On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 08:36:58PM +0100, Vincent Renardias wrote:
> "This program is catware. If you find it useful in any way, pay for this
> program by spending one hour petting one or several cats."
>
> I'm indeed not quite sure 'catware' qualifies as DFSG-free.
The obvious problem is that i
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 01:50:21PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> David Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you are indeed serious... technically, you are right, of course,
> > but I think people are really going to think we are just a bunch of
> > grumpy party-poopers if we seriously start to ge
- Start forwarded message -
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 14:19:09 +0100 (MET)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
linux-security@redhat.com
Subject: Re: util-linux compromised
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender
This package was upgraded to a new upstream release to fix a few potential
problems with our old version. Since we are so deep in freeze right now
I would appreciate people who use (or may not use) cgiwrap to test it
thoroughly.
Thanks,
Ben
- Forwarded message from Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTE
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 02:32:27PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> The existence of a recurring discussion usually indicates an unsolved
> problem. A vote might or might not resolve the underlying issue.
>
Let's hope that there is enough interest generated that we actually do
solve the problem.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 24-Jan-99 John Hasler wrote:
> Andrew G . Feinberg writes:
>> Why in the world do we need to license something as trivial as a _logo_?
>
> We don't.
Of course we do. Otherwise we'd have to grant permission to every
tom-dick-harry that wanted to use it in a
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 11:14:18PM +0100, Eric Delaunay wrote:
>
> Debian/SPARC is still providing libc 5.3.12 in binary form but no sources.
> I don't think the libc 5.4.46 is working for sparc, therefore we need to put
> the 5.3.12 sources in slink again.
> As the maintainer of libc5 I can do a n
Debian/SPARC is still providing libc 5.3.12 in binary form but no sources.
I don't think the libc 5.4.46 is working for sparc, therefore we need to put
the 5.3.12 sources in slink again.
As the maintainer of libc5 I can do a new upload but I don't know whether the
dinstall script will process it t
"M.C. Vernon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would see this as a RH-style - so a rather bloated kernel which includes
> lots of stuff as standard, and asks them the pertinent questions all at
> once at the beginning, and then gets on with it.
Excuse me, but RedHat actually boots on my laptop bec
On 24 Jan 1999, John Lapeyre wrote:
> I guess I should add this to my last post about how bad the
> installation is. The boot floppies themselves and apt are quite good.
> Getting the base system on is easy for someone who knows what is going on.
> Probably not for a beginner.
As someone
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 01:32:28PM -0700, John Lapeyre wrote:
>
> I guess I should add this to my last post about how bad the
> installation is. The boot floppies themselves and apt are quite good.
> Getting the base system on is easy for someone who knows what is going on.
> Probably not f
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 12:48:07PM -0600, David Welton wrote:
> > (and it's 'humor' by the way;-)))
>
> humour is a perfectly valid word. Ask your nearest dictd with Webster
> and Wordnet installed, for example.
Humour is correct (in British
I guess I should add this to my last post about how bad the
installation is. The boot floppies themselves and apt are quite good.
Getting the base system on is easy for someone who knows what is going on.
Probably not for a beginner.
John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tucson,AZ http:
I did a fresh install yesterday from a hamm CD (our free
CheapBytes CD). I chose the scientifc workstation option. This
caused a minor nightmare. The only reason I was able to complete the
install is because I have a few hundred hours experience in
maintaining debian systems. I really
*- Vincent Renardias wrote about "Re: fvwm{,2,-common} packages up for adoption"
> On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Austin Donnelly wrote:
>
>> I am (in theory) still maintaining the following packages:
>>
>> fvwm
>> fvwm2
>> fvwm-common
>> xloadimage
>> xcal
>>
>> In practice, I haven't uploaded new versio
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 08:36:58PM +0100, Vincent Renardias wrote:
> I'm indeed not quite sure 'catware' qualifies as DFSG-free.
Well, it doesn't. It fails point 5; it discriminates against people
like me who are allergic to cats and dogs.
:-)
Antti-Juhani
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanah
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 12:48:07PM -0600, David Welton wrote:
> (and it's 'humor' by the way;-)))
humour is a perfectly valid word. Ask your nearest dictd with Webster
and Wordnet installed, for example.
Antti-Juhani
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Ed Boraas wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Brent Fulgham wrote:
>
> >> The issue being that there IS a problem - e.g. are we going to provide
> >> ppp1 and ppp2? That sounds like trouble to me.
> >>
> >Real Question (not a snipe): Is there any reason everyone couldn't use a
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 11:44:06PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > We shouldn't license our logo by any license that does not comply with the
> > DFSG. To do so would be hypocritical.
> >
> Not true. It's the Debian Free SOFTWARE Guidelines. A logo is not software.
> It may well be that we want a l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
is the name debian a registered trademark?
if it is, wouldn't it be sensible to do the same for the logo?
- --p.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQEVAwUBNqt2MUJhnFR90XSjAQHeFAf9EULUklt0QfjI2DAbrPK2
James A. Treacy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hope that you are not trying to argue that there is no difference
> between a program and a logo. This is clearly ridiculous.
That's not my point. However, the definition of "software" is broad
enough to cover both, and the use of that particular wor
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 01:42:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 11:44:06PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > We shouldn't license our logo by any license that does not comply
> > > with the DFSG. To do so would be hypocritical.
>
> James A. Treacy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>> "DM" == Daniel Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DM> I converted it over to using debhelper, so the diff is actually
DM> quite large for an NMU - also, I made enough changes to the actual
DM> source so that it no longer needs changes to X include files to
DM> compile - I didn't quite do this
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 08:36:58PM +0100, Vincent Renardias wrote:
> > I'm indeed not quite sure 'catware' qualifies as DFSG-free.
For what it's worth, I don't think we have any policy forbidding
the use of humor in non-free.
--
Raul
David Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you are indeed serious... technically, you are right, of course,
> but I think people are really going to think we are just a bunch of
> grumpy party-poopers if we seriously start to get anal about obviously
> silly licenses like this..:->
Perhaps we ne
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 08:36:58PM +0100, Vincent Renardias wrote:
>
> [CC:'ed to debian-devel, since debian-humour doesn't exist (yet?) ;]
Err.. so you're not serious, right?:-> Don't want to seem sarcasm
impaired, but, what with all the "legal bullshit" slung around here
lately.. (and it's 'hu
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 11:44:06PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > We shouldn't license our logo by any license that does not comply
> > with the DFSG. To do so would be hypocritical.
James A. Treacy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not true. It's the Debian Free SOFTWARE Guidelines.
You're trying to ma
[CC:'ed to debian-devel, since debian-humour doesn't exist (yet?) ;]
Actually, the licence of the 'ky00te' filter is especially interesting:
Quoting from the ky00te.dir/README.ky00te file from the src distribution:
"This program is catware. If you find it useful in any way, pay for this
progra
I've prepared an NMU of xxgdb - I believe that this fixes all
outstanding reported bugs against it. I'm contacting you two as one
of you is the listed maintainer of xxgdb, and the other of you did the
libc6 NMU for hamm. I'm cross-posting to debian-devel in case anyone
else had been looking at fi
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 10:35:50PM -0600, Andrew G . Feinberg wrote:
> Why in the world do we need to license something as trivial as a
> _logo_?
Because if we don't, nobody has the right to make copies of it and
display it publically. It's the same reason as with software.
> as a normal person
Wichert wrote:
> Previously Paul Sheer wrote:
> > Also: there is no GPL secure shell (as far as I know).
>
> But people are working on that. From what I hear it's on the verge of
> becoming useable. Don't ask me about the name, I always forget it.
MIT Kerberos (4 and 5) is open source and provide
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 11:44:06PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Robert Woodcock wrote:
> > "You are licensed to use and distribute modified versions of this logo to
> > refer to or advertise debian."
> >
> > Note that this fails DFSG point #6. I believe this was the original intent.
>
> We shouldn't
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Austin Donnelly wrote:
> I am (in theory) still maintaining the following packages:
>
> fvwm
> fvwm2
> fvwm-common
> xloadimage
> xcal
>
> In practice, I haven't uploaded new versions of these for many months.
I volunteer to adotp fvwm2 & fvwm-common.
(I already began to wo
I'm cross-posting this more widely than is usual, because people have
been waiting for it, and it's the only such statement I plan to make.
Please send replies to debian-vote (or privately, of course).
This platform is late, but I figure it's better late than never.
I've given an explanation of my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 24-Jan-99 Avery Pennarun wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 07:48:00PM -0600, Stephen Crowley wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 04:21:37PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
>> > Debian is a free project to distribute a free OS. It should have a free
>> > logo. FREE
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>For Steve, the simplest solution is probably to subscribe to debian-boot
>(which receives the CVS updates) and to use procmail to filter:
Thanks. I've been subscribed to debian-boot for a new days now, so I'm
seeing things going through.
--
Ste
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Paul Sheer wrote:
> > Also: there is no GPL secure shell (as far as I know).
>
> But people are working on that. From what I hear it's on the verge of
> becoming useable. Don't ask me about the name, I always forget it.
It's called psst.
Andrew G . Feinberg writes:
> Why in the world do we need to license something as trivial as a _logo_?
We don't.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you ca
Previously Paul Sheer wrote:
> Also: there is no GPL secure shell (as far as I know).
But people are working on that. From what I hear it's on the verge of
becoming useable. Don't ask me about the name, I always forget it.
Wichert.
--
Hi,
I am (in theory) still maintaining the following packages:
fvwm
fvwm2
fvwm-common
xloadimage
xcal
In practice, I haven't uploaded new versions of these for many months.
Both xcal and xloadimage have few outstanding bugs. fvwm2 has many
outstanding bugs, some of which are in reality either
Umm..
I still think we're talking at cross-purpose.
1) xfonts-* C/R/P xfnt-*. Yes, I knew this was true. Yes, I knew Branden
knew this :-)
2) Branden doesn't like xfnt-* hanging around. We agree.
3) However, if someone were to create xfnt-* packages which *Depend* on
the corresponding xfont-
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Steve Shorter wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> > installation easier requires hard work. If it would be easy, it would have
> > been long done. The trick is to keep flexibility (and don't tell me SuSE is
> > flexibel). Doing it easy for the newbie and
Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> Ossama Othman writes:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm not sure what it is, but below are the contents of
> > '/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/egcs-2.91.60/libgcc.map' on my potato system.
> > I was also missing this file when I did a new potato installation. I
Ossama Othman writes:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure what it is, but below are the contents of
> '/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/egcs-2.91.60/libgcc.map' on my potato system.
> I was also missing this file when I did a new potato installation. I had
> to copy it from other potato system to make things
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > I finally worked out what a great feature apt-get install is. I was
> > wondering whether anybody has thought of making an option such as -s to
> > instead download the source files for the named package.
>
> There are a handfull of bugs about exactly that and indeed we
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 08:51:25PM +, thomas lakofski wrote:
> > OK, since it seems that this kind of thing will probably only happen in a
> > commercial context, maybe it would make sense to arrange commercial
> > sponsorship of Debian in a bigge
Jason Gunthorpe writes:
>On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>> While what you say is in principle true, in practice it doesn't always
>> work out that way. My experience has been that many problems experienced
>> by our users, and much of the fault on "broken" CDs have been the result
>> of o
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Bear Giles wrote:
> > It supports strong encryption but is exportable from
> > the US because it does not have encryption compiled in by default. Instead
> > it downloads the scripts it needs from South Africa when it runs for the
> > first time.
>
> This is *extremely* risk
Robert Woodcock wrote:
> "You are licensed to use and distribute modified versions of this logo to
> refer to or advertise debian."
>
> Note that this fails DFSG point #6. I believe this was the original intent.
We shouldn't license our logo by any license that does not comply with the
DFSG. To d
Avery Pennarun wrote:
>What if someone gets hold of the Linux kernel and uses it to guide nuclear
>missiles? (Well, at least they have to share their changes with us :))
Only if they distribute the control systems :>
>Seriously, slander is slander, and it's rude, and people will know it when
>th
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> I'd like to remove that check and make it a better one. Is checking
> for $DISPLAY sufficient?
>
Why not just try to open the display, and if that fails bail out to text
mode? (Since $DISPLAY might be invalid, or there might be a -display
command l
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > Of course this is not at all true, the package files are generated
> > directly from the .deb files daily they are never wrong, if they were then
> > our tools would stop working!
>
> While what you say is in principle true, in practice it doesn't alw
On 24 Jan 1999, David Maslen wrote:
> I finally worked out what a great feature apt-get install is.
> I was wondering whether anybody has thought of making an option such
> as -s to instead download the source files for the named package.
There are a handfull of bugs about exactly that and ind
I finally worked out what a great feature apt-get install is.
I was wondering whether anybody has thought of making an option such
as -s to instead download the source files for the named package.
--
Binary Bar - Australia's first free access internet bar/cafe/gallery.
243 Brunswick Street, Fitzr
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 07:48:00PM -0600, Stephen Crowley wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 04:21:37PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Debian is a free project to distribute a free OS. It should have a free
> > logo. FREE THE LOGO!! FREE THE LOGO!! :-)
>
> And what if some anti-debian people ge
Hi,
Thanks. Indeed this was the problem. I will submit a bug report if
nobody has already done this.
Ionutz
Ossama Othman wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure what it is, but below are the contents of
> '/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/egcs-2.91.60/libgcc.map' on my
Hi,
I'm not sure what it is, but below are the contents of
'/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/egcs-2.91.60/libgcc.map' on my potato system.
I was also missing this file when I did a new potato installation. I had
to copy it from other potato system to make things work again. I'm not
sure if it was the
> On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 00:52:12 +0100, Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
Wichert> [1 ] For the Nth
Wichert> time our logo license has expired. It might be a good idea
Wichert> to finally finalize the license instead of just extending
Wichert> its lifetime every couple of mon
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 02:55:56AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Agreed. Shall we move the logo license discussion to debian-legal and
> rewrite it there?
Explain:
Why in the world do we need to license something as trivial as a
_logo_? I havent been a developer for a long time, but it
Hi,
Can please somebody decrypt this message for me ?
/usr/bin/ld: cannot open linker script file libgcc.map: No such file or
directory
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
make[1]: *** [../lib/libvdk.so.0.5.1] Error 1
Any ideas ?
TIA,
Ionutz
On 23-Jan-99, 21:21 (CST), Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2. Assuming the user does nothing mess with those, they would eventually
> > be shown a Conflict Resolution screen that would show the new xfont-*
> > packages selected and the xfnt-* packages deselected. User should just
>
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> installation easier requires hard work. If it would be easy, it would have
> been long done. The trick is to keep flexibility (and don't tell me SuSE is
> flexibel). Doing it easy for the newbie and configurable for the experienced
> user requires a w
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 08:32:32PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> People were discussing the transition from the old layout to new, and
> about upgrading. In particular, the fact that some packages had been
> renamed, in particular xfnt-* -> xfonts-* seemed to make some people
> think that it was
Hi,
Can please somebody decript this message for me ?
/usr/bin/ld: cannot open linker script file libgcc.map: No such file or
directory
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
make[1]: *** [../lib/libvdk.so.0.5.1] Error 1
Any ideas ?
TIA,
Ionutz
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 02:43:49AM +, Martin Held wrote:
> Hmm. This sounds a lot like the Matlab Engineering tool I just learned
> how to use last Term. It's mainly console based, but can display graphs
> and plots and the like. If the user doesn't have the DISPLAY variable set
> right, it
> I think another way to do it is to build two seperate binaries. For
> example, create xprog and prog, one that is X-only, and another that is
> console-only. This allows the user to specifcally set which version they
> want, and it might also reduce the amount of code needed per program and
> s
Hmm. This sounds a lot like the Matlab Engineering tool I just learned
how to use last Term. It's mainly console based, but can display graphs
and plots and the like. If the user doesn't have the DISPLAY variable set
right, it just tries to send the graphics off to a null server and doens't
even
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 02:30:56AM +, Martin Held wrote:
> I think another way to do it is to build two seperate binaries. For
> example, create xprog and prog, one that is X-only, and another that is
> console-only. This allows the user to specifcally set which version they
> want, and it mi
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 02:54:14AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > * It is a penguin (even if some think it's a chicken). A penguin is already
> > the Linux logo, are we only capable of plagiarism, or are we up to the
> > task
> > and have an identi
I think another way to do it is to build two seperate binaries. For
example, create xprog and prog, one that is X-only, and another that is
console-only. This allows the user to specifcally set which version they
want, and it might also reduce the amount of code needed per program and
speed it up
On 23-Jan-99, 18:57 (CST), Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the meantime, please explain this to me.
>
> C/R/P will automatically deinstall the old xfnt packages, WITHOUT
> installing their replacements? Is that true of the old static libs?
No. I think one of us (quite possibly
Can anyone suggest a good way to tell if the user is running a program from X?
A program I maintain can run in terminal or graphical mode. It currently
checks if graphics are available by comparing $TERM to a string
included at compile time. That's "xterm" by default, which doesn't work
on Debian
Hi,
Is anybody packaging doxygen ?
http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/index.html
doxygen was inspired by doc++ and is a documenting tool for C and C++
(and Java). Now it has around 4 times more options than doc++. The
author is working also on implementing the creation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 24-Jan-99 Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Darren Benham wrote:
>> The current license? Are you sure? It needs to be rewritten if for no
>> other
>> reason but to remove the expiration date.
>
> Okay, so I should have read the license before posting th
Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> * It is a penguin (even if some think it's a chicken). A penguin is already
> the Linux logo, are we only capable of plagiarism, or are we up to the task
> and have an identity of our own?
Heh, nobody seems to be able to spot that :)
> * A penguin is submi
Previously Chris Waters wrote:
> Debian is a free project to distribute a free OS. It should have a free
> logo. FREE THE LOGO!! FREE THE LOGO!! :-)
Agreed. Shall we move the logo license discussion to debian-legal and
rewrite it there?
Wichert.
--
==
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Darren Benham wrote:
>
>On 23-Jan-99 Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> I propose that we vote on accepting both the logo and the current
>> license.
>>
>
>The current license? Are you sure? It needs to be rewritten if for no other
>reason but to remove the expiration date.
Note t
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Chris Waters wrote:
>Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
>> I propose that we vote on accepting both the logo and the current
>> license.
>
>I very much dislike the current license. I'm a debian developer, I'd
>like to put the debian logo on my home page, but I do *not* necessarily
>wa
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 04:21:37PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> Debian is a free project to distribute a free OS. It should have a free
> logo. FREE THE LOGO!! FREE THE LOGO!! :-)
And what if some anti-debian people get ahold of the logo and use it for
evil purposes?
--
Stephen Crowley
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>I propose that we vote on accepting both the logo and the current
>license.
I think this is a good idea. If this proposal needs to be seconded,
consider this my "seconded!".
If it needs to be seconded somewhere else (debian-vote?) i'll do so
there :)
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 06:10:36PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm trying to package wmsysmon.app -- but I'm not sure about the .app that
> *some* wmaker apps get -- I'm not sure if I should have the package as
> wmsysmon.app or just wmsysmon.
>
> The tarball is wmsysmon.app, but the binary
Previously Darren Benham wrote:
> The current license? Are you sure? It needs to be rewritten if for no other
> reason but to remove the expiration date.
Okay, so I should have read the license before posting that :). Should
we change anything besides removing the expiration date? So far nobody
Bear Giles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem isn't in *producing* a package, it's in *acquiring* that
> package later. What happens if someone successfully attacks a site
> immediately before you mirror it?
What happens if someone replaces a PGP signature?
Answer: people notice.
[Conside
> Bear Giles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But you're biting your own tail here. Where do you get that "good"
> > checksum?
>
> Any place which is acceptable to the package maintainer -- perhaps out
> of a pgp signed archive.
Remember, the start of this discussion was an (FTP) mirroring program
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 10:11:48PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> I don't think Branden realised that the conf/repl/prov trick will
> automatically deinstall the xfnt packages. My understanding of his
> objection was the ugliness of having them hang around.
I'm far, far more willing to play games wit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 23-Jan-99 Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I propose that we vote on accepting both the logo and the current
> license.
>
The current license? Are you sure? It needs to be rewritten if for no other
reason but to remove the expiration date.
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I propose that we vote on accepting both the logo and the current
> license.
I very much dislike the current license. I'm a debian developer, I'd
like to put the debian logo on my home page, but I do *not* necessarily
want to devote half or more of my home page to debia
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 12:52:12AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> There has also been mention of people wanting a different logo. I think
> we should stick to our current logo for several reasons though:
>
> * it is a good logo: it's easily recognizable, simple to draw, scales
> good and
For the Nth time our logo license has expired. It might be a good idea
to finally finalize the license instead of just extending its lifetime
every couple of months.
There has also been mention of people wanting a different logo. I think
we should stick to our current logo for several reasons tho
89 matches
Mail list logo
