Arnt Gulbrandsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
as mentioned at least once before, glibc is distributed with the operating
system. therefore the special exception applies.
It applies to applications that are not distributed with the operating
system (and to
Hi,
Is there a special reason that http://www.debian.org (and my local mirror
http:/www.nl.debian.org start up on the Developers corner.
This is in lynx and netscape (so not necessairy html 4.0 related).
Regards,
Bart
NB: Lynx says Bad partial reference! Stripping lead dots.
Ole J. Tetlie wrote:
*-John Lapeyre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| Perl 5.004 was in Incoming yesterday. You can get it from a
| mirror of incoming or wait a day or two and it will be installed.
I can only find the orig source package:
ftp ls perl*
200 PORT command successful.
150 Opening
Joseph Carter writes:
mpg123 is non-free all right. No commercial use. The author needs to be
contacted and asked to either replace the GPL code or change his license
to be compatible with the GPL code he's using.
The author of the GPL code also should be notified.
--
John Hasler
Santiago Vila wrote:
But occasionally I notices that dpkg first unpacks and installs
the files in a particular package and checks dependencies afterwards.
This means that wrong dependencies are discovered when it is
too late since the old version of the package is already
overwritten.
I wonder if somebody plans to package this one.
Regards,
Joey
- Forwarded message from Conrad Steenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 12:08:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Conrad Steenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-URL: http://archive.redhat.com/gtk-list/
Subject: ANNOUNCE: Fulcrum
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So you want to force all porters to join another list?
HTH does one force volunteers? No, I want the list to be available if
porters want to join it.
Why not contact them in their native lists?
Because these lists are for users too and mass
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Geoffrey L. Brimhall wrote:
Just like debian has an official standard shell - bash, does debian have an
official scripting language ?
Even if bash is essential, the standard shell is sh, not bash.
[ If you look at our
The Glide library is a mess. It's non-free and no source is available. As
distributed by the upstream author you get a library called libglide2x.so,
with no embedded soname. I had packaged up an old version of this library.
I went to update the package and I found that the situation has gotten
It's clear that (e.g.) libc accompanies (e.g.) /bin/ls in Debian: They
are both in main, and the package maintainer makes sure you get libc
when you get /bin/ls. If you also think that libc is a section of
(see section two) /bin/ls and so on, then the conclusion is clear:
You're in
In my opinion, Qt is not a section of KDE, it is not derived from the
KDE and it must be considered independent and separate from the KDE.
In other words: The KDE's usage of the GPL does not cause the GPL, and
its terms, to apply to Qt.
Indeed Qt is not part of the problem
But
If I say, do what you want with my code, and you incorporate it in a GPL
app, do you relicense my work? No, and you can't, because you're not the
Yes, you create a combined work bound by the GPL. And the GPL permits
components of a GPL'd item to be freer than GPL (by the GPL definition of
free)
files and libraries being linked together. Does that mean that you
think Debian should convert libc and so on from the LGPL to the GPL in
order to comply with the license of the GPL'd applications in main?
Arnt if you stuck to using facts you might be able to have a sensible
discussion
The
The GPL'ed apps require that the work as a whole must be distributable
under the terms of the GPL. Do you think that means that I have to
re-license the individual parts?
Will Debian remove Motif linked XEmacs from their ftp server?
According to several Debian developers Motif is not a
However, the license for that derived work (I'll call it A) claims
that the whole of A must be GPL'd. However, Qt is not part of A (the
GPL says section of). Qt provides services to A, and A depends on
those services: A very different thing.
Qt is part of the derived work. It is linked to
It's really a shame KDE chose the GPL. Many BSD people will tell you the
GPL is the most restrictive free software license there is. It's the only
widely used free license that prohibits use with a library like Qt under any
circumstances at all. No special exception for system libraries,
Hi,
I intend to package GBuffy.
From the README:
URL: http://www.fiction.net/blong/programs/gbuffy/ Author: Brandon Long
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Current Version: 0.10
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 09:20:55AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk?
Just try and you see it won't compile. But I have not much knowledge about
these toolkits so maybe someone can easily port it. Also I remember someone
working on a
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 09:20:55AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 11:14:06PM -0700, Darren Benham wrote:
Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk?
Just try and you see it won't compile. But I have not much knowledge about
these toolkits so maybe
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 01:08:28PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Craig Sanders wrote:
imo, we should grant Lyx the same courtesy we did KDE. send them a
request to change their license, and give them some time (say a few weeks
rather than the months that KDE got) to change. if they ignore
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 05:29:08PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
In my opinion, Qt is not a section of KDE, it is not derived from the
KDE and it must be considered independent and separate from the KDE.
In other words: The KDE's usage of the GPL does not cause the GPL, and
its terms, to apply to
I don't want to hide this mail from you.
Regards,
Joey
- Forwarded message from Matthias Ettrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: Matthias Ettrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Live and let live
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 18:43:07
Joseph Carter wrote:
I wonder if you know that LyX is founded by the same person who has
founded KDE some years later. Not that this has to imply anyghing...
It's irrelevant. Lyx is free code using a license that does not allow us to
I know. But it may end up in the same flame fest
Joseph Carter wrote:
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 01:08:28PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Craig Sanders wrote:
imo, we should grant Lyx the same courtesy we did KDE. send them a
request to change their license, and give them some time (say a few weeks
rather than the months that KDE got)
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 01:08:28PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
I wonder if you know that LyX is founded by the same person who has
founded KDE some years later. Not that this has to imply anyghing...
I do and needless to say I have some problems with this person. Just check
his mail we got
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Andy Dougherty wrote:
[ perl5.005_02's default library is now /usr/lib/perl5/perl5.005,
and might change with 5.006, etc.]
Any idea how to handle this properly ? Maybe we need a sort of perl
policy : package will have to install file under /usr/lib/perl5/debian
Recently I've thought that my machines take too long to boot. I've been
having a look at the boot times. Here's one that I think is excessive:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/etc/rcS.d#time . ./S50hwclock.sh
Local time: Sun Oct 11 04:11:43 EST 1998
real0m7.643s
user0m5.710s
sys 0m1.940s
8
What is all this about? I just noticed snes9x, xmame, doom and quake
have been removed from non-free. Why?
-- Stephen Crowley (Crow- on IRC)
-- Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 01:20:18PM -0500, Stephen Crowley wrote:
What is all this about? I just noticed snes9x, xmame, doom and quake
have been removed from non-free. Why?
Actually, I think it's just that the Packages file for non-free is empty.
Adam Klein
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:59:14PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
I wonder if you know that LyX is founded by the same person who has
founded KDE some years later. Not that this has to imply anyghing...
It's irrelevant. Lyx is free code using a license that does not allow us to
link
Santiago There are a lot of packages that would have to be recompiled
Santiago for Linux 2.2. This will take time and a lot of testing.
I can see pcmcia (28-Sep-98 is needed) and netutils (so that IPv6 is
supported), but not a lot of packages.
But some cannot be ported at the moment: iBCS!
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:59:14PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
It's irrelevant. Lyx is free code using a license that does not allow us to
link it with non-free code. We can't distribute it if they won't modify
their license. But like KDE, they deserve a chance to do something about
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 09:52:21AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
There are those possibilities, but the lyx people will probably give
permission for linking with libforms since they clearly intend for that to
be done. The biggest problem with KDE was outside code that was ported and
that the
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:50:43PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Although I have a rather bad opinion of the Debian guys, I just cannot believe
that they are that irrational to claim that there is a significant, even
ethical difference between both approaches. But following the recent
Please!
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:50:43PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
I don't want to hide this mail from you.
First it's please take license issues to the license list and now it's go
away, we don't want you here...
If I ever thought Matthias needed to be bludgeoned severely with a cluebat,
it's
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Alan Cox wrote:
[..]
A BSD license would have solved the problem nicely. No GPL code would have
been available to be stolen (subject to your license viewpoint) and no
GPL authors upset.
And we'd all probably be better off.
And by now Sun would no doubt be shipping a
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 08:23:14PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
There are those possibilities, but the lyx people will probably give
permission for linking with libforms since they clearly intend for that to
be done. The biggest problem with KDE was outside code that was ported and
that
And by now Sun would no doubt be shipping a binary only KDE that forbid
you to redistribute it and contained fixes you couldnt get back off them
Ehm, the world hasn't gone to hell because not everything is GPL. Take
for instance companies using FreeBSD, such as Whistle and Best Internet
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 11:21:12 -0500, Zed Pobre [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
libglide-voodoo:
Provides: libglide
Conflicts: libglide, libglide-voodoo2, libglide-voodoorush
libglide-voodoo2:
Provides: libglide
Conflicts: libglide, libglide-voodoo,
I wonder if and when we get together a real office package under gnome. I
wouldlove to see that. My personal favorites would be a glyx, gtksql with
poistgresql and a spreadsheet, currently siag seems to be the best bet. But
that one's not with gtk either.
Sigh!
Michael
--
Dr. Michael Meskes
Roderick == Roderick Schertler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Roderick RESTRICTIONS: You may not: 1. Sublicense the Materials;
Roderick 2. Reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the
Roderick enclosed software; 3. Use the Materials for for any
Roderick platform or products other
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 12:44:35PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
Good, please let us know what you hear back. =
Sure will.
If I was able to imply it, the KDE people certainly would have. I don't
want them to have any excuse for twisting words so they read what they want
to read into them.
I
On 10 Oct 1998 13:14:17 -0700, Ben Gertzfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[license elided]
This is *so* non-free it can't even go on our FTP site. You can't make
copies of the materials other than for back-up purposes.
I know, that's exactly what I said in my message. I was asking if
anybody
On Oct 09, J.H.M. Dassen Ray\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can see pcmcia (28-Sep-98 is needed) and netutils (so that IPv6 is
supported), but not a lot of packages.
IIRC, libc6 doesn't support IPv6; you need a beta version for that. So this
is only an issue if we intend to release one of the
On 10-Oct-98 John Lapeyre wrote:
one) The fltk author says that he is not working towards compatibility
with forms.
I can't get through to the site now to get the exact statement.
I remember that when I was going to port a xforms program I have so I could
upload it... I didn't want it
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:59:14PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Joseph Carter wrote:
It's irrelevant. Lyx is free code using a license that does not allow us to
link it with non-free code. We can't distribute it if they won't modify
their license. But like KDE, they deserve a chance to
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 10:10:48PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
I wonder if and when we get together a real office package under gnome. I
wouldlove to see that. My personal favorites would be a glyx, gtksql with
poistgresql and a spreadsheet, currently siag seems to be the best bet. But
that
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 01:14:17PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
Roderick RESTRICTIONS: You may not: 1. Sublicense the Materials;
Roderick 2. Reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the
Roderick enclosed software; 3. Use the Materials for for any
Roderick platform or
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 10:59:52PM +0200, Bart Schuller wrote:
I wonder if and when we get together a real office package under gnome. I
wouldlove to see that. My personal favorites would be a glyx, gtksql with
poistgresql and a spreadsheet, currently siag seems to be the best bet. But
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Package: libpgjava
Version: 6.3.2-1
Severity: important
I cannot rebuild this package at present because javac always segfaults
for me. If anyone would like to do a non-maintainer release, I would
be grateful...
--
Oliver Elphick
I intend to upload shortly an empire (rec.games.empire) client and
multiplexer I wrote a few years ago. They are being licensed under the GPL.
Time permitting I may upload documentation from the server, which is
being relicensed under the GPL, and pei (another empire client I had a hand
Roderick Schertler writes:
If nobody wants to take up this torch I'm going to suggest the existing
package be dropped from the distribution. If anybody _does_ want to try
to deal with this, please let me know.
New license:
...
...
This proprietary commercial software and if
This follows up my post on Thursday regarding the 'Suggestion - Antivir for
Linux' thread. There was a minor amount of interest for a mcafee installer
package so in it goes.
new debian package, version 2.0.
size 5188 bytes: control archive= 2264 bytes.
672 bytes,19 lines control
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Martin Schulze wrote:
I wonder if somebody plans to package this one.
...
Subject: ANNOUNCE: Fulcrum scientific plotting tool update
Also look at our Guppi plot program, http://www.gnome.org/guppi/ - it
doesn't do as much as Fulcrum yet because it does not build on
101 - 154 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
