On Thu, Dec 03, 1998 at 08:15:11 -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
There's a reason for us not to distribute debian sources: contributory
(We're getting into the really hypothetical here, as Troll and KDE are
working to make this discussion moot, but...)
If I understand you correctly,
On Thu, Dec 03, 1998 at 13:52:14 -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
You're asserting your conclusion as your argument. This gets nowhere.
Raul, I'm not trying to win an argument here. I'm genuinely trying to
understand your position. To the best of my knowledge,
The conflict between KDE's and Qt's
On Thu, Dec 10, 1998 at 16:44:52 +0100, Juan Cespedes wrote:
Here's a copy of the license. Any comments will be greatly
appreciated; the author is willing to change it if it doesn't meet our
The nasm author(s) have said they'd release it under GPL; that would clear
On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 18:20:45 +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
+/* NIST Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) effort. The algorithm */
+/* is subject to Patent action by IBM, who intend to offer royalty */
+/* free use if a Patent is granted.*/
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 08:31:08 -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
The author claims that this implementation is free from patent problems.
I can't say I'm particularly impressed by it, it looks somewhat like an
attempt to put the blame elsewhere and possibly a confusion of copyright and
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 12:46:04 +0200, Thomas Schoepf wrote:
Personally, I would say Yes it is interesting, BUT: Lizard is released under
the QPL, which is incompatible to the GPL.
I'm quite sure that somehow this will prevent us from using it without
worrying about license issues
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 10:34:30 +, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
Is RC4 encryption a problem with the US export laws ?
I suspect so. It may depend on the bitsize (IIRC, regular netscape uses
40-bit RC4), but even for the case of an allowed bitsize, an export license
might be required.
On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 21:04:08 -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 06:58:26PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
Debian has not required documentation and other text documents to allow
modifiaction to be in main.
Barf with a spoon. Is that so?
Yes. See e.g. perlfaq(1p).
On Thu, Nov 11, 1999 at 21:37:13 -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
There's got to be someone at Stanford who can get to him.
See http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.html for contact
Tevens ben ik van mening dat Nederland overdekt dient te worden.
On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 14:36:56 -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
The Debian mutt package also continues to ignore the wishes of mutt's
upstream authors, who do belive mutt contains crypto hooks, and who only
make the version available from outside the US for that reason.
Mutt's current primary
TOG have released Motif under an Open Source license which isn't. (See
also /. coverage at http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/15/1229207 )
Open Source programs mean software for which the source code is available
without confidential or
On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 08:53:06 -0700, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
However, if you search the packages list on the official Debian web site,
Qt1 is there large as life in the non-free section
True. The license terms on Qt1 allow for us to distribute binaries; they do
not meet the Debian Free Software
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 10:44:07 +0200, Konrad Rosenbaum wrote:
I think parts of the Debian+KDE discussion on the KDE Maillist will be
interesting for you too.
Quite frankly, I doubt it - I see numerous misunderstandings that have been
covered many times already.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, did
On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 22:45:07 +0300, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote:
Is this free?
Who will package it?
LEADERSHIP A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with auto-
destructive imaginations in order to
[I'm probably repeating myself, but this is for the benefit of debian-legal
readers and may help to shorten discussion]
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 16:10:39 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
could someone please tell me if this patch:
- contains any code with legal problems (e.g. patents)?
Not that I'm
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 01:27:58 -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
It was quite obvious to me that they intended the first sense.
As a side note, CWI (the Mathematisch Centrum) have prior experience in
free software related licensing issues as e.g. Python was originally
developed there. One option is
On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 09:05:33 -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 09:21:04AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
The Heimdal implementation links against libssl in order to get its
crypto. How does this effect GPLed applications? Note that the
applications do not normally call
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 13:29:44 +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
I can't find the exact details on the web anymore, but I remember that
NeXTStep distributed only the object files
It's in Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism by RMS,
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 13:24:31 +0200, Grzegorz Prokopski wrote:
Now - I've had a bit of a further read, and from what I've read, it's
probably ok for me to build and to distribute my stuff, since I don't
distribute readline as well, but apparently the debate seems to be if
there is a
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 02:12:46 -0700, Michael Cardenas wrote:
After consulting with debian-legal, I emailed Bigelow and Holmes tonight
to ask them to reconsider the license they have chosen so that they can be
included in debian. If anyone is interested, I can post that email here.
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 16:19:48 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Exim is GPL, so the author currently does not allow the distribution of
binaries which also contain OpenSSL code.
Quoting the NOTICE file from the Exim 3.36 source:
:Copyright (c) 1999 University of Cambridge
:This program is free
On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 00:38:09 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Are software patents legal in .nl?
IANAL, but AFAIK the answer is Yes, or at least Effectively yes.
The Netherlands are a member of the European Union which is working on
regulations that explicitly allow software patents (albeit
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 13:23:28 +0200, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
Freeswan upstream developers are currently thinking of switch to openssl.
I already pointed out to them that this might need a change in their own
(GPL) license statement so that linking to openssl is explicitly allowed.
Mail list logo