David Walluck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The people at Mandrake have more to worry about. Before tacling this,
> maybe work on categorizing rpms like ebain does instead of placing them
> all in one dir. And do some work on rpmfind as well.
Personnally I dislike the fact of categorizing the pa
The people at Mandrake have more to worry about. Before tacling this,
maybe work on categorizing rpms like ebain does instead of placing them
all in one dir. And do some work on rpmfind as well.
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, Geoffrey Lee wrote:
> umm, use /bin/mail (i really love it, just have to patch i
On Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 09:50:43AM -0400, David Walluck wrote:
> On 12 Jul 2000, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
>
> > This project would be a RMS-"test" if you prefer.
>
> Why not do a BSD-test then? I think it ridiculous. Some people might
I think that's the whole point... a distro that only cont
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> no Perl
nope, perl is GPL *or* artistic, aka compatible with gpl...
umm, use /bin/mail (i really love it, just have to patch it so that i get a From:
header ;)
a "free" distribution would be nice, and put proprietary stuff or just
"open sourced" stuff somewhere else. maybe a "free" one woudl be nice, either as
defined by the FSF, or you can use debian's defi
damn , i wish that i had been able to go, it would have been damn great.
so the QPL is now "free" ?
i still don't like the idea how you have to distribute stuff in patches.
hope that they fix it soon anyway.
//Geoff
On 12 Jul 2000, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> This project would be a RMS-"test" if you prefer.
Why not do a BSD-test then? I think it ridiculous. Some people might
perfer BSD over GPL. Why assume RMS-test is even a good thing? Why not a
BSD-test? Why not a QT-test distribution? Well, this is no
"Geoffrey Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> i think that, i wold be more interested in a "open-source" distribution or
> better still, a "free" distro where "free" is the "free" as defined by the
> Free Software Foundation. that would mean no Qt libs, or pine ...
I don't know for Pine -- but fo
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, Geoffrey Lee wrote:
> i think that, i wold be more interested in a "open-source" distribution or
> better still, a "free" distro where "free" is the "free" as defined by the
> Free Software Foundation. that would mean no Qt libs, or pine ...
No pine? Great I guess I can't wr
Kaixo!
On Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 02:25:08PM +0200, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> Of course. We highly support license that are mostly `compatible' with
> GPL, which includes MIT, BSD, LGPL, Artistic, QPL, MPL, etc.
Of all those only LGPL is compatible with GPL.
All them are free software (or at l
> >
> >
> >
> > so you want to have a distribution that contains only GPL
> licensed stuff?
> > how aobut open-sourced software?
>
> Yes we want only GPL ; it's a sort of "joke" is you prefer ; a test to
> build up a gpl only distro, in order to see if it's possible or not.
>
ah, then it is no
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Not that I want to get into a license flame war, but a distribution that
> is entirely GPL is not going to be incredibly useful: no Perl, no
> Apache, a good chunk of the kernel (take a look at some of the sub
> licenses),
> no QT, no KDE, etc.
>
> The concept of an a
Armisis Aieoln <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What do you mean by looking after?
doing it.
--
"Pixel, il faut mettre un peu de chaleur dans tes contacts humains" (c) Titi
"Geoffrey Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In Bordeaux some people criticized us for delivering non-free software
> > like Netscape in our first CD that we label "GPL Edition" is its
> > standalone version.
> >
> > Now we have a (rather funny) idea : why not trying to see if it's
Not that I want to get into a license flame war, but a distribution that
is entirely GPL is not going to be incredibly useful: no Perl, no
Apache, a good chunk of the kernel (take a look at some of the sub
licenses),
no QT, no KDE, etc.
The concept of an all GPL distribution sounds great on the s
What do you mean by looking after?
dave
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, you wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In Bordeaux some people criticized us for delivering non-free software
> like Netscape in our first CD that we label "GPL Edition" is its
> standalone version.
>
> Now we have a (rather funny) idea : why not tryi
> Hi,
>
> In Bordeaux some people criticized us for delivering non-free software
> like Netscape in our first CD that we label "GPL Edition" is its
> standalone version.
>
> Now we have a (rather funny) idea : why not trying to see if it's
> possible to build up a 100% GPL product? This would inv
17 matches
Mail list logo
