Non-free question

2001-05-04 Thread Warren Stramiello
I'm considering packaging BET, a 128-bit blowfish-encrypted talk daemon. However, it relies on a non-DFSG complian library, even though the program itself is GPL. I'm presuming BET should therefore go into non-free, and I should also package the library itself. Is this correct? If so, are there

Re: Non-free question

2001-05-04 Thread sharkey
I'm considering packaging BET, a 128-bit blowfish-encrypted talk daemon. However, it relies on a non-DFSG complian library, even though the program itself is GPL. Then it belongs in contrib. Anything which is itself free but has non-free dependencies should go in contrib. Eric -- To

Re: Non-free question

2001-05-04 Thread Warren Stramiello
Sorry, didn't clarify. I should package the library for non-free and the bet for contrib, correct? ~Warren Stramiello -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Non-free question

2001-05-04 Thread sharkey
Sorry, didn't clarify. I should package the library for non-free and the bet for contrib, correct? Correct. Eric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Non-free question

2001-05-04 Thread Henrique M Holschuh
On Fri, 04 May 2001, Warren Stramiello wrote: Sorry, didn't clarify. I should package the library for non-free and the bet for contrib, correct? Yes. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond

Re: Non-free question

2001-05-04 Thread Peter S Galbraith
Warren Stramiello wrote: I'm considering packaging BET, a 128-bit blowfish-encrypted talk daemon. However, it relies on a non-DFSG complian library, even though the program itself is GPL. The license needs to have an exemption for the GPL-incompatible library it uses. Peter -- To

Non-free question

2001-05-04 Thread Warren Stramiello
I'm considering packaging BET, a 128-bit blowfish-encrypted talk daemon. However, it relies on a non-DFSG complian library, even though the program itself is GPL. I'm presuming BET should therefore go into non-free, and I should also package the library itself. Is this correct? If so, are there

Re: Non-free question

2001-05-04 Thread sharkey
I'm considering packaging BET, a 128-bit blowfish-encrypted talk daemon. However, it relies on a non-DFSG complian library, even though the program itself is GPL. Then it belongs in contrib. Anything which is itself free but has non-free dependencies should go in contrib. Eric

Re: Non-free question

2001-05-04 Thread Warren Stramiello
Sorry, didn't clarify. I should package the library for non-free and the bet for contrib, correct? ~Warren Stramiello

Re: Non-free question

2001-05-04 Thread sharkey
Sorry, didn't clarify. I should package the library for non-free and the bet for contrib, correct? Correct. Eric

Re: Non-free question

2001-05-04 Thread Henrique M Holschuh
On Fri, 04 May 2001, Warren Stramiello wrote: Sorry, didn't clarify. I should package the library for non-free and the bet for contrib, correct? Yes. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond

Re: Non-free question

2001-05-04 Thread Peter S Galbraith
Warren Stramiello wrote: I'm considering packaging BET, a 128-bit blowfish-encrypted talk daemon. However, it relies on a non-DFSG complian library, even though the program itself is GPL. The license needs to have an exemption for the GPL-incompatible library it uses. Peter

Re: Non-free question

2001-05-04 Thread Bas Zoetekouw
Hi Peter! You wrote: I'm considering packaging BET, a 128-bit blowfish-encrypted talk daemon. However, it relies on a non-DFSG complian library, even though the program itself is GPL. The license needs to have an exemption for the GPL-incompatible library it uses. Indeed. If there's