Re: [Cooker] BitchX is not GPL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Walluck) writes: On 16 Dec 2000, dam's wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guillaume Cottenceau) writes: David Walluck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi. I just downloaded the BitchX-1.0-0.c17.1mdk SRPM. BitchX license is listed as GPL. It's not GPL, it's BSD-Style. I also think that the Okay. Damien? yep. rpmlint allows for BSD and BSD-style. I still think plain BSD is inaccurate. Some files have different licenses, but the main code, has the original 3 clause BSD license and thensome accoring to the documentation. That's why I think BSD-style is more accurate, but maybe there isn't any real difference. corrected. I didn't look in the right rpmlint source version. thanx -- dam's
[Cooker] BitchX is not GPL
Hi. I just downloaded the BitchX-1.0-0.c17.1mdk SRPM. BitchX license is listed as GPL. It's not GPL, it's BSD-Style. I also think that the version should be 1.0c17. Yeah some scripts can't determine that 1.0 would be newer, but that's their fault, not mine. That's why they made the Serial tag. -- Sincerely, David Walluck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Cooker] BitchX is not GPL
David Walluck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi. I just downloaded the BitchX-1.0-0.c17.1mdk SRPM. BitchX license is listed as GPL. It's not GPL, it's BSD-Style. I also think that the Okay. Damien? [gc@bi ~/rpm] rpmwatch -p BitchX damien version should be 1.0c17. Yeah some scripts can't determine that 1.0 The RPM system actually. would be newer, but that's their fault, not mine. That's why they made the Serial tag. No, if we began to use Serial in that way we would end up with changing serial for many releases.. Serial is not clean and should be avoided each time this is possible. The fact is that authors release beta software tagged as "1.0something", but they should release "0.9something" since this is clearly not a true "1.0" yet. When XFree release some 4.0.1g version, this is clearly later than 4.0.1. This said, maybe 1.0c17 is older than plain 1.0 ? But as far as I can see on freshmeat for example (http://freshmeat.net/projects/BitchX), the author did not bother to follow an understandle naming scheme. Also, understanding that 1.0-0.c17 is effectively the 1.0c17 version is not so hard (provided the user is featured with a brain). -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://us.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] BitchX is not GPL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guillaume Cottenceau) writes: David Walluck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi. I just downloaded the BitchX-1.0-0.c17.1mdk SRPM. BitchX license is listed as GPL. It's not GPL, it's BSD-Style. I also think that the Okay. Damien? yep. -- dam's
Re: [Cooker] BitchX is not GPL
On 16 Dec 2000, dam's wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guillaume Cottenceau) writes: David Walluck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi. I just downloaded the BitchX-1.0-0.c17.1mdk SRPM. BitchX license is listed as GPL. It's not GPL, it's BSD-Style. I also think that the Okay. Damien? yep. rpmlint allows for BSD and BSD-style. I still think plain BSD is inaccurate. Some files have different licenses, but the main code, has the original 3 clause BSD license and thensome accoring to the documentation. That's why I think BSD-style is more accurate, but maybe there isn't any real difference. -- Sincerely, David Walluck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Cooker] BitchX is not GPL
On 16 Dec 2000, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: No, if we began to use Serial in that way we would end up with changing serial for many releases.. Serial is not clean and should be avoided each time this is possible. No, I don't think so. Since 2 1, you can leave the serial at 2 if you wanted. It doesn't have to be incremented like the release number, and it's not really part of the version and wouldn't need to be listed. I think it is *only* used because either a) RPM is braindead or b) the software version numbers are braindead. This said, maybe 1.0c17 is older than plain 1.0 ? But as far as I can see on freshmeat for example (http://freshmeat.net/projects/BitchX), the author did not bother to follow an understandle naming scheme. I think it is newer. BitchX has had an odd version scheme, e.g. 68 68a 68b 68d 75p1 75p2 75p3 1.0 1.0b 1.0c 1.0c11 1.0c17 These are some examples. It does seem a little hard to follow. Also, understanding that 1.0-0.c17 is effectively the 1.0c17 version is not so hard (provided the user is featured with a brain). I understod that because I knew what the 'real' version was. But 1.0-0.c17-1mdk ... wait that's one too many dashes there isn't it? It's confusing because is it the version number or release number. In this case it is both. -- Sincerely, David Walluck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
