2005/12/30, Nate Bargmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005 Dec 29 23:44 -0600]:
Brian Nelson wrote:
s/non-free/GPL-incompatible/
The problem was that the Windows version was not free while the Linux
version was.
I believe the Windows version is still
* Pooly [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005 Dec 31 04:16 -0600]:
2005/12/30, Nate Bargmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005 Dec 29 23:44 -0600]:
Brian Nelson wrote:
s/non-free/GPL-incompatible/
The problem was that the Windows version was not free while the Linux
Nate Bargmann wrote:
Even more nails in the old Qt is non-free coffin. Good!
Also more nails in Gnome's coffin IMHO. I never liked Gnome for a very
solid philosophical reason. KDE was started to build a first-rate desktop on
the unix and unix-like platforms. Gnome was started to kill
* Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005 Dec 29 23:44 -0600]:
Brian Nelson wrote:
s/non-free/GPL-incompatible/
The problem was that the Windows version was not free while the Linux
version was.
I believe the Windows version is still non-free, but that doesn't
matter to Debian. I've not
Nate Bargmann writes:
As I recall, the license on the Qt library was considered DFSG non-free
because any source changes were only allowed to be distributed as
patches--a restriction that violates the DFSG.
The Qt license was DFSG-free and Qt was in Debian. However, the license
was
* John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005 Dec 30 09:02 -0600]:
Nate Bargmann writes:
As I recall, the license on the Qt library was considered DFSG non-free
because any source changes were only allowed to be distributed as
patches--a restriction that violates the DFSG.
The Qt license was
On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 08:17 -0600, Nate Bargmann wrote:
* Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005 Dec 29 23:44 -0600]:
Brian Nelson wrote:
[snip]
I believe the Windows version is still non-free, but that doesn't
matter to Debian. I've not kept close track so I don't know if anyone
has gone to
Nate Bargmann wrote:
* Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005 Dec 29 23:44 -0600]:
Brian Nelson wrote:
s/non-free/GPL-incompatible/
The problem was that the Windows version was not free while the Linux
version was.
I believe the Windows version is still non-free, but that doesn't
Brian Nelson wrote:
Adam Fabian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Edward C. Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why does Debian default to gnome? When I install a recent testing,
I believe GNOME sprang up partially in response to KDE using Qt, which
had a non-free license at the time.
s/non-free
Adam Fabian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Edward C. Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why does Debian default to gnome? When I install a recent testing,
I believe GNOME sprang up partially in response to KDE using Qt, which
had a non-free license at the time.
s/non-free/GPL-incompatible
Brian Nelson wrote:
s/non-free/GPL-incompatible/
No, non-free. If it were GPL-incompatible there are quite a few pieces of
software in Debian right now that would be shunned for the very same fact.
Several free licenses are GPL incompatible.
The problem was that the Windows version was
Fabian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 2:33 pm
Subject: Re: Why does Debian default to Gnome?
Edward C. Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why does Debian default to gnome? When I install a
recent testing,
I believe GNOME sprang up partially in response to KDE using Qt
On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 04:23:45PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree what you wtote about GNOME but will be good that users have a
choice what they want to install.
I like both desktops but last time when I wanted to uninstall
Evolution with Synaptci it wanted to uninstall Gnome too. Is
ajtim writes:
I like both desktops but last time when I wanted to uninstall Evolution
with Synaptci it wanted to uninstall Gnome too.
The Gnome package is a dummy. It pulls in its components by depending on
them. Thus when you remove any of its components it gets removed as well.
However,
On 12/28/05, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Gnome package is a dummy. It pulls in its components by depending on
them. Thus when you remove any of its components it gets removed as well.
However, since it has no contents, removing it does no harm. This
obviously needs to be better
David Kirchner writes:
Or, better yet, modified so that removing an application doesn't cause
the user to be presented with the scary demand that they also remove
gnome.
I know of no way to do that with the present dependancy mechanism.
I'm not too familiar with the packages, but I
Why does Debian default to gnome? When I install a recent testing, if
I choose a desktop system, both kde and gnome are installed and gnome is
used. Is there a Debian document somewhere explaining why gnome ws chosen?
The default gnome theme is first rate but kde seems to be more
configurable
Edward C. Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why does Debian default to gnome? When I install a recent testing,
I believe GNOME sprang up partially in response to KDE using Qt, which
had a non-free license at the time. Debian is heavily influenced by
notions of software freedom, and even though
18 matches
Mail list logo
