Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Every Maintainer Can (And Should) Review Packages!
Every Maintainer Can Vote!
I'd be happy to review and vote but I haven't
On Jan 28 00:01, Brian Dessent wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Every Maintainer Can (And Should) Review Packages!
Every Maintainer Can Vote!
On Jan 27 13:35, Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lapo Luchini wrote:
Yes, I guess Debian unstable doesn't qualify (I think I read something
about that somewhere on cygwin.com, I'm not quite sure where... ;-)).
But (now) it's in Debian
On Fri, January 27, 2006 11:16 pm, Lapo Luchini wrote:
John Morrison wrote:
Freshmeat do a number of RSS feeds see http://freshmeat.net/backend/
for
the list.
Mhh, neat.
Problem is: freshmeat is not /always/ updated.
How about http://distrowatch.com/news/dwp.xml? or scraping
Brian Dessent wrote:
So, let's not worry so much about the preapproved if in linux thing
and just get on with the packages.
You're right!
Here they are: (you can safely recurse: I removed the old version from
there)
http://cyberx.lapo.it/cygwin/bsdiff/
You can use
On Jan 26 22:21, Lapo Luchini wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote, on 2005-05-16:
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 06:45:57PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Also, AFAICS, that's not about distribution, but it's about linking
against the Cygwin DLL. If you do that with an application which has
a
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
I guess I can finally produce a legally acceptable package? ;-)
Yes, but you need 5 votes.
Yes, I guess Debian unstable doesn't qualify (I think I read something
about that somewhere on cygwin.com, I'm not quite sure where... ;-)).
Well, there is another
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 02:21:44PM +0100, Lapo Luchini wrote:
What do you (all) think about it?
Many years ago, I wrote a perl script which queried ftp sites looking
for new versions of packages. It required constant tinkering since the
sites came and went and the directories on the sites were
On Fri, January 27, 2006 4:13 pm, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 02:21:44PM +0100, Lapo Luchini wrote:
What do you (all) think about it?
Many years ago, I wrote a perl script which queried ftp sites looking
for new versions of packages. It required constant tinkering since
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lapo Luchini wrote:
Yes, I guess Debian unstable doesn't qualify (I think I read something
about that somewhere on cygwin.com, I'm not quite sure where... ;-)).
But (now) it's in Debian testing as well:
Christopher Faylor wrote, on 2005-05-16:
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 06:45:57PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Also, AFAICS, that's not about distribution, but it's about linking
against the Cygwin DLL. If you do that with an application which has
a non-approved OSS license, you're infringing the
As far as I can see, BSDPL is an Open Source license under the
definition referenced, so the exception should apply. (I gave up
arguing with the opensource.org people, but they never came up with
any argument for why BSDPL didn't qualify -- the worst they could
say was that it was poorly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
It's a bit dangerous to rely on the author saying but I didn't
mean it that way. Probably he would have to change the license to
include some explicit wording about this situation. Asking can't
hurt, though.
Here goes
Hi All...
Could it be distributed in kit form? That is, could it require the toold
to build it, and be built in the postinstall script?
Thanks,
IANAL, but copyright licenses are not intended to restrict what you do
privately. Since nobody is distributing the resulting binary, this is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Reini Urban wrote:
BTW: I prefer the version linked to libbz2, not calling
/usr/bin/bzip2 For performance and convenience. See the mingw
sources at http://www.pokorra.de/coding/bsdiff.html
Changing the program from being dual-threaded and using
On May 18 10:56, Lapo Luchini wrote:
I wonder why people that does interesting program usually put them
under strange restrictive licenses... (e.g. qmail, bsdiff, and many
others...)
This one's not in our OLOCA but you get the idea: TJM.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please,
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
This one's not in our OLOCA but you get the idea: TJM.
Uhm... not in OLOCA, not in wtf, not in acronymfinder.com... I really
have no idea about TJM 0_o
Truth (is) Just Mean?
Tell Junior Millman?
Transfer Juxtaposition Modifier?
Lapo
--
Lapo Luchini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Lapo Luchini wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
This one's not in our OLOCA but you get the idea: TJM.
Uhm... not in OLOCA, not in wtf, not in acronymfinder.com... I really
have no idea about TJM 0_o
Testing Joke Memorization
Too Jumpin' Much
Try Joking More
Truth (is)
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
This one's not in our OLOCA but you get the idea: TJM.
Uhm... not in OLOCA, not in wtf, not in acronymfinder.com... I really
have no idea about TJM 0_o
Truth (is) Just Mean?
Tell Junior Millman?
Transfer Juxtaposition Modifier?
Lapo
Hah! Like you'll get
On May 17 00:15, Lapo Luchini wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
I've just read the BSDPL finally and I see that it tries to
impose itself on any distribution which contains a binary which is
licensed in this fashion. So, as was hinted at earlier in the thread,
this makes the license viral.
It's hard to see the BSDPL as an open-source license, since only one
level of branching from the one true authorized source is allowed:
This only applies to commercial distribution. AFAICT this is some sort of
weird ANTI-GPL license, which works is much the same way as the GPL, except
also
Lapo Luchini schrieb:
Compiles fine on Cygwin.
BTW: I prefer the version linked to libbz2, not calling /usr/bin/bzip2
For performance and convenience.
See the mingw sources at http://www.pokorra.de/coding/bsdiff.html
Links:
1. http://www.daemonology.net/bsdiff/
2.
Hi All...
Could it be distributed in kit form? That is, could it require the toold to
build it, and be built in the postinstall script?
Thanks,
...Karl
From: Tacvek Subject: Re: maybe-ITP: bsdiff
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 15:48:19 -0400
It's hard to see the BSDPL as an open-source license, since
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tacvek wrote:
the problem: The OSF was unable to decide if the BSDPL is OSD
complient. It looks like they may have concluded it was not. See
the thread at
http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg04670.html
Reading that
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 01:04:54PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On May 16 10:34, Lapo Luchini wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tacvek wrote:
the problem: The OSF was unable to decide if the BSDPL is OSD
complient. It looks like they may have concluded it was not.
On May 16 10:18, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 01:04:54PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
If in doubt, don't put it into the distro. There is doubt, apparently.
I haven't been reading this too closely but I don't see why there's a
problem. If the sources are being
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 05:29:16PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On May 16 10:18, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 01:04:54PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
If in doubt, don't put it into the distro. There is doubt, apparently.
I haven't been reading this too closely but I
On May 16 12:26, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 06:10:03PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On May 16 11:56, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 05:29:16PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On May 16 10:18, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at
On 5/16/05, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Also, AFAICS, that's not about distribution, but it's about linking
against the Cygwin DLL. If you do that with an application which has
a non-approved OSS license, you're infringing the Cygwin license if
you don't GPL the code. But if you GPL the code,
On Mon, 16 May 2005, Lapo Luchini wrote:
Max Bowsher wrote:
Cygwin-specific README: gcc is not a runtime requirement. I assume
it was supposed to be a build requirement.
Of course ^_^
I've taken to saying (basic development packages) in the packages
I maintain, to mean such obvious
Christopher Faylor wrote:
I've just read the BSDPL finally and I see that it tries to
impose itself on any distribution which contains a binary which is
licensed in this fashion. So, as was hinted at earlier in the thread,
this makes the license viral. So, you're right. We can't use it since
Lapo Luchini wrote:
710e30c8f8e141d78b02d72a21387409
http://www.lapo.it/cygwin/bsdiff-4.2-1-src.tar.bz2
eb7a6d19536b1f18ce9b836bda10a201
http://www.lapo.it/cygwin/bsdiff-4.2-1.tar.bz2
d4580c5ab21b042dc3e4f3897abd7a37
http://www.lapo.it/cygwin/bsdiff-setup.hint
sdesc: tools for building and
I don't see a problem with this license. It certainly doesn't make any
problems as part of a Cygwin distro, as long as you (the maintainer)
adhere to the BSDPL when tweaking the package for the Cygwin distro.
The Clause:
In accordance with section 10 of the GPL, Red Hat permits programs whose
Introduction straight from official home page[1]
*bsdiff* and *bspatch* are tools for building and applying patches to
binary files. By using suffix sorting (specifically, Larsson and
Sadakane's qsufsort
http://www.cs.lth.se/Research/Algorithms/Papers/jesper5.ps) and
taking advantage of how
On May 14 15:54, Lapo Luchini wrote:
Introduction straight from official home page[1]
[...]
Compiles fine on Cygwin.
Question is: IANAL, and I don't know if his BSDPL[2] license would be a
problem or not. Is it?
2. http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/work/colin.percival/source/BSDPL.html
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
I don't see a problem with this license.
Then...
710e30c8f8e141d78b02d72a21387409
http://www.lapo.it/cygwin/bsdiff-4.2-1-src.tar.bz2
eb7a6d19536b1f18ce9b836bda10a201
http://www.lapo.it/cygwin/bsdiff-4.2-1.tar.bz2
36 matches
Mail list logo
