Alan wrote:
>
> If Jamie or other distributions don't care, fine.. But we DO care, we
> don't want to get sued.. That is why xmatrix was removed and there is no
> plan to put it back (except if you get a royalted free license for
> commercial distribution of xmatrix from "The Matrix" artwork auth
> > I think you guys are overracting.
>
> I don't. Although the risk of being sued is negligible, the *damage* that
> would ensue (basically, Mandrake goes under) is extreme enough to make the
> choice uneconomical.
I don't either. From what I hear WB are complete bastards. Last I knew they
(W
On Thursday 25 April 2002 14:31, Alan wrote:
> There is no "artwork" involved. it is a character set.
> I think you guys are overracting.
I don't. Although the risk of being sued is negligible, the *damage* that
would ensue (basically, Mandrake goes under) is extreme enough to make the
choice
Ok, That screesaver is gone... someone took it out to protect Mandrake.
Moderator, Please Kill this Thread! Enough already!
Patrick
Frederic Crozat wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 08:31:39 +0200, Alan wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday 24 April 2002 06:12 am, Frederic Crozat wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 24 Apr 2002
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 08:31:39 +0200, Alan wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 April 2002 06:12 am, Frederic Crozat wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:02:25 +0200, Geoffrey Lee wrote:
>> > /* snip */
>> >
>> >> UNIX?
>> >>
>> >> Anyway, why don't you ask Geoffrey Lee why he removed the xmatrix
>> >> hack. From
On Wednesday 24 April 2002 06:12 am, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:02:25 +0200, Geoffrey Lee wrote:
> > /* snip */
> >
> >> UNIX?
> >>
> >> Anyway, why don't you ask Geoffrey Lee why he removed the xmatrix hack.
> >> From rpm -q --changelog xscreensaver:
> >>
> >> * Don Feb 15 20
J.A. Magallon wrote:
>On 2002.04.24 Geoffrey Lee wrote:
>
>
of "The Matrix" artwork ?
If Jamie or other distributions don't care, fine.. But we DO care, we
don't want to get sued.. That is why xmatrix was removed and there is no
plan to put it back (except if you get a roya
> > spend huge amounts on lawyers) Mandrake will go under. Not "could", but
> > "will".
>
> Well, instead of speculating, it's maybe time to actually consult a
> lawyer for this type of issues. This kind of discussion will occur more
> often as media companies tend to sit on their property, or w
On Wednesday 24 April 2002 21:12, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> Is it really hard to understand that xmatrix is really a non-licensed use
> of "The Matrix" artwork ?
> If Jamie or other distributions don't care, fine.. But we DO care, we
> don't want to get sued.. That is why xmatrix was removed and t
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 06:39:39PM +0200, Guy.Bormann wrote:
> Well, instead of speculating, it's maybe time to actually consult a
> lawyer for this type of issues. This kind of discussion will occur more
> often as media companies tend to sit on their property, or what they think
> should be thei
On 2002.04.24 Geoffrey Lee wrote:
>> >of "The Matrix" artwork ?
>> >
>> >If Jamie or other distributions don't care, fine.. But we DO care, we
>> >don't want to get sued.. That is why xmatrix was removed and there is no
>> >plan to put it back (except if you get a royalted free license for
>> >co
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Levi Ramsey wrote:
> On Wed Apr 24 23:51 +1000, Geoffrey Lee wrote:
> > Probably, or probably not.
> >
> > But we can't risk our asses just because we *think* that it's ok to use
> > xmatrix without some sort of licensing. I'm sure that was what I felt when
> > I removed it.
On Wed Apr 24 23:51 +1000, Geoffrey Lee wrote:
> Probably, or probably not.
>
> But we can't risk our asses just because we *think* that it's ok to use
> xmatrix without some sort of licensing. I'm sure that was what I felt when
> I removed it.
Exactly. If Mandrake gets sued by the entertainm
On Wednesday 24 April 2002 09:51 am, Geoffrey Lee wrote:
> Probably, or probably not.
>
> But we can't risk our asses just because we *think* that it's ok to use
> xmatrix without some sort of licensing. I'm sure that was what I felt when
> I removed it.
Isn't knowing better than guessing? Someon
> >of "The Matrix" artwork ?
> >
> >If Jamie or other distributions don't care, fine.. But we DO care, we
> >don't want to get sued.. That is why xmatrix was removed and there is no
> >plan to put it back (except if you get a royalted free license for
> >commercial distribution of xmatrix from "Th
On 2002.04.24 Frederic Crozat wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:02:25 +0200, Geoffrey Lee wrote:
>
>> /* snip */
>>
>>> UNIX?
>>>
>>> Anyway, why don't you ask Geoffrey Lee why he removed the xmatrix hack.
>>> From rpm -q --changelog xscreensaver:
>>>
>>> * Don Feb 15 2001 Geoffrey Lee <[EMAIL PR
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:02:25 +0200, Geoffrey Lee wrote:
> /* snip */
>
>> UNIX?
>>
>> Anyway, why don't you ask Geoffrey Lee why he removed the xmatrix hack.
>> From rpm -q --changelog xscreensaver:
>>
>> * Don Feb 15 2001 Geoffrey Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3.28-3mdk
>>
>> - Remove the xmatrix
/* snip */
> UNIX?
>
> Anyway, why don't you ask Geoffrey Lee why he removed the xmatrix hack. From
> rpm -q --changelog xscreensaver:
>
> * Don Feb 15 2001 Geoffrey Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3.28-3mdk
>
> - Remove the xmatrix screensaver as there are copyright problems.
>
Oh my gosh. I was t
Am Dienstag, 23. April 2002, 18:51:29 Uhr MET, schrieb Alan:
[xmatrix]
> My question is why it is not included in the *standard* distribution.
>
> NO other distribution turns off xmatrix in their binary packages. (At least
> none that Jamie Zawinski has ever heard of. And he whote it!)
>
> He
On Tuesday 23 April 2002 04:05 am, Goetz Waschk wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 23. April 2002, 17:10:08 Uhr MET, schrieb R.I.P. Deaddog:
> > On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Alan wrote:
> > > > extrusion: gle is in contrib (and things on main
> > > >distro shouldn't depend on contrib stuff),
> > > >
On Tuesday 23 April 2002 02:10 am, R.I.P. Deaddog wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Alan wrote:
> > > xmatrix: of course it's the stupid copyright
> >
> > If this is correct, then someone is stretching copyright paranoia a
> > little too far.
>
> During the old days, it's pretty dangerous. When things
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Goetz Waschk wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 23. April 2002, 17:10:08 Uhr MET, schrieb R.I.P. Deaddog:
> > On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Alan wrote:
> > > > extrusion: gle is in contrib (and things on main
[...]
> Why hasn't anyone of you looked at the spec file of latest xscreensaver?
> T
Am Dienstag, 23. April 2002, 17:10:08 Uhr MET, schrieb R.I.P. Deaddog:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Alan wrote:
> > > extrusion: gle is in contrib (and things on main
> > >distro shouldn't depend on contrib stuff),
> > > and gle is not used by anything else for now.
> > > Perhaps a
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Alan wrote:
> > xmatrix: of course it's the stupid copyright
>
> If this is correct, then someone is stretching copyright paranoia a little too
> far.
During the old days, it's pretty dangerous. When things
settle down, people tend to ignore it. But if it's brought
out a
On Tuesday 23 April 2002 01:36 am, R.I.P. Deaddog wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Alan wrote:
> > > > In looking at the spec file for xscreensaver I notice that xmatrix
> > > > and extrusion are set not to build.
> > > >
> > > > extrusion I can understand because it requires a specialized GL
> > > >
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Alan wrote:
> > > In looking at the spec file for xscreensaver I notice that xmatrix and
> > > extrusion are set not to build.
> > >
> > > extrusion I can understand because it requires a specialized GL extrusion
> > > library.
> >
> > As a matter of fact, the gle library is
On Tuesday 23 April 2002 01:25 am, R.I.P. Deaddog wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Alan wrote:
> > In looking at the spec file for xscreensaver I notice that xmatrix and
> > extrusion are set not to build.
> >
> > extrusion I can understand because it requires a specialized GL extrusion
> > library.
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Alan wrote:
> In looking at the spec file for xscreensaver I notice that xmatrix and
> extrusion are set not to build.
>
> extrusion I can understand because it requires a specialized GL extrusion
> library.
As a matter of fact, the gle library is in cooker too.
Abel
>
In looking at the spec file for xscreensaver I notice that xmatrix and
extrusion are set not to build.
extrusion I can understand because it requires a specialized GL extrusion
library.
Why is xmatrix disabled?
If it is copyright nonsense, then "lament" should not be there either.
29 matches
Mail list logo
