Re: GPL vs QPL -- Is there a HOWTO?
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 03:02:20PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote: > Hi, > > One of the programs I ITP is published under the GPL but links against Qt > 1.0 (which is in non-free after all). Since that problem is a known one > (counting the number of hits Google produces), I wonder whether there is a > FAQ or some other text I could point the upstream author to that describes > exactl what the problem is and how it can be avoided. QT 1 is not even in the Debian distribution anymore for several reasons one of which is this. You should either convince upstream to convert the app to QT 2 or convert it yourself. Ivan -- -------- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
Re: ITP: libmpeg3 -- an mpeg audio and video decoding library
On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 07:06:57PM -0700, Joshua Haberman wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > > Libmpeg3 decodes It appears it's going to clash with an already existing package: Package: libmpeg1 Priority: optional Section: libs Maintainer: Ben Gertzfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Version: 1.3.1-2 Filename: dists/potato/main/binary-i386/libs/libmpeg1_1.3.1-2.deb Description: The MPEG library calls for movie streams libmpeg gives programs a simple way to deal with streams of MPEG-format movie files. . This package is necessary if you want to use the MPEG plugin for The GIMP. -- -------- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
Re: Java 1.3
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 11:27:18AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > I have a question on java. > > First some background. I'm packaging jetspeed that needs a java > 1.3 compiler and interpreter. I have found someone that made a > debian package of this (and it works well) blackbox version. > > My questions are: > * Should the java 1.3 compiler and interpreter be included > in debian? >From talking to said maintainer about his work he stated he is talking with SUN to deal with legal issues...ie making sure it's ok to redistribute and all...before uploading to Debian. > * Is there anyone working on this (except for the one in the > alternative deb resource place)? see above > * Is there any legal issues what should be considered (different > from the jdk included in sid)? that's what he's clarifying. > * Is there any alternative (and working) java 1.3 versions with > better license/speed/etc? that I'm not sure about..but there are alternatives..not sure there licenses. Ivan -- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
Re: ITP or rather upload... KDE
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 12:31:49PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Ivan E. Moore II wrote: > > > kdenetwork - > > > This will all happen after qt2.2 is released with the GPL lic and > > packaged/uploaded... > > (except for kdelibs and support which do not have the licensing issues) > > Be carefull, according to > http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/licensing.html some parts > of kdenetwork are still licenced qpl. It may just need to recopy these > parts from an gpl'ed qt, but I do not know KDE or qt well enough. not according to the source code. I see GPL, LGPL, and Artistic. But I plan on doing yet another sweep of all the source, readme's, etc...prior to build and upload. Ivan -- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
Re: stance on QPL 2 / GPL/LGPL license usage
On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 03:40:27AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 02:22:41AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote: > > > > What is the current stance on programs that bind to qt 2.x which is > > > > using > > > > the QPL 2.0 license and are GPL'd or LGPL'd? > > > > > > Qt 2.0 with LGPL, no problem > > > Qt 2.0 with GPL, problem > > > > > > Same stance, has never changed. The GPL does not allow linking with Qt > > > 2.0. The people who write GPL apps using Qt 2.0 know this by now. KDE > > > knows it, that's for damned sure. Those authors who care have added the > > > necessary permissions. KDE hasn't and won't because then they'd have to > > > give up being able to use GPL'd code. > > > > ok...unixODBC say's this: > > > >* All programs are GPL. * > >* All libs are LGPL > > > > so..based on what your saying, the libs could go into main, but the programs > > would be non-free...(or just not distributed)... > > Since I have no idea what the HELL you're talking about, I can only assume > you're talking about mixing GPL and LGPL licenses. If you are, I suggest > reading the LGPL sometime. unixODBC is a software package made up of libraries and a few apps which use those libraries. The libraries are LGPL'd and the apps are GPL'd. They are also linked to libqt2.1. I'm trying to find out if packages I create can be uploaded to Debian or not. :) Ivan -- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
Re: stance on QPL 2 / GPL/LGPL license usage
On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 02:35:30AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 01:59:10AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote: > > What is the current stance on programs that bind to qt 2.x which is using > > the QPL 2.0 license and are GPL'd or LGPL'd? > > Qt 2.0 with LGPL, no problem > Qt 2.0 with GPL, problem > > Same stance, has never changed. The GPL does not allow linking with Qt > 2.0. The people who write GPL apps using Qt 2.0 know this by now. KDE > knows it, that's for damned sure. Those authors who care have added the > necessary permissions. KDE hasn't and won't because then they'd have to > give up being able to use GPL'd code. ok...unixODBC say's this: * All programs are GPL. * * All libs are LGPL so..based on what your saying, the libs could go into main, but the programs would be non-free...(or just not distributed)... and the source could go into mainsince the interreaction of the gpl and qpl is in the .deb form...and not the source form. that sound logical? Ivan -- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
stance on QPL 2 / GPL/LGPL license usage
What is the current stance on programs that bind to qt 2.x which is using the QPL 2.0 license and are GPL'd or LGPL'd? Ivan -- -------- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
Re: [awansink@ke.com.au: Re: Isn't a kde version of abiword illegal?]
On Thu, May 27, 1999 at 10:08:29PM -0400, Ben Pfaff wrote: > "Andrew Wansink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >Is this a gnome-plot to spread fud against kde? > > No. The QT license, either version, is not compatible with the GPL. > That is a fact. Facts are not FUD. Plus...some of us Like KDE. :) (tho I'd love to see a gnome/kde mix.) Ivan -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ivan E. Moore II Rev. Krusty http://www.tdyc.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- GPG KeyID=0E1A75E3 GPG Fingerprint=3291 F65F 01C9 A4EC DD46 C6AB FBBC D7FF 0E1A 75E3 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
