Brian Dessent wrote:
> So, let's not worry so much about the "preapproved if in linux" thing
> and just get on with the packages.
>
You're right!
Here they are: (you can safely recurse: I removed the old version from
there)
http://cyberx.lapo.it/cygwin/bsdiff/
You can use http://cyberx.lapo.it
On Jan 27 13:35, Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Lapo Luchini wrote:
> > Yes, I guess Debian unstable doesn't qualify (I think I read something
> > about that somewhere on cygwin.com, I'm not quite sure where... ;-)).
>
> But (now) it's in Debi
On Jan 28 00:01, Brian Dessent wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> >
> > Every Maintainer Can (And Should) Review Packages!
> >
> > Every Maintainer Can Vote!
> >
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> Every Maintainer Can (And Should) Review Packages!
>
> Every Maintainer Can Vote!
>
I'd be happy to review and vote but I have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lapo Luchini wrote:
> Yes, I guess Debian unstable doesn't qualify (I think I read something
> about that somewhere on cygwin.com, I'm not quite sure where... ;-)).
But (now) it's in Debian testing as well:
http://packages.debian.org/testing/utils/bs
On Fri, January 27, 2006 4:13 pm, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 02:21:44PM +0100, Lapo Luchini wrote:
>>What do you (all) think about it?
>
> Many years ago, I wrote a perl script which queried ftp sites looking
> for new versions of packages. It required constant tinkering s
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 02:21:44PM +0100, Lapo Luchini wrote:
>What do you (all) think about it?
Many years ago, I wrote a perl script which queried ftp sites looking
for new versions of packages. It required constant tinkering since the
sites came and went and the directories on the sites were o
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> I guess I can finally produce a legally acceptable package? ;-)
>>
> Yes, but you need 5 votes.
>
Yes, I guess Debian unstable doesn't qualify (I think I read something
about that somewhere on cygwin.com, I'm not quite sure where... ;-)).
Well, there is another s
On Jan 26 22:21, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wrote, on 2005-05-16:
> > On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 06:45:57PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> Also, AFAICS, that's not about distribution, but it's about linking
> >> against the Cygwin DLL. If you do that with an application which has
>
Christopher Faylor wrote, on 2005-05-16:
> On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 06:45:57PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> Also, AFAICS, that's not about distribution, but it's about linking
>> against the Cygwin DLL. If you do that with an application which has
>> a non-approved OSS license, you're infringi
As far as I can see, BSDPL is an Open Source license under the
definition referenced, so the exception should apply. (I gave up
arguing with the opensource.org people, but they never came up with
any argument for why BSDPL didn't qualify -- the worst they could
say was that it was poorly written
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> It's a bit dangerous to rely on the author saying "but I didn't
> mean it that way". Probably he would have to change the license to
> include some explicit wording about this situation. Asking can't
> hurt, though.
Here g
Hi All...
Could it be distributed in kit form? That is, could it require the toold
to build it, and be built in the postinstall script?
Thanks,
IANAL, but copyright licenses are not intended to restrict what you do
privately. Since nobody is distributing the resulting binary, this is le
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> >This one's not in our OLOCA but you get the idea: TJM.
> >
> Uhm... not in OLOCA, not in wtf, not in acronymfinder.com... I really
> have no idea about TJM 0_o
> Truth (is) Just Mean?
> Tell Junior Millman?
> Transfer Juxtaposition Modifier?
>
> Lapo
Hah! Like y
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> >This one's not in our OLOCA but you get the idea: TJM.
>
> Uhm... not in OLOCA, not in wtf, not in acronymfinder.com... I really
> have no idea about TJM 0_o
Testing Joke Memorization
Too Jumpin' Much
Try Joking More
> Truth
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>This one's not in our OLOCA but you get the idea: TJM.
>
Uhm... not in OLOCA, not in wtf, not in acronymfinder.com... I really
have no idea about TJM 0_o
Truth (is) Just Mean?
Tell Junior Millman?
Transfer Juxtaposition Modifier?
Lapo
--
Lapo Luchini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On May 18 10:56, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> I wonder why people that does interesting program usually put them
> under "strange" restrictive licenses... (e.g. qmail, bsdiff, and many
> others...)
This one's not in our OLOCA but you get the idea: TJM.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Ple
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Reini Urban wrote:
> BTW: I prefer the version linked to libbz2, not calling
> /usr/bin/bzip2 For performance and convenience. See the mingw
> sources at http://www.pokorra.de/coding/bsdiff.html
Changing the program from being dual-threaded and usi
Hi All...
Could it be distributed in kit form? That is, could it require the toold to
build it, and be built in the postinstall script?
Thanks,
...Karl
From: "Tacvek" Subject: Re: maybe-ITP: bsdiff
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 15:48:19 -0400
It's hard to see the BSDPL as an open-source
Lapo Luchini schrieb:
Compiles fine on Cygwin.
BTW: I prefer the version linked to libbz2, not calling /usr/bin/bzip2
For performance and convenience.
See the mingw sources at http://www.pokorra.de/coding/bsdiff.html
Links:
1. http://www.daemonology.net/bsdiff/
2. http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/wo
It's hard to see the BSDPL as an open-source license, since only one
level of branching from the "one true authorized source" is allowed:
This only applies to commercial distribution. AFAICT this is some sort of
weird ANTI-GPL license, which works is much the same way as the GPL, except
also all
On May 17 00:15, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> >I've just read the BSDPL finally and I see that it tries to
> >impose itself on any distribution which contains a binary which is
> >licensed in this fashion. So, as was hinted at earlier in the thread,
> >this makes the licens
Christopher Faylor wrote:
>I've just read the BSDPL finally and I see that it tries to
>impose itself on any distribution which contains a binary which is
>licensed in this fashion. So, as was hinted at earlier in the thread,
>this makes the license viral. So, you're right. We can't use it sinc
On Mon, 16 May 2005, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
>
> > Cygwin-specific README: gcc is not a runtime requirement. I assume
> > it was supposed to be a build requirement.
>
> Of course ^_^
>
> > I've taken to saying "(basic development packages)" in the packages
> > I maintain, to mean
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 06:45:57PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On May 16 12:26, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 06:10:03PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >On May 16 11:56, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >> On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 05:29:16PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
On 5/16/05, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Also, AFAICS, that's not about distribution, but it's about linking
> against the Cygwin DLL. If you do that with an application which has
> a non-approved OSS license, you're infringing the Cygwin license if
> you don't GPL the code. But if you GPL the code
On May 16 12:26, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 06:10:03PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On May 16 11:56, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 05:29:16PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> >On May 16 10:18, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, May 16
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 06:10:03PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On May 16 11:56, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 05:29:16PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >On May 16 10:18, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >> On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 01:04:54PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
On May 16 11:56, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 05:29:16PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On May 16 10:18, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 01:04:54PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> >If in doubt, don't put it into the distro. There is doubt, appar
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 05:29:16PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On May 16 10:18, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 01:04:54PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >If in doubt, don't put it into the distro. There is doubt, apparently.
>>
>> I haven't been reading this too close
On May 16 10:18, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 01:04:54PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >If in doubt, don't put it into the distro. There is doubt, apparently.
>
> I haven't been reading this too closely but I don't see why there's a
> problem. If the sources are being d
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 01:04:54PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On May 16 10:34, Lapo Luchini wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Tacvek wrote:
>>
>> > the problem: The OSF was unable to decide if the BSDPL is OSD
>> > complient. It looks like they may have conclud
On May 16 10:34, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Tacvek wrote:
>
> > the problem: The OSF was unable to decide if the BSDPL is OSD
> > complient. It looks like they may have concluded it was not. See
> > the thread at
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/licen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tacvek wrote:
> the problem: The OSF was unable to decide if the BSDPL is OSD
> complient. It looks like they may have concluded it was not. See
> the thread at
> http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg04670.html
>
Reading that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Max Bowsher wrote:
> Cygwin-specific README: gcc is not a runtime requirement. I assume
> it was supposed to be a build requirement.
Of course ^_^
> I've taken to saying "(basic development packages)" in the packages
> I maintain, to mean such obvio
I don't see a problem with this license. It certainly doesn't make any
problems as part of a Cygwin distro, as long as you (the maintainer)
adhere to the BSDPL when tweaking the package for the Cygwin distro.
The Clause:
In accordance with section 10 of the GPL, Red Hat permits programs whose
sour
Lapo Luchini wrote:
710e30c8f8e141d78b02d72a21387409
http://www.lapo.it/cygwin/bsdiff-4.2-1-src.tar.bz2
eb7a6d19536b1f18ce9b836bda10a201
http://www.lapo.it/cygwin/bsdiff-4.2-1.tar.bz2
d4580c5ab21b042dc3e4f3897abd7a37
http://www.lapo.it/cygwin/bsdiff-setup.hint
sdesc: "tools for building and applyi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> I don't see a problem with this license.
Then...
710e30c8f8e141d78b02d72a21387409
http://www.lapo.it/cygwin/bsdiff-4.2-1-src.tar.bz2
eb7a6d19536b1f18ce9b836bda10a201
http://www.lapo.it/cygwin/bsdiff-4.2-1.tar.bz2
d4580c5a
On May 14 15:54, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> Introduction straight from official home page[1]
> [...]
> Compiles fine on Cygwin.
>
> Question is: IANAL, and I don't know if his BSDPL[2] license would be a
> problem or not. Is it?
> 2. http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/work/colin.percival/source/BSDPL.html
39 matches
Mail list logo
