Quoting Avery Pennarun ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Slink is a badly-needed cleanup release. Don't hold it back for any
> package.
What needs to be cleaned up? Hamm's running fine here. Slink definately
adds value, but I don't think it's something we desperately need _now_.
Mike Stone
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 10:30:11 +0200, I myself wrote:
>Basically it starts out similarly to dhelp...
sorry, I meant the "doc-base" package. Just mixed up the names...
Norbert "Nobbi" Nemec
Paul-Gerhardt-Str. 4
90765 Fuert
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 11:27:48AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:50:43PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > I don't want to hide this mail from you.
>
> First it's "please take license issues to the license list" and now it's "go
> away, we don't want you here"...
>
> If
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 09:11:10PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 03:05:17PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > No, this would hold the release for at least two more months.
>
> Joey, that's exaggerated by a lot. But I agree with your reasoning-
I agree with Joey completely
Hello,
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 11:59:31PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Ideally, we need a version of the logo that can be reproduced in one
> > or two colors. That way it can go directly on a CD or be printed
> > inexpensively. Full-color printing can be rather expensive.
>
> And it should s
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 10:59:52PM +0200, Bart Schuller wrote:
> > > I wonder if and when we get together a real office package under gnome. I
> > > wouldlove to see that. My personal favorites would be a glyx, gtksql with
> > > poistgresql and a spreads
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I wonder if somebody plans to package this one.
>
...
> Subject: ANNOUNCE: Fulcrum scientific plotting tool update
>
Also look at our Guppi plot program, http://www.gnome.org/guppi/ - it
doesn't do as much as Fulcrum yet because it does not build on
This follows up my post on Thursday regarding the 'Suggestion - Antivir for
Linux' thread. There was a minor amount of interest for a mcafee installer
package so in it goes.
new debian package, version 2.0.
size 5188 bytes: control archive= 2264 bytes.
672 bytes,19 lines control
Roderick Schertler writes:
> If nobody wants to take up this torch I'm going to suggest the existing
> package be dropped from the distribution. If anybody _does_ want to try
> to deal with this, please let me know.
> New license:
>
> ...
> ...
This proprietary commercial software
I intend to upload shortly an empire (rec.games.empire) client and
multiplexer I wrote a few years ago. They are being licensed under the GPL.
Time permitting I may upload documentation from the server, which is
being relicensed under the GPL, and pei (another empire client I had a hand
in).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Package: libpgjava
>Version: 6.3.2-1
>Severity: important
>
I cannot rebuild this package at present because javac always segfaults
for me. If anyone would like to do a non-maintainer release, I would
be grateful...
--
Oliver Elphick
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 10:59:52PM +0200, Bart Schuller wrote:
> > I wonder if and when we get together a real office package under gnome. I
> > wouldlove to see that. My personal favorites would be a glyx, gtksql with
> > poistgresql and a spreadsheet, currently siag seems to be the best bet. But
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 01:14:17PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> Roderick> RESTRICTIONS: You may not: 1. Sublicense the Materials;
> Roderick> 2. Reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the
> Roderick> enclosed software; 3. Use the Materials for for any
> Roderick> platform or
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 10:10:48PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> I wonder if and when we get together a real office package under gnome. I
> wouldlove to see that. My personal favorites would be a glyx, gtksql with
> poistgresql and a spreadsheet, currently siag seems to be the best bet. But
> tha
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:59:14PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Joseph Carter wrote:
> > It's irrelevant. Lyx is free code using a license that does not allow us to
> > link it with non-free code. We can't distribute it if they won't modify
> > their license. But like KDE, they deserve a chanc
On 10-Oct-98 John Lapeyre wrote:
> one) The fltk author says that he is not working towards compatibility
> with forms.
> I can't get through to the site now to get the exact statement.
I remember that when I was going to port a xforms program I have so I could
upload it... I didn't want it
On Oct 09, "J.H.M. Dassen Ray\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I can see pcmcia (28-Sep-98 is needed) and netutils (so that IPv6 is
>> supported), but not "a lot of packages".
>IIRC, libc6 doesn't support IPv6; you need a beta version for that. So this
>is only an issue if we intend to release
On 10 Oct 1998 13:14:17 -0700, Ben Gertzfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
[license elided]
>
> This is *so* non-free it can't even go on our FTP site. You can't make
> copies of the materials other than for back-up purposes.
I know, that's exactly what I said in my message. I was asking if
anybod
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 12:44:35PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Good, please let us know what you hear back. =>
Sure will.
> If I was able to imply it, the KDE people certainly would have. I don't
> want them to have any excuse for twisting words so they read what they want
> to read into them
> "Roderick" == Roderick Schertler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Roderick> RESTRICTIONS: You may not: 1. Sublicense the Materials;
Roderick> 2. Reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the
Roderick> enclosed software; 3. Use the Materials for for any
Roderick> platform or prod
I wonder if and when we get together a real office package under gnome. I
wouldlove to see that. My personal favorites would be a glyx, gtksql with
poistgresql and a spreadsheet, currently siag seems to be the best bet. But
that one's not with gtk either.
Sigh!
Michael
--
Dr. Michael Meskes
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 11:21:12 -0500, Zed Pobre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> libglide-voodoo:
> Provides: libglide
> Conflicts: libglide, libglide-voodoo2, libglide-voodoorush
>
> libglide-voodoo2:
> Provides: libglide
> Conflicts: libglide, libglide-voodoo, libglide-
> > And by now Sun would no doubt be shipping a binary only KDE that forbid
> > you to redistribute it and contained fixes you couldnt get back off them
>
> Ehm, the world hasn't gone to hell because not everything is GPL. Take
> for instance companies using FreeBSD, such as Whistle and Best Inte
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 08:23:14PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > There are those possibilities, but the lyx people will probably give
> > permission for linking with libforms since they clearly intend for that to
> > be done. The biggest problem with KDE was outside code that was ported and
> >
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Alan Cox wrote:
[..]
> A BSD license would have solved the problem nicely. No GPL code would have
> been available to "be stolen" (subject to your license viewpoint) and no
> GPL authors upset.
And we'd all probably be better off.
> And by now Sun would no doubt be shipping a
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:50:43PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I don't want to hide this mail from you.
First it's "please take license issues to the license list" and now it's "go
away, we don't want you here"...
If I ever thought Matthias needed to be bludgeoned severely with a cluebat,
it's
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:50:43PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Although I have a rather bad opinion of the Debian guys, I just cannot believe
> that they are that irrational to claim that there is a significant, even
> ethical difference between both approaches. But following the recent
Please!
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 09:52:21AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> There are those possibilities, but the lyx people will probably give
> permission for linking with libforms since they clearly intend for that to
> be done. The biggest problem with KDE was outside code that was ported and
> that the
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:59:14PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > It's irrelevant. Lyx is free code using a license that does not allow us to
> > link it with non-free code. We can't distribute it if they won't modify
> > their license. But like KDE, they deserve a chance to do something about
>> Santiago> There are a lot of packages that would have to be recompiled
>> Santiago> for Linux 2.2. This will take time and a lot of testing.
>>
>> I can see pcmcia (28-Sep-98 is needed) and netutils (so that IPv6 is
>> supported), but not "a lot of packages".
>
>But some cannot be ported at the
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:59:14PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > I wonder if you know that LyX is founded by the same person who has
> > > founded KDE some years later. Not that this has to imply anyghing...
> >
> > It's irrelevant. Lyx is free code using a license that does not allow us to
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 01:20:18PM -0500, Stephen Crowley wrote:
> What is all this about? I just noticed snes9x, xmame, doom and quake
> have been removed from non-free. Why?
Actually, I think it's just that the Packages file for non-free is empty.
Adam Klein
What is all this about? I just noticed snes9x, xmame, doom and quake
have been removed from non-free. Why?
-- Stephen Crowley (Crow- on IRC)
-- "Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy."
Recently I've thought that my machines take too long to boot. I've been
having a look at the boot times. Here's one that I think is excessive:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/etc/rcS.d#time . ./S50hwclock.sh
Local time: Sun Oct 11 04:11:43 EST 1998
real0m7.643s
user0m5.710s
sys 0m1.940s
8 se
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> [ perl5.005_02's default library is now /usr/lib/perl5/perl5.005,
> and might change with 5.006, etc.]
>
> > Any idea how to handle this properly ? Maybe we need a sort of perl
> > policy : package will have to install file under /usr/lib/perl5/debian
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 01:08:28PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I wonder if you know that LyX is founded by the same person who has
> founded KDE some years later. Not that this has to imply anyghing...
I do and needless to say I have some problems with this person. Just check
his mail we got f
Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 01:08:28PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > imo, we should grant Lyx the same courtesy we did KDE. send them a
> > > request to change their license, and give them some time (say a few weeks
> > > rather than the months that
Joseph Carter wrote:
> > I wonder if you know that LyX is founded by the same person who has
> > founded KDE some years later. Not that this has to imply anyghing...
>
> It's irrelevant. Lyx is free code using a license that does not allow us to
I know. But it may end up in the same flame fest
I don't want to hide this mail from you.
Regards,
Joey
- Forwarded message from Matthias Ettrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Matthias Ettrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Live and let live
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 18:43:07
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 05:29:08PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > In my opinion, Qt is not a section of KDE, it is not derived from the
> > KDE and it must be considered independent and separate from the KDE.
> > In other words: The KDE's usage of the GPL does not cause the GPL, and
> > its terms, to a
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 01:08:28PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
> > imo, we should grant Lyx the same courtesy we did KDE. send them a
> > request to change their license, and give them some time (say a few weeks
> > rather than the months that KDE got) to change. if they i
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 09:20:55AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 11:14:06PM -0700, Darren Benham wrote:
> > Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk?
>
> Just try and you see it won't compile. But I have not much knowledge about
> these toolkits so mayb
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 09:20:55AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk?
>
> Just try and you see it won't compile. But I have not much knowledge about
> these toolkits so maybe someone can easily port it. Also I remember someone
> working o
Hi,
I intend to package GBuffy.
>From the README:
URL: http://www.fiction.net/blong/programs/gbuffy/ Author: Brandon Long
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Current Version: 0.10
> It's really a shame KDE chose the GPL. Many BSD people will tell you the
> GPL is the most restrictive free software license there is. It's the only
> widely used free license that prohibits use with a library like Qt under any
> circumstances at all. No special exception for system libraries,
> However, the license for that derived work (I'll call it A) claims
> that the whole of A must be GPL'd. However, Qt is not part of A (the
> GPL says "section of"). Qt provides services to A, and A depends on
> those services: A very different thing.
Qt is part of the derived work. It is linked
> > The GPL'ed apps require that the work as a whole must be distributable
> > "under the terms of the GPL". Do you think that means that I have to
> > re-license the individual parts?
>
> Will Debian remove Motif linked XEmacs from their ftp server?
> According to several Debian developers Motif
> files and libraries being linked together. Does that mean that you
> think Debian should convert libc and so on from the LGPL to the GPL in
> order to comply with the license of the GPL'd applications in main?
Arnt if you stuck to using facts you might be able to have a sensible
discussion
The
> If I say, do what you want with my code, and you incorporate it in a GPL
> app, do you relicense my work? No, and you can't, because you're not the
Yes, you create a combined work bound by the GPL. And the GPL permits
components of a GPL'd item to be freer than GPL (by the GPL definition of
free
> In my opinion, Qt is not a section of KDE, it is not derived from the
> KDE and it must be considered independent and separate from the KDE.
> In other words: The KDE's usage of the GPL does not cause the GPL, and
> its terms, to apply to Qt.
Indeed Qt is not part of the problem
>
>
> It's clear that (e.g.) libc accompanies (e.g.) /bin/ls in Debian: They
> are both in main, and the package maintainer makes sure you get libc
> when you get /bin/ls. If you also think that libc is a "section of"
> (see section two) /bin/ls and so on, then the conclusion is clear:
> You're in con
The Glide library is a mess. It's non-free and no source is available. As
distributed by the upstream author you get a library called libglide2x.so,
with no embedded soname. I had packaged up an old version of this library.
I went to update the package and I found that the situation has gotten
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Geoffrey L. Brimhall wrote:
>
> > Just like debian has an official standard shell - bash, does debian have an
> > official scripting language ?
>
> Even if bash is essential, the "standard" shell is sh, not bash.
> [ If you look a
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So you want to force all porters to join another list?
HTH does one force volunteers? No, I want the list to be available if
porters want to join it.
> Why not contact them in their native lists?
Because these lists are for users too and mass cross
I wonder if somebody plans to package this one.
Regards,
Joey
- Forwarded message from Conrad Steenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 12:08:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Conrad Steenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-URL: http://archive.redhat.com/gtk-list/
Subject: ANNOUNCE: Fulcr
Santiago Vila wrote:
> > But occasionally I notices that dpkg first unpacks and installs
> > the files in a particular package and checks dependencies afterwards.
> >
> > This means that wrong dependencies are discovered when it is
> > too late since the old version of the package is already
> > o
Joseph Carter writes:
> mpg123 is non-free all right. No commercial use. The author needs to be
> contacted and asked to either replace the GPL code or change his license
> to be compatible with the GPL code he's using.
The author of the GPL code also should be notified.
--
John Hasler
Ole J. Tetlie wrote:
> *-John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> |
> | Perl 5.004 was in Incoming yesterday. You can get it from a
> | mirror of incoming or wait a day or two and it will be installed.
>
> I can only find the orig source package:
>
> ftp> ls perl*
> 200 PORT command successful.
>
Hi,
Is there a special reason that http://www.debian.org (and my local mirror
http:/www.nl.debian.org start up on the Developers corner.
This is in lynx and netscape (so not necessairy html 4.0 related).
Regards,
Bart
NB: Lynx says "Bad partial reference! Stripping lead dots."
Arnt Gulbrandsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > as mentioned at least once before, glibc is distributed with the operating
> > system. therefore the special exception applies.
>
> It applies to applications that are not distributed with the operating
> system
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The only pain I had to face was that I had to upgrade my libc6 and
>that upgrade broke sendmail, so I had to upgrade sendmail as well.
Uh - oh .. please check out this bug:
#27334: libc6: breaks sendmail, probably problem in resolver
d
Hi,
I wonder if there will be a new gtop in slink now that it has
been moved out of gnome-core (or another core Gnome module).
Regards,
Joey
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
James Troup wrote:
> Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> >
> > > Do you think this list would be useful or that the already
> > > existing lists can carry the load (namely debian-devel)?
> >
> > This list is not needed and I don't consider it useful at all.
Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> The key is in an earleir paragraph.
>
> These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
> identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
> Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate
> works in themselves,
Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is the really sad part about this whole mess. Qt is a nice
> library. Non-free, but not everything has to be free. But because of
> the refusal of the KDE developers to FIX THE KDE LICENSE PROBLEMS, a
> lot of people are being turned off of Qt! Qt does
Craig Sanders wrote:
> imo, we should grant Lyx the same courtesy we did KDE. send them a
> request to change their license, and give them some time (say a few weeks
> rather than the months that KDE got) to change. if they ignore the
> request or choose not to change their license then we have t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Zephaniah E. Hull, in an immanent manifestation of deity, wrote:
>Rename perl to perl5.005, version 02-2 or such..
>Then use the alternatives setup to decide which perl gets run when you
>try to use just 'perl'..
That's possible but I'm not sure it's a good idea
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> > Do you think this list would be useful or that the already
> > existing lists can carry the load (namely debian-devel)?
>
> This list is not needed and I don't consider it useful at all.
(As a porter) I disagree; I've oft
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
> Roberto Lumbreras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Friday, October 9 1998, at 21:19:38, James Troup wrote:
> > : Look at fakeroot's shlibs file. This is not a bug (or certainly not
> > : the one you're claiming it is).
>
> > Ok. Of course, you are r
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 05:42:53AM +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The GPL'ed apps require that the work as a whole must be distributable
> > "under the terms of the GPL".
>
> No. It's stricter, it requires that "the distribution of the whole
> must be on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Ian Jackson, in an immanent manifestation of deity, wrote:
>A whole .deb for such a simple problem seems overkill. The
>file/manpage below is what I use. It was in the Perl4 distribution.
>Presumably perl5 comes with it too in the source. I have it as
>/usr/lo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Brian White, in an immanent manifestation of deity, wrote:
>Perl 5.005 will be replaced in Slink with 5.004. The new version will
>remain in the next unstable.
>
>Correct?
Definitely. Sorry for the slow reply but my root disk started spewing
scsi errors about
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 07:22:07PM -0700, Jeff McWilliams wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've got g++ 2.9.29-0.6, the egcs compiler, and libstdc++2.8dev
> 2.9.29-0.6 installed. I was playing around with some STL stuff when I
> tried to declare a wstring. No luck.
>
> Examining the file /usr/include/g++/stri
> This just came up on the #Debian IRC channel: a growing number of
> folks have cable modems and wish to install Debian over them. However,
> as it stands, they cannot get on the net from the base floppies,
> because they require a DHCP client to get their IP.
>
> I believe this is adequate need
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 09:35:19PM -0700, John Lapeyre wrote:
> Lyx is currently in contrib.
> Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically
> linked against a non-free library (libforms) .
> According to the GPL and our interpretation of it in the KDE
> statement
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 11:14:06PM -0700, Darren Benham wrote:
> Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk?
Just try and you see it won't compile. But I have not much knowledge about
these toolkits so maybe someone can easily port it. Also I remember someone
working on a gtk ver
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 12:25:07PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > >
> > > I would prefer a new logo, too. We shouldn't draw it.
> > > We should run a gimp contest. They produced the Gnome logo, and th
Adam P. Harris wrote:
> > Ok. Of course, you are right ;) I've added (>= 2.0.7u) to
> > /var/lib/dpkg/info/fakeroot.shlibs and now it works, but I think
> > dpkg-shlibdeps should know that "libc6, libc6 (>= 2.0.7u)" should
> > be "libc6 (>= 2.0.7u)". Anyway, I don't know much about how shlibs
> >
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 10:31:08PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> This was forwarded to me by a freeamp developer. He said that mpg123
> contains GPL'd code, but its license prohibits non-free use.
>
> Anyone know what the legal status of mpg123 is?
mpg123 is non-free all right. No commercial us
On Fri, 09 Oct 1998 14:35:51 +0200 (CEST), Igor Mozetic wrote:
:
:
>However, a tool like that, [ a general configuration tool ] with
>Debian support (eg, all packages with config files
>should register with it, like menu system) would certainly bring
>Debian much closer to non-experienced users.
>
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Zed Pobre wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 02:36:17AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I'm not going to get into the debate at all at the moment however as
> > I was reading through it I noticed that this message did not match
> > the signature, would someone care to varify
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm not going to get into the debate at all at the moment however as I
> was reading through it I noticed that this message did not match the
> signature, would someone care to varify who actualy sent this message
>
> Ideally, we need a version of the logo that can be reproduced in one
> or two colors. That way it can go directly on a CD or be printed
> inexpensively. Full-color printing can be rather expensive.
And it should scale well, from fairly large to quite small. This means
lines and *simple* curve
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 11:29:26PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Now, I won't install Qt even for the parts of KDE I like.
>
> This is the really sad part about this whole mess. Qt is a nice
> library. Non-free, but not everything has to be free. But because of
> the refusal of the KDE develop
Roberto Lumbreras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday, October 9 1998, at 21:19:38, James Troup wrote:
> : Look at fakeroot's shlibs file. This is not a bug (or certainly not
> : the one you're claiming it is).
> Ok. Of course, you are right ;) I've added (>= 2.0.7u) to
> /var/lib/dpkg/info/
I'm not going to get into the debate at all at the moment however as I
was reading through it I noticed that this message did not match the
signature, would someone care to varify who actualy sent this message
and what the contents were when it was signed?
Thanks.
Zephaniah E, Hull.
On Sat, Oct
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 08:56:30PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> Martin> Will Debian remove LyX from their ftp server? According to
> Martin> several Debian developers Xforms is not a DFSG compatible
> Martin> library.
>
> This is a harder one. :) xforms is in the non-free distributio
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Darren Benham wrote:
gecko>Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk?
I haven't tried. But I read the fltk docs on the subject last
week, and the upshot was that most large packages would take a good deal
of work to port. eg, there is no canvas widget
> I've essentially come to the opinion that the GPL has no control over
> dynamic linking b/c it's something a user does in the privacy of his own
> home.
Besides, what if I create a binary that links to a non-existant library. I
build the ELF structures by hand (?). Could you distribute a binary
> Now, I won't install Qt even for the parts of KDE I like.
This is the really sad part about this whole mess. Qt is a nice
library. Non-free, but not everything has to be free. But because of
the refusal of the KDE developers to FIX THE KDE LICENSE PROBLEMS, a lot
of people are being turned of
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 05:17:55AM +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Sorry, I must be too tired. I misread a paragraph of yours, so some
> of my previous message probably don't make much sense.
>
> You say that linking constitutes making a derived works of the object
> files and libraries being li
Martin Konold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Will Debian remove Motif linked XEmacs from their ftp
> server?
I don't believe that Debian *has* a Motif-linked XEmacs on their ftp
server, but if they do, then all it should take to get it removed is to
file a bug report. That's what happened to KDE.
FWIW, I think having McAfee .debs, even in non-free, would be a win.
However, another thought occurred to me. Stephen, could you ask them
to clarify the licensing of their DAT files? If they are indeed free,
as http://www.nai.com/download/updates/whatdat.asp> seems to
imply, someone oughta look
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 12:35:31PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > non-free license. Neither I, nor anyone sensible, has any argument with
> > TT's license...it's their software, they can do what they like with it.)
>
> That doesn't mean everyone else i
This was forwarded to me by a freeamp developer. He said that mpg123
contains GPL'd code, but its license prohibits non-free use.
Anyone know what the legal status of mpg123 is?
Ben
--
Brought to you by the letters T and W and the number 2.
"You forgot Uranus." "Goodnight everybody!" --
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 12:35:31PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> non-free license. Neither I, nor anyone sensible, has any argument with
> TT's license...it's their software, they can do what they like with it.)
That doesn't mean everyone else ise sensible. I've seen many people DEMAND
Troll Tec
Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk?
On 10-Oct-98 Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, John Lapeyre wrote:
>
>> Lyx is currently in contrib.
>> Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically
>> linked against a non-free library (libforms)
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 05:14:19AM +0200, Martin Konold wrote:
>
> On 10 Oct 1998, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
>
> > > All this is just splitting hairs, though. The real question is "what
> > > is KDE's problem with just adding that additional permission to their
> > > license"? How does it hurt th
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Craig Sanders wrote:
cas>nope. sounds right to me (but i haven't looked at the licenses
cas>concerned, just going from memory of libxforms being no-source and
cas>non-free).
libforms is definitely no-source (so its not GPL'd !)
/usr/doc/lyx/copyright defini
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 04:56:23AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Let me try to make some qualified guess about this:
>
> If KDE would add the permission note, they would admit that there is a
> license problem, and they had to stop sucking in GPL'ed third party code
> without explicit permissio
1 - 100 of 159 matches
Mail list logo
