On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 01:48:43PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
James A. Treacy wrote:
A number of people would like to see a 3dfx package of mesa. This can
not be done unless there is a legal package of glide (under the
current license I can't even get the libs since I don't own a 3dfx
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 01:48:43PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
Any reason, aside from the lack of volunteers, why we can't do what we
do with netscape/staroffice/etc.? Even if we can't distribute it, can't
we have a loader package? (No, I'm not volunteering, I don't own a 3dfx
card either.)
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 04:48:44PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This proprietary commercial software and if it is on any Debian servers it
must be removed *immediately*. No waiting to see if they might change the
license. It must be removed *now*.
A number of people would like to see a
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 04:48:44PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If nobody wants to take up this torch I'm going to suggest the existing
package be dropped from the distribution. If anybody _does_ want to try
to deal with this, please let me know.
New license:
...
On 10 Oct 1998 16:48:44 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This proprietary commercial software and if it is on any Debian servers
it must be removed *immediately*.
It is as if you ignored the explanatory part of the message and just
read the license. That wasn't useful. I know the license
On Sat, 10 Oct, 1998, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roderick Schertler writes:
If nobody wants to take up this torch I'm going to suggest the existing
package be dropped from the distribution. If anybody _does_ want to try
to deal with this, please let me know.
New license:
Edward Betts writes:
This is a new licence on a new version that has NOT been uploaded.
That was not clear to me.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
James A. Treacy wrote:
A number of people would like to see a 3dfx package of mesa. This can
not be done unless there is a legal package of glide (under the
current license I can't even get the libs since I don't own a 3dfx
card).
Any reason, aside from the lack of volunteers, why we can't
The Glide library is a mess. It's non-free and no source is available. As
distributed by the upstream author you get a library called libglide2x.so,
with no embedded soname. I had packaged up an old version of this library.
I went to update the package and I found that the situation has gotten
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 11:21:12 -0500, Zed Pobre [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
libglide-voodoo:
Provides: libglide
Conflicts: libglide, libglide-voodoo2, libglide-voodoorush
libglide-voodoo2:
Provides: libglide
Conflicts: libglide, libglide-voodoo,
Roderick == Roderick Schertler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Roderick RESTRICTIONS: You may not: 1. Sublicense the Materials;
Roderick 2. Reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the
Roderick enclosed software; 3. Use the Materials for for any
Roderick platform or products other
On 10 Oct 1998 13:14:17 -0700, Ben Gertzfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[license elided]
This is *so* non-free it can't even go on our FTP site. You can't make
copies of the materials other than for back-up purposes.
I know, that's exactly what I said in my message. I was asking if
anybody
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 01:14:17PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
Roderick RESTRICTIONS: You may not: 1. Sublicense the Materials;
Roderick 2. Reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the
Roderick enclosed software; 3. Use the Materials for for any
Roderick platform or
Roderick Schertler writes:
If nobody wants to take up this torch I'm going to suggest the existing
package be dropped from the distribution. If anybody _does_ want to try
to deal with this, please let me know.
New license:
...
...
This proprietary commercial software and if
14 matches
Mail list logo
