On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 01:05:09PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 10:18:45AM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> > > I am interested in gsview which is famous in Windows users
> > > and a kind of ghostview or gv. But I am not sure if its license
> > > permits us to upload to D
From: David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: is the license of gsview okay?
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:05:23 -0600
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 10:18:45AM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> > I am interested in gsview which is famous in Windows users
> > and a kind of ghostview or gv. But I am no
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 10:18:45AM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> I am interested in gsview which is famous in Windows users
> and a kind of ghostview or gv. But I am not sure if its license
> permits us to upload to Debian or not.
Why do you want to package it? It's not like it fills a need that
I am interested in gsview which is famous in Windows users
and a kind of ghostview or gv. But I am not sure if its license
permits us to upload to Debian or not.
(You can get the original source from
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/gsview/get36.htm)
It says as follows:
---
On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 08:50:30PM +0900, Taketoshi Sano wrote:
> I have a question about a software, which outputs the following
> message with "-version" option. Is this redistributable ?
>
> (the output of " -version")
>
>There is NO warranty. You may redistribute this software
>under
I have a question about a software, which outputs the following
message with "-version" option. Is this redistributable ?
(the output of " -version")
There is NO warranty. You may redistribute this software
under the terms of the GNU General Public License
and the XXX copyright.
For
Scripsit Sam TH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > I don't think this should matter.
> > It certainly should, and always has in the past.
> I'm curious, not that I doubt you, but when in the past have we had
> this situation before.
There has been several examples. For example, I seem to recall
that ear
On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 12:06:07PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Well, it seems the consensus is against me. Oh well.
However, if we make the determination that that clause does not just
mean that we have to follow the export regulations, then that file is
not redistributable at all without per
Scripsit Sam TH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I think it's exceedingly unreasonable to declare software as non-free
> since the license specifies compliance with the law at that time (this
> was written 5 years ago).
I think it is perfectly reasonable. I am not an American, and I would
not consider a pie
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Sam TH wrote:
> I think it's exceedingly unreasonable to declare software as non-free
> since the license specifies compliance with the law at that time (this
> was written 5 years ago).
I think this is a mute point. Free is free, non-free is non-free and laws
do not change a
10 matches
Mail list logo
