruurd This fixes the preferences bug and the table bug. Stripped-down
Ruurd versions of Perl and
Indeed. I think that we should merge Ruurd's diff into cvs. It's pretty
trivial and in someways actually improves readability ;-)
This would be a very good idea indeed.
Ruurd, maybe you can send your latest diff to the list? (am not sure the one
on the website is the latest one)
One thing I
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license?
To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-)
The licence should be
Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license?
To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-)
The licence should be extended in the some fashion as it was extended for
xforms. The question
I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long
as
you put proper exclusion in the license.
I have done it several times with other software, and it's perfectly OK
(legal).
Since lyx compiles on gcc 3.2, it should compile with little problem on
bcc5.5
that I'm
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 08:39:21AM -0500, Kuba Ober wrote:
I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long
as you put proper exclusion in the license.
I have done it several times with other software, and it's perfectly OK
(legal).
But that
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:17:43PM +0100, Ruurd Reitsma wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license?
To be honest, I have no
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:04:09PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 08:39:21AM -0500, Kuba Ober wrote:
I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long as
you put proper exclusion in the license.
I have done it several times with other software,
the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors.
so why not get it and fix the license?
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:18:02AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
But that would still mean you need approval of all contributors to change
the licence, wouldn't it?
No. Permission was never obtained to switch to the current purported
license. Lyx has always had a big hole in the
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:17:43PM +0100, Ruurd Reitsma wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
right to distribute this? And what about the Qt
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:24:03PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:18:02AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
But that would still mean you need approval of all contributors to change
the licence, wouldn't it?
No. Permission was never obtained to switch to the
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:36:50AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
GPL? (probably not)
GPL with may be linked to xforms?
GPL with may be linked to whatever?
It's very close to this. I sat down, analyzed what happened, applied
the law, and wrote the qualification to the license to
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:43:18PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:36:50AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
GPL with may be linked to whatever?
It's very close to this. I sat down, analyzed what happened, applied
the law, and wrote the qualification to the
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
My original writing came in response to the critical bug at debian
(license impurity). Lars included the paragraphs sometime while I was
at Iowa State, which means sometime between 1996-1999. I don't know
when the change to the current, legally wrong, claim of
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:25:07PM +0100, Edwin Leuven wrote:
the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors.
so why not get it and fix the license?
Last time around, we figured that contacting them all would be an
impossibility (we're not even sure who they are for some of
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:16:27AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
Last time around, we figured that contacting them all would be an
impossibility (we're not even sure who they are for some of the early
stuff).
For some of the early stuff it's not that interesting as certain pieces
don't
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:16:16AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
No, the current lyx license just plain isn't correct (as a legal issue).
I wrote the prior qualifications a few years ago, but John replaced that
with what it says now. The problem is that that's just not what the law
> "Ruurd" == Ruurd Reitsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ruurd> Hi, Just created another win32 build, based on 1.3.0:
Ruurd> http://www.home.zonnet.nl/rareitsma/lyx/
Ruurd> This fixes the preferences bug and the table bug. Stripped-down
Ruurd> versions of Perl and Python are now included.
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> "Ruurd" == Ruurd Reitsma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Ruurd> Hi, Just created another win32 build, based on 1.3.0:
>
> Ruurd> http://www.home.zonnet.nl/rareitsma/lyx/
>
> Ruurd> This fixes the preferences bug and the table bug. Stripped-down
> Ruurd>
> Indeed. I think that we should merge Ruurd's diff into cvs. It's pretty
> trivial and in someways actually improves readability ;-)
This would be a very good idea indeed.
Ruurd, maybe you can send your latest diff to the list? (am not sure the one
on the website is the latest one)
One thing
"Jean-Marc Lasgouttes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
> right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license?
To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-)
The licence
> > Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
> > right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license?
>
> To be honest, I have no rights to do this. So, please don't sue me ;-)
> The licence should be extended in the some fashion as it was extended for
> xforms. The
> I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long
as
> you put proper exclusion in the license.
>
> I have done it several times with other software, and it's perfectly OK
> (legal).
>
> Since lyx compiles on gcc 3.2, it should compile with little problem on
bcc5.5
> that
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 08:39:21AM -0500, Kuba Ober wrote:
>> I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long
>> as you put proper exclusion in the license.
>>
>> I have done it several times with other software, and it's perfectly OK
>> (legal).
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:17:43PM +0100, Ruurd Reitsma wrote:
> "Jean-Marc Lasgouttes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
> > right to distribute this? And what about the Qt license?
> To be honest,
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:04:09PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 08:39:21AM -0500, Kuba Ober wrote:
> > I can compile it for you using latest commercial Qt3 (enterprise) as long as
> > you put proper exclusion in the license.
> > I have done it several times with other
> the hole cannot be fixed without permission of all contributors.
so why not get it and fix the license?
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:18:02AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> > But that would still mean you need approval of all contributors to change
> > the licence, wouldn't it?
>
> No. Permission was never obtained to switch to the current purported
> license. Lyx has always had a big hole
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 02:17:43PM +0100, Ruurd Reitsma wrote:
>> "Jean-Marc Lasgouttes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Did you check the various licenses to make sure that you have the
>> > right to distribute this? And what
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:24:03PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:18:02AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> > > But that would still mean you need approval of all contributors to change
> > > the licence, wouldn't it?
> > No. Permission was never obtained to switch
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:36:50AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> > GPL? (probably not)
> > GPL with "may be linked to xforms"?
> > GPL with "may be linked to whatever"?
>
> It's very close to this. I sat down, analyzed what happened, applied
> the law, and wrote the qualification to
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:43:18PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:36:50AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
> > > GPL with "may be linked to whatever"?
> > It's very close to this. I sat down, analyzed what happened, applied
> > the law, and wrote the qualification
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote:
My original writing came in response to the "critical bug" at debian
(license impurity). Lars included the paragraphs sometime while I was
at Iowa State, which means sometime between 1996-1999. I don't know
when the change to the current, legally wrong, claim of
1 - 100 of 217 matches
Mail list logo
