Neil Tiffin wrote:
[]
/sw/include/subversion-1/svn_sorts.h:26:23: apr_pools.h: No such file or
directory
With the latest version of svn and kdesdk3 on CVS this should be fixed.
--
Martin
---
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Macks wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 04:48:04PM -0800, Trevor Harmon wrote:
>
>>On Mar 27, 2005, at 6:22 AM, David H. wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, ignoring this bullshit licensing issue all together. Four
>>>highly paid, very well known and rather well
David H. wrote:
no, I am not. That are exactly the words that they told me. The likelyhood
that we will end up in court because we "violate" the GPL is about 0. Not to
mention that we are not the "active party" in this case. The long version on
this topic is about 2 hours and a dinner worth.
As the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Benjamin Reed wrote:
> David H. wrote:
>
>> no, I am not. That are exactly the words that they told me. The
>> likelyhood
>> that we will end up in court because we "violate" the GPL is about 0.
>> Not to
>> mention that we are not the "active party"
On 28 Mar 2005, at 04:36, Jeremy Higgs wrote:
The next package is gnome-python (2.4.2), which, because it depends
on GNOME, has a mass of dependencies. I've been trying to make some
sense out of them, but haven't figured out what dependencies should
be included, and what versions. Are there a
On Mar 28, 2005, at 10:08 AM, David H. wrote:
And yes, I also think that we should not adopt a policy or attitude
where we
try to go out of our way just because there "might" be legal
implications.
In this spirit, can we have our old slogan back? "Unix software for
your Mac"? (taken down beca
On Mar 28, 2005, at 10:08 AM, David H. wrote:
Benjamin Reed wrote:
And where is Fink incorporated again?
That does not matter when it comes to copy right. Not at all.
Actually, what matters for copyright is the country in which the item
was published. If there are conflicting copyright laws, then
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David R. Morrison wrote:
>
> On Mar 28, 2005, at 10:08 AM, David H. wrote:
>
>> And yes, I also think that we should not adopt a policy or attitude
>> where we
>> try to go out of our way just because there "might" be legal
>> implications.
>>
>
> I
[maintainer cc'd]
In the current version of bittorrent (4.0.0-3), installing
bittorrent(non-x11) also builds the gui version (and needed dependencies
like wxgtk and wxpython). This seems to be due to the use of splitoffs
(base and -gui). In the previous version (3.4.2), the types of
bittorren
I originally had variants in the info file, and cirdan changed it for
the alternatives framework and splitoffs. (At least that's the way I
remember it.) I don't like alternatives much but I thought, hey, if he
cared that much for them I'd leave them in.
Now that cirdan doesn't have the time to help
Thanks a lot for that!
On 29 Mar 2005, at 2:01, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
On 28 Mar 2005, at 04:36, Jeremy Higgs wrote:
The next package is gnome-python (2.4.2), which, because it depends
on GNOME, has a mass of dependencies. I've been trying to make some
sense out of them, but haven't figured
Dear Koen,
Thank you for the letter!
Indeed, I have installed the X11 SDK; I am currently using XEmacs on
my system, compiled with fink.
-- Brent
On Mar 27, 2005, at 6:25 PM, Koen van der Drift wrote:
On Mar 26, 2005, at 1:19 PM, Brent Edwards wrote:
gdk_imlib_pri
David R. Morrison wrote:
Anthony,
Thanks very much for this very helpful message.
I'm curious of there is any difference for software released under the
LGPL instead of the GPL. Can it legally link to openSSL?
LGPL Sec. 6 seems to allow this:
6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may als
David R. Morrison wrote:
But what about the .info files? Should we declare them to be part of fink,
and therefore under the GPL? Can we do this retroactively, even though
we didn't make it clear to contributers in the past?
Most of a finkinfo file is just a statement of facts, and is nearly
enti
On Mar 28, 2005, at 2:23 AM, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Most of a finkinfo file is just a statement of facts, and is nearly
entirely determined by technical requirements. Those parts are most
likely not copyrightable at all. No worries there, then.
What about an almanac? A news broadcast? An encyc
On Mar 27, 2005, at 9:32 PM, Brent Edwards wrote:
Dear Koen,
Thank you for the letter!
Indeed, I have installed the X11 SDK; I am currently using XEmacs on
my system, compiled with fink.
-- Brent
So is imlib now working? If not, try searching Google, it will show
Doesn't the .info contain the copyright statement (in at least some
cases)? Isn't there some implication here? To my mind, when reading the
document, the copyright applies to its bearing instrument unless
expressly stated otherwise. Considering that the copyright (at least in
spirit) applies to
17 matches
Mail list logo