Johannes Rohr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, I don't know. Until today I've contacted them three times and
there as been no response except for an acknowledgement of receipt.
Therefore I don't think they'd turn out to be more responsive if I came
begging for money...
It's actually called
Johannes Rohr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, I don't know. Until today I've contacted them three times and
there as been no response except for an acknowledgement of receipt.
Therefore I don't think they'd turn out to be more responsive if I came
begging for money...
It's actually called
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 09:13:56PM +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
Johannes Rohr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...] I am examining if it is possible to replace
the installer package with a package that contains the actual
software. So I'm not planning to make more non-free software available
Johannes Rohr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to me that they just don't care at all about Debian. I really
wonder _how_ they build their debs. I mean: A binary package which has a
Build-depends field - wouldn't dpkg-buildpackage give an error message
on this?
What makes you think they use
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Johannes Rohr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to me that they just don't care at all about Debian. I really
wonder _how_ they build their debs. I mean: A binary package which has a
Build-depends field - wouldn't dpkg-buildpackage give an error
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 09:13:56PM +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
Johannes Rohr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...] I am examining if it is possible to replace
the installer package with a package that contains the actual
software. So I'm not planning to make more non-free software available
Johannes Rohr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to me that they just don't care at all about Debian. I really
wonder _how_ they build their debs. I mean: A binary package which has a
Build-depends field - wouldn't dpkg-buildpackage give an error message
on this?
What makes you think they use
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Johannes Rohr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to me that they just don't care at all about Debian. I really
wonder _how_ they build their debs. I mean: A binary package which has a
Build-depends field - wouldn't dpkg-buildpackage give an error
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 02:07:02AM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
[packing a virus detection program]
amavis is already in Debian. It needs a third party virus scanner to
work. Also clamav is already in Debian. (I never heard of it
before.). So now I can choose either to abandon my one and
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 11:34:20AM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
[packing a virus detection program]
amavis is already in Debian. It needs a third party virus scanner to
work. Also clamav is already in Debian. (I never heard of it
before.). So now I can choose either to abandon my one
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 02:07:02AM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Personally, BTW, I would really, really prefer to maintain Free
Software, not *only* for political reasons but also because a
commercial vendor is obviously the least responsive
Johannes Rohr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...] I am examining if it is possible to replace
the installer package with a package that contains the actual
software. So I'm not planning to make more non-free software available
to Debian users, but simply to replace an existing package by
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 02:07:02AM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
[packing a virus detection program]
amavis is already in Debian. It needs a third party virus scanner to
work. Also clamav is already in Debian. (I never heard of it
before.). So now I can choose either to abandon my one and
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 11:34:20AM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
[packing a virus detection program]
amavis is already in Debian. It needs a third party virus scanner to
work. Also clamav is already in Debian. (I never heard of it
before.). So now I can choose either to abandon my one
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 02:07:02AM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Personally, BTW, I would really, really prefer to maintain Free
Software, not *only* for political reasons but also because a
commercial vendor is obviously the least responsive
Johannes Rohr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...] I am examining if it is possible to replace
the installer package with a package that contains the actual
software. So I'm not planning to make more non-free software available
to Debian users, but simply to replace an existing package by
Robert Bihlmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Frank Gevaerts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AFAIK, non-free only needs permission to redistribute.
Yes. For examples of disqualified-from-non-free software look at the
various installers. Newer Sun JDKs also haven't made it into
non-free (don't
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:19:48PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
In the Debian Policy 2.1.6 there is a warning about usage
restrictions but no definite
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:19:48PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
In the Debian Policy 2.1.6 there is a
On 20030301T132435+0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
Is there a list of removed packages available anywhere, together with
reasons for the removal?
http://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.txt lists removals starting some
two years ago.
F-Prot for GNU/Linux _has_ been distributed by others, e.g. by
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 10:22:20PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
Well I fully agree with you, but let me explain: Completely by chance
I took over maintainership of the f-prot-installer package, which is
in contrib. Since an installer package may easily fail (when the
vendor changes file names,
Robert Bihlmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Frank Gevaerts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AFAIK, non-free only needs permission to redistribute.
Yes. For examples of disqualified-from-non-free software look at the
various installers. Newer Sun JDKs also haven't made it into
non-free (don't
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:19:48PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
In the Debian Policy 2.1.6 there is a warning about usage
restrictions but no definite
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:19:48PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
In the Debian Policy 2.1.6 there is a
On 20030301T132435+0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
Is there a list of removed packages available anywhere, together with
reasons for the removal?
http://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.txt lists removals starting some
two years ago.
F-Prot for GNU/Linux _has_ been distributed by others, e.g. by
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 10:22:20PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
Well I fully agree with you, but let me explain: Completely by chance
I took over maintainership of the f-prot-installer package, which is
in contrib. Since an installer package may easily fail (when the
vendor changes file names,
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Personally, BTW, I would really, really prefer to maintain Free
Software, not *only* for political reasons but also because a
commercial vendor is obviously the least responsive upstream you can
have. And also, not having access to the
Hello there,
if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
In the Debian Policy 2.1.6 there is a warning about usage
restrictions but no definite statement.
Thanks,
Johannes
--
~/.signature under
if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
DFSG (http://www.debian.org/social_contract.en.html)
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use
Xavier Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
DFSG (http://www.debian.org/social_contract.en.html)
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 04:01:05PM +0100, Xavier Roche wrote:
if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
DFSG (http://www.debian.org/social_contract.en.html)
6. No Discrimination Against
Frank Gevaerts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AFAIK, non-free only needs permission to redistribute.
Yes. For examples of disqualified-from-non-free software look at the
various installers. Newer Sun JDKs also haven't made it into non-free
(don't remember why).
We also sometimes disqualify software
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:50:39PM +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
Frank Gevaerts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AFAIK, non-free only needs permission to redistribute.
Yes. For examples of disqualified-from-non-free software look at the
various installers. Newer Sun JDKs also haven't made it into
Hello there,
if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
In the Debian Policy 2.1.6 there is a warning about usage
restrictions but no definite statement.
Thanks,
Johannes
--
~/.signature under
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:19:48PM +0100, Johannes Rohr wrote:
if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
No, that's a classic example of the sort of thing that *is* included in
non-free. The sort
if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
DFSG (http://www.debian.org/social_contract.en.html)
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use
Xavier Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
DFSG (http://www.debian.org/social_contract.en.html)
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 04:01:05PM +0100, Xavier Roche wrote:
if a program license restricts usage to e.g. non-commercial use only,
will this (usually) disqualify a package from inclusion into non-free?
DFSG (http://www.debian.org/social_contract.en.html)
6. No Discrimination Against
Frank Gevaerts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AFAIK, non-free only needs permission to redistribute.
Yes. For examples of disqualified-from-non-free software look at the
various installers. Newer Sun JDKs also haven't made it into non-free
(don't remember why).
We also sometimes disqualify software
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:50:39PM +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
Frank Gevaerts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AFAIK, non-free only needs permission to redistribute.
Yes. For examples of disqualified-from-non-free software look at the
various installers. Newer Sun JDKs also haven't made it into
40 matches
Mail list logo
