Hi,
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> AFAIK that's only if you want to distribute their binary. If you want to
> distribute their source, then that's just the MIT license.
Yes, that's how I see it too.
> Plenty of GPLd applications in Debian still use GStreamer, so this
> doe
Le mercredi 25 janvier 2006 à 17:08 +1100, Russell Coker a écrit :
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 12:10, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2) We take the patent issue seriously, and drop all MP3 support.
>
> MP3 software does not belong in Debian/main. Unlike many patents the MPEG
>
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 17:40, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 17:08 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > MP3 software does not belong in Debian/main. Unlike many patents the
> > MPEG patents probably have a good basis.
>
> To make it clear, this is a *radical* div
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:21:55PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:08:00PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > And I would strongly suggest you to consider Simon Richter's proposal,
> > which sounds a lot cleaner to me: if you have build-depends-indep in
> > your debian/cont
* Josselin Mouette:
> We are talking about a MP3 *decoding* plugin. Like the ones we
> already have in so many packages we have stopped counting.
Just to clarify since you put that emphasis on decoding:
There is no difference between decoders and encoders. Both require
patent licenses. There a
Le mercredi 25 janvier 2006 à 11:53 +0100, Florian Weimer a écrit :
> Just to clarify since you put that emphasis on decoding:
>
> There is no difference between decoders and encoders. Both require
> patent licenses.
But as I understand it, only the encoding patents are enforceable. If we
start
Peter Samuelson wrote:
> That's a bug, IMO - they should mkdir -p in their init scripts if
> necessary. It's not like that's hard to do.
Tim Cutts wrote:
> [...] In my case I was mounting /var/run
> and /var/lock as tmpfs filesystems all the time to reduce hard disk
> access on a machine tha
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Jérémy Bobbio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: zope-attachmentfield
Version : 1.3.3
Upstream Author : Ingeniweb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL :
http://ingeniweb.sourceforge.net/Products/AttachmentField/
* License : GPL
* Wouter Verhelst [Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:14:26 +0100]:
> Yes, but only if packages who declare build-depends-indep without having
> build-arch exist. Anyone feel like finding that out? ;-)
Simon run a test through the archive prior to sending his mail, to
find out.
--
Adeodato Simó
Le vendredi 20 janvier 2006 à 14:17 +, Paul Brossier a écrit :
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 04:09:28AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> >
> > [Jérôme Warnier]
> > > Or even better: a list of all packages already installed on my system
> > > which have an experimental version?
> >
> > There might
Le vendredi 20 janvier 2006 à 15:04 +0100, Michal Politowski a écrit :
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:34:11 +0100, Jérôme Warnier wrote:
> [...]
> > BTW, is there a way to list all packages in experimental?
>
> aptitude search '~Aexperimental'
>
> > Or even better: a list of all packages already instal
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
It's clear to me you've never had to use an iRiver's Ogg support. It
fails outside a limited bitrate range, drains battery faster, does not
read metadata, and is not available on all devices. Newer iRivers also
use a proprietary communications protocol that is not yet suppor
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 19:58 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 17:40, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 17:08 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > MP3 software does not belong in Debian/main. Unlike many patents the
> > > MPEG patents probably
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 09:35 +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > AFAIK that's only if you want to distribute their binary. If you want to
> > distribute their source, then that's just the MIT license.
>
> Yes, that's how I see it too.
>
> >
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Matej Cepl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: tams
Version : 2.79
Upstream Author : Matthew Weinstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://tamsys.sourceforge.net
* License : G
I send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] over a week
ago, as described here:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/02/msg3.html
so far not even a response telling me I'm in a queue.
Is the procedure described above still the right one?
Thanks,
Britton
--
Britton Kerin
[EMAIL P
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 08:25 +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > Are you going to sign the contract? I'm sure not putting my signature on
> > anything about MP3s.
>
> I'm afraid I can't as a poor little NM :)
From the Book of Policy (v3.6.2.2), Section 2.3:
We reserve the ri
Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> I would like to point out that if SPI (Debian's parent) doesn't have
> rights to distribute (not just the individual DD), then this cannot
> possibly be legally distributed by Debian.
It was intendet for a non-free package, not for main (the policy matches
for non-free to
Hi,
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > I've checked out xnee, I've noticed that the info documentation was
> > not properly installed, and provided a patch. Looked over the BTS,
> > tried running, found the same error as bug 315736.
>
> Curious of xnee, I installed it to try out t
This is an automatic message from the Guinevere
Internet Antivirus Scanner.
A message was received from you with a subject of Returned mail: Data
format error
The message was addressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The message contains file attachments that are not permitted.
Please ignore this me
Hi all.
I would ask a question i've already posted in the #344767 bug report.
Recently i've talked with someone else that cannot purge the 2.6.14
kernel, due to bug #344767. It's a known problem, already solved for
2.6.15, but for people that still use 2.6.14 or have used it, the
problem of pu
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 02:53:57AM +0100, Cesare Leonardi wrote:
> Hi all.
> I would ask a question i've already posted in the #344767 bug report.
>
> Recently i've talked with someone else that cannot purge the 2.6.14
> kernel, due to bug #344767. It's a known problem, already solved for
> 2.6.
Cesare Leonardi wrote:
Recently i've talked with someone else that cannot purge the 2.6.14
kernel, due to bug #344767. It's a known problem, already solved for
2.6.15, but for people that still use 2.6.14 or have used it, the
problem of purging it completely still exist.
For example on my machi
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 04:25:52PM +0100, Jérôme Warnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> Le vendredi 20 janvier 2006 à 14:17 +, Paul Brossier a écrit :
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 04:09:28AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > >
> > > [Jérôme Warnier]
> > > > Or even better: a list of a
24 matches
Mail list logo
