On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 11:00:01AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> What about setting up a non-patent debian archive somewhere were the patent
> don't apply. India could be a likely candidate, i think, but then maybe they
> only don't like patent on medicine or such ?
I'm in India. I'm not sure about
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 12:33:19AM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Paul Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The RSA patent was only valid in the USA, an oversight on RSA's part.
> > That's the difference.
>
> But surely a sizable chunk the Debian usersbase lives in the US, there
> were offi
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 11:00:01AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> What about setting up a non-patent debian archive somewhere were the patent
> don't apply. India could be a likely candidate, i think, but then maybe they
> only don't like patent on medicine or such ?
I'm in India. I'm not sure abou
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 12:33:19AM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Paul Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The RSA patent was only valid in the USA, an oversight on RSA's part.
> > That's the difference.
>
> But surely a sizable chunk the Debian usersbase lives in the US, there
> were off
>>"Eric" == Eric Van Buggenhaut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eric> : "it can't be included in debian, since it can't be legally
Eric> redistributed in binary form."
Eric> First part of the sentence might be correct, but not for *that* reason.
Any package that cannot be distributed in t
>>"Eric" == Eric Van Buggenhaut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eric> : "it can't be included in debian, since it can't be legally
Eric> redistributed in binary form."
Eric> First part of the sentence might be correct, but not for *that* reason.
Any package that cannot be distributed in
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 08:43:46AM -0500, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
[...]
> > > It can be debianised, but it can't be included in debian, since it can't
> > > be legally redistributed in binary form.
> >
> > What do you mean ?? There are lots of packages included in debian in source
> > for
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 08:43:46AM -0500, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
[...]
> > > It can be debianised, but it can't be included in debian, since it can't
> > > be legally redistributed in binary form.
> >
> > What do you mean ?? There are lots of packages included in debian in source
> > fo
Paul Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The RSA patent was only valid in the USA, an oversight on RSA's part.
> That's the difference.
But surely a sizable chunk the Debian usersbase lives in the US, there
were official CDs sold in the US containing the software, etc. So the
difference is only
Paul Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The RSA patent was only valid in the USA, an oversight on RSA's part.
> That's the difference.
But surely a sizable chunk the Debian usersbase lives in the US, there
were official CDs sold in the US containing the software, etc. So the
difference is only
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 08:19:50PM +0100, Paul Martin wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 08:09:51PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
>
> > OTOH, isn't a license just required for *using* software that falls
> > under the patent -- in contrast to just distributing it? How is
> > distributing lame diffe
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 08:09:51PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Eric Van Buggenhaut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:53:44PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > It can be debianised, but it can't be included in debian, since it can't
> > > be legally redistributed
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 08:09:51PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> OTOH, isn't a license just required for *using* software that falls
> under the patent -- in contrast to just distributing it? How is
> distributing lame different from distributing implementations of RSA
> one year ago? We did th
Eric Van Buggenhaut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:53:44PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > It can be debianised, but it can't be included in debian, since it can't
> > be legally redistributed in binary form.
>
> What do you mean ?? There are lots of packages includ
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 08:19:50PM +0100, Paul Martin wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 08:09:51PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
>
> > OTOH, isn't a license just required for *using* software that falls
> > under the patent -- in contrast to just distributing it? How is
> > distributing lame diff
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 08:09:51PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Eric Van Buggenhaut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:53:44PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > It can be debianised, but it can't be included in debian, since it can't
> > > be legally redistributed
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 08:09:51PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> OTOH, isn't a license just required for *using* software that falls
> under the patent -- in contrast to just distributing it? How is
> distributing lame different from distributing implementations of RSA
> one year ago? We did t
Eric Van Buggenhaut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:53:44PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > It can be debianised, but it can't be included in debian, since it can't
> > be legally redistributed in binary form.
>
> What do you mean ?? There are lots of packages inclu
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:05:29AM +0200, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:53:44PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 03:19:21PM -0400, MaD dUCK wrote:
> > > hi developers,
> > > this is my first message, i hope it's appropriate. there's talk going
> >
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:05:29AM +0200, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:53:44PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 03:19:21PM -0400, MaD dUCK wrote:
> > > hi developers,
> > > this is my first message, i hope it's appropriate. there's talk going
> >
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:53:44PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 03:19:21PM -0400, MaD dUCK wrote:
> > hi developers,
> > this is my first message, i hope it's appropriate. there's talk going
> > on on the users mailing list about lame and its absence from the
> > package
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:53:44PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 03:19:21PM -0400, MaD dUCK wrote:
> > hi developers,
> > this is my first message, i hope it's appropriate. there's talk going
> > on on the users mailing list about lame and its absence from the
> > package
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 05:49:06PM +1200, Michael Beattie wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:53:44PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > It can be debianised, but it can't be included in debian, since it can't
> > be legally redistributed in binary form.
Which is why URL's to it aren't supposed to
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 05:49:06PM +1200, Michael Beattie wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:53:44PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > It can be debianised, but it can't be included in debian, since it can't
> > be legally redistributed in binary form.
Which is why URL's to it aren't supposed t
> > It can be debianised, but it can't be included in debian, since it can't
> > be legally redistributed in binary form.
The lame tar.gz includes a debian/ directory. So its only a
# dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot
away.
> deb http://lly.org/~rcw/private/lamer/ ./
This I didn't know of.
> I
> > It can be debianised, but it can't be included in debian, since it can't
> > be legally redistributed in binary form.
The lame tar.gz includes a debian/ directory. So its only a
# dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot
away.
> deb http://lly.org/~rcw/private/lamer/ ./
This I didn't know of.
> I
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:53:44PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> It can be debianised, but it can't be included in debian, since it can't
> be legally redistributed in binary form.
deb http://lly.org/~rcw/private/lamer/ ./
I believe rcw still maintains this, I have it commented out, since I do
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:53:44PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> It can be debianised, but it can't be included in debian, since it can't
> be legally redistributed in binary form.
deb http://lly.org/~rcw/private/lamer/ ./
I believe rcw still maintains this, I have it commented out, since I d
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 03:19:21PM -0400, MaD dUCK wrote:
> hi developers,
> this is my first message, i hope it's appropriate. there's talk going
> on on the users mailing list about lame and its absence from the
> package tree. i would like to adopt the lame mp3 encoder as a debian
> package and
hi developers,
this is my first message, i hope it's appropriate. there's talk going
on on the users mailing list about lame and its absence from the
package tree. i would like to adopt the lame mp3 encoder as a debian
package and was wondering if there are any objections? is there
already a mainta
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 03:19:21PM -0400, MaD dUCK wrote:
> hi developers,
> this is my first message, i hope it's appropriate. there's talk going
> on on the users mailing list about lame and its absence from the
> package tree. i would like to adopt the lame mp3 encoder as a debian
> package and
hi developers,
this is my first message, i hope it's appropriate. there's talk going
on on the users mailing list about lame and its absence from the
package tree. i would like to adopt the lame mp3 encoder as a debian
package and was wondering if there are any objections? is there
already a maint
32 matches
Mail list logo
