Il giorno sab, 20/12/2008 alle 08.50 -0800, Steve Langasek ha scritto:
> Hi Pietro,
>
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 08:32:32AM +0100, Pietro Battiston wrote:
> > I'm interested in packaging Shapely, a python library [0].
>
> > [...]
>
> > Could you confirm this license is OK with debian?
>
> > [1]:
Hi Pietro,
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 08:32:32AM +0100, Pietro Battiston wrote:
> I'm interested in packaging Shapely, a python library [0].
> The library was already packaged once, uploaded and then rejected by
> ftp-masters: I tried to get the reason but didn't get a response from
> (eventual) mai
Il giorno sab, 20/12/2008 alle 00.22 -0800, Don Armstrong ha scritto:
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Pietro Battiston wrote:
> > I'm interested in packaging Shapely, a python library [0].
> >
> > The library was already packaged once, uploaded and then rejected by
> > ftp-masters: I tried to get the reaso
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Pietro Battiston wrote:
> I'm interested in packaging Shapely, a python library [0].
>
> The library was already packaged once, uploaded and then rejected by
> ftp-masters: I tried to get the reason but didn't get a response
> from (eventual) maintainer, neither from ftp-maste
On 12/20/08, Pietro Battiston wrote:
> Hello debian-legal,
>
> I'm interested in packaging Shapely, a python library [0].
>
> The library was already packaged once, uploaded and then rejected by
> ftp-masters: I tried to get the reason but didn't get a response from
> (eventual) maintainer, ne
Hello debian-legal,
I'm interested in packaging Shapely, a python library [0].
The library was already packaged once, uploaded and then rejected by
ftp-masters: I tried to get the reason but didn't get a response from
(eventual) maintainer, neither from ftp-masters.
In the end, I'm repackaging i
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:29:45 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:16:11 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
[...]
> > One thing that was not yet pointed out is that this license, besides
> > the other issues, also has a choice of venue clause. Thi
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:16:11 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > All disputes relating to this Agreement are subject to the
> > exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Essen, Germany and you
> > expressly consent to the exercise of personal jurisdiction in th
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:16:11 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
> All disputes
> relating to this Agreement are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction
> of the courts of Essen, Germany and you expressly consent to the
> exercise of personal jurisdiction in the courts of Essen, Germany in
> connection with any
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Adam Cecile (Le_Vert) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm working on the teamspeak client packaging and I would like you
> > to review the license:
> > http://www.goteamspeak.com/index.php?page=downloads&id=1a
>
> To aid discussion and future reference, it'
Adam Cecile (Le_Vert) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
>
> I'm working on the teamspeak client packaging and I would like you
> to review the license:
> http://www.goteamspeak.com/index.php?page=downloads&id=1a
To aid discussion and future reference, it's convention on this list
to post the t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>That's why they offered me to send me an official e-mail which summarize the
>authorization they gave us.
>Is it enough for ftp-masters ?
I am not a ftpmaster, but this has been routinely accepted in the past.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTE
Hello,
I'm working on the teamspeak client packaging and I would like you to review
the license:
http://www.goteamspeak.com/index.php?page=downloads&id=1a
Please notice Teamspeak has given Debian the right to distribute it, however
they don't want to update the EULA now because it needs validat
"Frank Gevaerts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
When I packaged foobillard 3.0a, I correctly removed the included
non-free larabie ttf fonts, but I accidentally forgot to remove the
associated README.FONTS file, which contains the license for these
fonts. Is th
Hi,
When I packaged foobillard 3.0a, I correctly removed the included
non-free larabie ttf fonts, but I accidentally forgot to remove the
associated README.FONTS file, which contains the license for these
fonts. Is this considered serious enough to warrant a new .orig
tarball? I do not expect a n
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 02:00:30PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I've used the public domain implementation written by Colin Plumb, as
> also used in dpkg. It's nigh-on a drop-in replacement.
I used it in packaging teapop, too, and I seem to recall messing around
with it to make it a completely
doko wrote:
>[debian-legal, how do other packages handle the md5 stuff?]
>
>Joe Wreschnig writes:
>
>> Howeer, /usr/share/doc/python2.4/copyright does not include this
>> license. In fact, almost none of the licenses at
>> http://www.python.org/doc/current/lib/node822.html are included. At
>> least
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 01:27:55PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> debian-legal, how do other packages handle the md5 stuff?
>
> Copyright (C) 1991-2, RSA Data Security, Inc. Created 1991. All
> rights reserved.
>
> License to copy and use this software is granted provided that it
> is identified
[debian-legal, how do other packages handle the md5 stuff?]
Joe Wreschnig writes:
> Package: python
> Severity: serious
>
> The license for the Python profiler[0] does not allow it to be copied or
> modified independently of other Python programs. This is a violation of
> DFSG #3 (and also is jus
Package: python
Severity: serious
The license for the Python profiler[0] does not allow it to be copied or
modified independently of other Python programs. This is a violation of
DFSG #3 (and also is just stupid). This bug affects likely every version
of Python in Debian (and that ever was in Debi
Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Unfortunately, trademarks apparently don't work that way in civil law
> countries, and only arise through registration (with certain exceptions such
> as your own name).
Which are those countries? In Denmark, for instance, trademark rights
can be
> So can you say why
>it is a problem with my license, and not with Apache's and PHP's?
Nobody is going to say that, because we think it's a problem with all those
licenses.
It was a problem with Apache's license. It was not noticed for a long time.
Eventually it was noticed, and it was *fixed
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 12:15:50AM +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > This clause is perfectly acceptable as a part of the Apache 1.1 license.
> > As the Apache 1.1 license is OSI certified, and has certainly been used
> > by software distributed as a part
An idea parallel to "fair use" is present in the Berne Convention,
under the name "fair practice":
Article 10 (1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work
which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided
that their making is compatible with fair practice, and th
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 11:10:11AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> >
>> >> >>This is much broader. For example, I cannot write a derivative called
>> >> >>"Bria
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 11:10:11AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >
> >> >>This is much broader. For example, I cannot write a derivative called
> >> >>"Brian's Xdebug" or "Xdebug manual" or even "A third-par
me> Universal Commercial Code
s/Universal/Uniform/ (whoops)
This and other Model Acts, on which a lot of state laws in the US are
based, may be found at http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/ulc.htm .
Cheers,
- Michael
> > The trouble, I think, is that "derived product" has a legal meaning
> > (in the context of copyright) contrary to your common-sense
> > interpretation. Anything other than an exact copy of the source code
> > you distribute (or, if you distribute binaries, exact copies of them)
> > -- even an
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
> >> Debian packages frequently contain changes from the upstream
> >> versions. (These patches are generally sent upstream, but the
> >> Debian maintainer wil
Scripsit Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> Debian packages frequently contain changes from the upstream
>> versions. (These patches are generally sent upstream, but the
>> Debian maintainer will often apply a patch without waiting for a
>> new upstr
Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>> >>This is much broader. For example, I cannot write a derivative called
>> >>"Brian's Xdebug" or "Xdebug manual" or even "A third-party manual for
>> >>Xdebug".
>> >
>> > The manual is no problem, that's n
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> The trouble, I think, is that "derived product" has a legal meaning
> (in the context of copyright) contrary to your common-sense
> interpretation. Anything other than an exact copy of the source code
> you distribute (or, if you distribute binarie
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >>This is much broader. For example, I cannot write a derivative called
> >>"Brian's Xdebug" or "Xdebug manual" or even "A third-party manual for
> >>Xdebug".
> >
> > The manual is no problem, that's not a derived product.
>
> It could very well be a de
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > I am totally fine if people put it in distributions as php4-xdebug.
> > AFAIK freebsd's ports already have this, and so will Mandrake in the
> > forseeable feature. It would be silly of me to prohibit this, and this
> > is what IMO the license never in
Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>>4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
>>>[..] The license may require derived works to carry a different name or
>>>version number from the original software. [..]
>>>=
>>>
>>>I didn't looked at the rest of the licen
Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Package: php4-xdbg
>>Description: debugging aid for PHP scripts, based on xdebug
>> Xdbg is a debugging aid for PHP scripts. It provides various debug
>> information about your script...
>> [further description]
>> .
>> The u
On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 08:34:49PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Find something that allows me to exclude people from using "Xdebug+" or
> > "RealXdebug" for names of derived products. That is exactly what I mean
> > with this clause. I don't see why this should render something non-free.
> > The
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 12:15:50AM +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
> This clause is perfectly acceptable as a part of the Apache 1.1 license.
> As the Apache 1.1 license is OSI certified, and has certainly been used
> by software distributed as a part of Debian, why would this clause cause
> any probl
Derick -
The trouble, I think, is that "derived product" has a legal meaning
(in the context of copyright) contrary to your common-sense
interpretation. Anything other than an exact copy of the source code
you distribute (or, if you distribute binaries, exact copies of them)
-- even an unpatched
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >If that's the case, why didn't you rename the Apache and PHP packages?
> >If you want to mangle Xdebug's name in a package name, so should it be
> >done for PHP and Apache, as it's the same license.
> Absol
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
> > [..] The license may require derived works to carry a different name or
> > version number from the original software. [..]
> > =
> >
> > I didn't looked at the rest of the license, but I don't th
Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If that's the case, why didn't you rename the Apache and PHP packages?
>If you want to mangle Xdebug's name in a package name, so should it be
>done for PHP and Apache, as it's the same license.
Absolutely correct; serious bugs should be filed against thos
Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Excluding a singleton name is fine. I'd even go so far as to say any
>> > excluding any countable set is fine. Excluding an uncountable class of
>> > names is not.
>>
>> First of all, let me first say that I agree that DFSG4 can lead to
>> permitti
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Alexander Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>* Jan Minar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041219 20:04]:
> >>>AFAICT, the only non-free section is:
> >>>
> >>>http://www.xdebug.org/license.php";>
> >>>4. Products derived from thi
Those debian people should really think of getting more software
engineers, not managers and laywers to help out. This would help the
distro more.
And their absurd abusive semantics of the word "free" is also
irritating. Do they really think that BSD is more "non-free" than GPL or
Artistic? (
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Jan Minar wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 09:06:45PM +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Jan Minar wrote:
> > >From the PHP license (http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt):
> > 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor
> > may "
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Alexander Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>* Jan Minar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041219 20:04]:
>>>AFAICT, the only non-free section is:
>>>
>>>http://www.xdebug.org/license.php";>
>>>4. Products derived from this software may not be called "Xdebug", nor
>>>may "Xdebug
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 08:27:31PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Excluding a singleton name is fine. I'd even go so far as to say any
> excluding any countable set is fine. Excluding an uncountable class of
> names is not.
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00023.html for
* Jan Minar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041220 04:28]:
> > Citing Debian Free Software Guidelines [1]:
> > =
> > 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
> > [..] The license may require derived works to carry a different name or
> > version number from the original software. [..]
> > =
> The dif
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 09:06:45PM +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Jan Minar wrote:
> >From the PHP license (http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt):
> 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor
> may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 11:38:16PM +0100, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> * Jan Minar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041219 20:04]:
>
> > AFAICT, the only non-free section is:
> >
> > http://www.xdebug.org/license.php";>
> > 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "Xdebug", nor
> > may "Xdebug"
Alexander Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi!
>
> * Jan Minar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041219 20:04]:
>
>> AFAICT, the only non-free section is:
>>
>> http://www.xdebug.org/license.php";>
>> 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "Xdebug", nor
>> may "Xdebug" appear in their n
Hi!
* Jan Minar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041219 20:04]:
> AFAICT, the only non-free section is:
>
> http://www.xdebug.org/license.php";>
> 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "Xdebug", nor
> may "Xdebug" appear in their name, without prior written permission from
> [EMAIL PROTEC
L.S.,
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Jan Minar wrote:
> AFAICT, the only non-free section is:
>
> http://www.xdebug.org/license.php";>
> 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "Xdebug", nor
> may "Xdebug" appear in their name, without prior written permission from
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Hi.
I've been referred to xdebug on #postgresql @ freenode, but I will try
to avoid it because:
(1) It's not in Debian
(2) The license is non-free
Although the license is non-free as in annoying more then in
philosophical,
(3) It's not even in the Debian's non-free section
AFAICT, the only no
Package: apt-howto
Version: 1.7.7-3
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.2.1
The Debian documentation policy (http://www.debian.org/doc/docpolicy) reads:
| All manuals of the Debian Documentation Project (DDP) will be released
| under DFSG-compliant licenses
On the other hand the APT HOWTO
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Øystein Gisnås:
>
>> I just wanted to consult you experts before I post an ITP on this
>> package. As far as I can see, the license (attached) holds for the
>> non-free section.
>
> This is from their web site:
>
> | (b) You are allowed to redistribute the Software, un
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:22:40PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-14 12:20:54 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >| [...] (v) constantly monitor www.skype.com in
> >| order to ensure that you are distributing the latest stable version;
>
> Did they really issue a licence requi
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Øystein Gisnås wrote:
> The Skype Software and the Services are not intended for use by or
> availability to persons under the age limit of any jurisdiction
> which restricts the use of Internet-based applications and services
> according to age. IF YOU RESIDE IN SUCH A JURISD
* Øystein Gisnås:
> I'm not sure what you refer to as notification, but if it's writing an
> email to them, that shouldn't be a problem since contacting the author
> is part of the packaging process in any case.
Each mirror admin would have to contact them individually because most
mirrors are no
On 2004-07-14 12:20:54 +0100 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| [...] (v) constantly monitor www.skype.com in
| order to ensure that you are distributing the latest stable version;
Did they really issue a licence requiring hammering their web server?
I don't think it's practical to
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:20:54PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Øystein Gisnås:
>
> > I just wanted to consult you experts before I post an ITP on this
> > package. As far as I can see, the license (attached) holds for the
> > non-free section.
>
> This is from their web site:
>
> | (b) You
* Øystein Gisnås:
> I just wanted to consult you experts before I post an ITP on this
> package. As far as I can see, the license (attached) holds for the
> non-free section.
This is from their web site:
| (b) You are allowed to redistribute the Software, under the conditions
| that you (i) do n
SKYPE END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ CAREFULLY:
This End User License Agreement ("Agreement") constitutes a valid and
binding agreement between Skype Software S.A. ("Skype") and you
("you," or "your") for the use of the Skype Software, Network and
Services, as those terms are d
Hi,
I just wanted to consult you experts before I post an ITP on this
package. As far as I can see, the license (attached) holds for the
non-free section.
As of this license, modification is not allowed. How is modification
to be interpreted. Can, for example, .dekstop files be modified? What
abo
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004, Bill Allombert wrote:
> The file drivers/usb/emi26_fw.h carry the license below:
> /*
> * This firmware is for the Emagic EMI 2|6 Audio Interface
> *
> * The firmware contained herein is Copyright (c) 1999-2002 Emagic
> * as an unpublished work. This notice does not imply u
Package: kernel-source-2.4.25
Version: 2.4.25-1
Severity: serious
The file drivers/usb/emi26_fw.h carry the license below:
/*
* This firmware is for the Emagic EMI 2|6 Audio Interface
*
* The firmware contained herein is Copyright (c) 1999-2002 Emagic
* as an unpublished work. This notice does
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 02:11:06AM -0700, Kevin Rosenberg wrote:
> Good points -- I'll fill a bug against ftp.debian.org to remove the
> package.
>
Probably it could be converted in an installer.
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
Good points -- I'll fill a bug against ftp.debian.org to remove the
package.
Thanks!
--
Kevin Rosenberg| .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
http://b9.com/debian.html | : :' : The universal
GPG signed and encrypted| `. `' Operating System
messages accepted.
My points of concern are:
This Agreement, dated , is entered into by Mentec
Inc., a Massachusetts Company, located at 55 Technology Drive, Lowell,
MA 01851, U.S.A. (MENTEC), and
_ having a residence at
__
Hello Debian Legal Guys,
I've recently adopted a non-free package (simh-rsts-images). During
the process of renaming the package, an ftpmaster has concerns that
the license perhaps prevents even inclusion in the non-free archive.
I've included the license below. The point of concerns are:
"..
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 01:31:25PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> So the situation would be something like:
>
> 1. A writes software, contributes it to the public domain and
>distributes it with a warranty disclaimer.
>
> 2. B downloads software from A's site, strips off the warranty
>di
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I keep hearing, though I have not had the opportunity to verify this
> with a Real Lawyer(tm), that public domain has one drawback; you can't
> attach a no-warranty statement to it.
It may mean (no: it does mean) that you cannot force other people t
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 04:52:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I keep hearing, though I have not had the opportunity to verify this
> with a Real Lawyer(tm), that public domain has one drawback; you can't
> attach a no-warranty statement to it.
US Geological Survey seems to have no problem di
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I keep hearing, though I have not had the opportunity to verify this
> with a Real Lawyer(tm), that public domain has one drawback; you can't
> attach a no-warranty statement to it.
I'm no lawyer and had not contact to US or british ones. But it woul
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 05:55:59PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> yes public domain essentially gives all possible rights with no
> restrictions.
I keep hearing, though I have not had the opportunity to verify this
with a Real Lawyer(tm), that public domain has one drawback; you can't
attach
>
>> The remainder of the source (not already public domain, no explicit
>> author's copyright notice) is Copyright 1995-97 by Harald
>> Deischinger.
>> The source code may be copied freely and may be used in other
>
> I think this may remain? While this has to be changed:
>
yes public domain
Me wrote:
> > provide a last archive with another license. My question is: what
> > keeps cthugha from being free?
Thank you for your reply (and getting it from the archive and
going through it). You nearly answered the q. that i had on mind:
What is the quickest, most painless way (for him) to
>
> Cthugha is (still) a non-free package, that i maintain for Debian and
> want to become the upstream maintainer also, as the oriinal author is
> not going to develop it any further. I mailed him in february this year
> and last 5 minutes ago to convince him to provide a last archive with
>
(i'm not subscribed to this list, please Cc me on replies)
Hello, wishing a nice day!
I'm quite new to Debian development and don't know much about the
workings of this list. But i have some questions at least ;)
Cthugha is (still) a non-free package, that i maintain for Debian and
want to bec
> "guenter" == guenter geiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
guenter> Hi,
guenter> Just got the appended bug report, what should I do about
guenter> it ? Is there a way to let sox stay in main ? Is the
guenter> solution to build a new .orig.tar.gz without that code
guenter>
Hi,
Just got the appended bug report, what should I do about it ?
Is there a way to let sox stay in main ?
Is the solution to build a new .orig.tar.gz without that code in,
make a new "upstream" sox with new version number ?
I wonder if the other distributions have the problematic code in ther
Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 09:48:30AM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote:
> > Included in the original source, by Bob Kierski, and Kieth
> > Fredericks, then of Cray & now-- who knows?-- is source
> > for compface, by James Ashton, then of Sydney University,
> > to provide for a display
Scripsit Bolan Meek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * Written 11th November 1889.
This looks like there is a fair chance that the code may have passed
into the public domain by now.
> * Permission is given to distribute these sources, as long as the
> * copyright messages are not removed, and no mon
Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 09:48:30AM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote:
> > Included in the original source, by Bob Kierski, and Kieth
> > Fredericks, then of Cray & now-- who knows?-- is source
> > for compface, by James Ashton, then of Sydney University,
> > to provide for a displa
Scripsit Bolan Meek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * Written 11th November 1889.
This looks like there is a fair chance that the code may have passed
into the public domain by now.
> * Permission is given to distribute these sources, as long as the
> * copyright messages are not removed, and no mo
On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 09:48:30AM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote:
> Included in the original source, by Bob Kierski, and Kieth
> Fredericks, then of Cray & now-- who knows?-- is source
> for compface, by James Ashton, then of Sydney University,
> to provide for a display of XFaces: in a child window at
>
Greetings: God bless you.
I am not a developer - yet (my application has been in for a
few weeks), but I'm the erstwhile maintainer for both the orphaned
Debian package, and the upstream source, of xmailtool.
Included in the original source, by Bob Kierski, and Kieth
Fredericks, then of Cray & n
On Wed, Jun 28, 2000 at 09:48:30AM -0500, Bolan Meek wrote:
> Included in the original source, by Bob Kierski, and Kieth
> Fredericks, then of Cray & now-- who knows?-- is source
> for compface, by James Ashton, then of Sydney University,
> to provide for a display of XFaces: in a child window at
Greetings: God bless you.
I am not a developer - yet (my application has been in for a
few weeks), but I'm the erstwhile maintainer for both the orphaned
Debian package, and the upstream source, of xmailtool.
Included in the original source, by Bob Kierski, and Kieth
Fredericks, then of Cray &
90 matches
Mail list logo
