Re: Mirror site (fwd)

2000-04-05 Thread Steve Greenland
On 04-Apr-00, 17:27 (CDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunetly, it's not consistent with many of the non-DFSG-free licenses. You'd be violating licenses if you did this with many of the packages in non-free, 1. Non-free is not Debian. :-) 2. I'm not sure this is true. Don't we have to have

Re: Mirror site (fwd)

2000-04-05 Thread David Starner
On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 06:08:13PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: On 04-Apr-00, 17:27 (CDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunetly, it's not consistent with many of the non-DFSG-free licenses. You'd be violating licenses if you did this with many of the packages in non-free, 1. Non-free

Re: QPL and LGPL

2000-04-05 Thread Joseph Carter
On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 07:42:36PM +0200, Andreas Voegele wrote: Are the QPL and the LGPL compatible or should the Qt notice mentioned at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html also be used? I have asked the author of the Python Bindings for Qt and KDE if he could add the Qt notice

copyright in one sourcefile of dcd

2000-04-05 Thread Othmar Pasteka
HI folks, i just took over the dcd package and looked through the files for copyright notices due to the old copyright file made by the former maintainer. in this copyright a file is mentioned which is public domain software. i don't know what's the way debian handles this. below are the

Re: [GPL] No linking with proprietary programs: where?

2000-04-05 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Brian Kimball [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oops, I only thought of this after reading SScott's mail. Even if I'm incorrect regarding the meaning of modified work as a whole, how could one possibly violate the GPL if, as above, the GPLed work is not distributed. After all, the GPL purports to

Re: copyright in one sourcefile of dcd

2000-04-05 Thread David Starner
On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 09:43:23AM +0200, Othmar Pasteka wrote: HI folks, i just took over the dcd package and looked through the files for copyright notices due to the old copyright file made by the former maintainer. in this copyright a file is mentioned which is public domain software.

Re: [GPL] No linking with proprietary programs: where?

2000-04-05 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
SSchott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 3) If you attempt to defeat (2) by distributing the two functions separately, or distributing only locate_inner_otter, and telling users how to combine them to produce frob-otters, and there is no way to make locate_inner_otter useful

Re: [GPL] No linking with proprietary programs: where?

2000-04-05 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Brian Kimball [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 2) If locate_inner_otter is not derived from find_outer_otter, but you distribute binaries for frob-otters, then you must still give the complete source code for both locate_inner_otter and find_outer_otter. The reason is that the

RE: Musings on Darwin ...

2000-04-05 Thread Brent Fulgham
I'm not sure. As I recall there might have been an issue related to notifications (under Section 2.2 You May Deploy Covered Code, provided... c) if You Deploy Covered Code containing Modifications made by You, inform others of how to obtain those Modifications by filling out and submitting