Hi all, thanks everyone who commented on this issue.
It is difficult for us Japanese to argue in English but
I have some questions.
From: Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ITP: xengine
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 00:07:27 +0200 (CEST)
> License: == from README ==
>
> A
On 31 May 1999, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>On Mon, 31 May 1999, Kenshi Muto wrote:
>
>> License: == from README ==
>>
>> Author: Kazuhiko Shutoh
>>
>> Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute without charge
>
On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 09:43:26 -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> May I point out the existance of FLTK? It _was_ XForms compatible, but my
> understanding is it's not anymore. In any case, FLTK should be _similar_ to
> XForms, and in _theory_ it shouldn't be that hard to substitute XForms cod
On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 01:50:44PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> I understand ; afaik there is no tetex-src package.
You _could_ check it yourself:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:09:26]:~/cvs/webwml/english/Bugs$ grep-available -PX tetex-src
Package: tetex-src
Priority: extra
Section: tex
Installed-Size: 4669
"Marcelo E. Magallon" wrote:
> May I point out the existance of FLTK?
You may. I did also in my post.
> It _was_ XForms compatible, but my
> understanding is it's not anymore. In any case, FLTK should be _similar_ to
> XForms, and in _theory_ it shouldn
On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 11:28:05AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> As you may know, the GPL is not compatible with XForms and
> packages that depend on XForms need to use another license or
> contain some sort of exception clause.
May I point out the existance of FLTK? It _was_ XForms compatib
On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 09:50:47AM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> I see from Atsuhito Kohda's message that it is indeed meant to be DFSG free.
> Please get the author to change the licence to this:
>
> Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software,
> documentation, images, etc. is
Hello fellow Debian developers,
As you may know, the GPL is not compatible with XForms and
packages that depend on XForms need to use another license or
contain some sort of exception clause.
There are 12 packages in potato that depend on XForms, and 6 of
them use the plain GPL without such an e
I was looking for problematic licenses in packages that depend
on XForms (e.g. GPL) and found this in xmysqladmin_1.0-3.deb:
I reserve the copyright to xMySQLadmin. However, you are
permitted to use and distribute xMySQLadmin, provided that you
(a) distribute it with the full sources, and
I think you should file a bug report, against texmf and against
any other such packages.
Thanks,
--
Raul
Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > My current take:
> >
> > legal.txt requires that all files in manifest.txt be included in
> > the di
On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> My current take:
>
> legal.txt requires that all files in manifest.txt be included in
> the distribution (in debian terms: not necessarily in the same
> package but on the same media, with an exception for floppies).
I understand ; afaik there is no tetex
My current take:
legal.txt requires that all files in manifest.txt be included in
the distribution (in debian terms: not necessarily in the same
package but on the same media, with an exception for floppies).
If we're not doing that then we shouldn't be distributting LPPL'd
code.
> Now, let's ha
On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 05:35:33AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I don't know much about LaTeX, but the tetex stuff I have installed
> > on my system is GPLed.
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not true. teTeX contains some GPL'd components, but it *also*
> contains LaTeX.
Thos
On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 05:35:33AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> I don't know much about LaTeX, but the tetex stuff I have installed
> on my system is GPLed.
Not true. teTeX contains some GPL'd components, but it *also*
contains LaTeX.
> If we're talking about the same tetex then the LPPL has no
>
Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you look into /usr/doc/texmf/latex/base/legal.txt.gz you read that
> all files listed in manifest.txt must be part of this distribution. If
> you look into this file, you see that all source files are listed. Then
> i deduce that teTeX can't be shipped
On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > forgive my stupidity, i don't understand how a LaTeX distribution (say
> > teTex) does not violate the LPPL.
>
> I don't know much about LaTeX, but the tetex stuff I have installed
> on my system is GPLed.
teTe
Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> forgive my stupidity, i don't understand how a LaTeX distribution (say
> teTex) does not violate the LPPL.
I don't know much about LaTeX, but the tetex stuff I have installed
on my system is GPLed.
If we're talking about the same tetex then the LPPL has
Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute without charge t
>his
> > software, documentation, images, etc. is granted,
..
>*sigh*. This comes up about once a week now. The statement above,
>and similar, are generally interpreted that the
Hi,
i am new on this list but i read articles about the LPPL (LaTeX Project
Public License).
I posted the message below to comp.text.tex and receive no answer.
Are there kind people here to comment my questions/assertions?
TIA
Denis
==
Mon, 31 May 1999 23:47:43 -0700, David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about
Re: ITP: xslideshow (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>):
dstarner98> At 03:39 PM 6/1/99 +0900, Kenshi Muto wrote:
dstarner98> >License:
dstarner98>
>
dstarner98> >
At 03:39 PM 6/1/99 +0900, Kenshi Muto wrote:
>License:
>
> Xslideshow
>Copyright 1993-1997 by Susumu Shiohara
> All Rights Reserved
>
>-- from Copyright --
>
>Permission to use, copy,
Dirk writes:
> Would someone on debian-legal care to comment ?
It is acceptable, though deprecated.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
From: Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ITP: xengine
Date: 31 May 1999 19:41:33 -0400
> Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>On Mon, 31 May 1999, Kenshi Muto wrote:
>
>> License: == from README ==
>>
>> Author: Kazuhiko Shutoh
>>
>> Pe
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute without charge
this
>> software, documentation, images, etc. is granted, provided
that this
>> comment and the author's name is retained. The author
assu
24 matches
Mail list logo
