On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:30:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Different issue. The GPL appears to claim that you must distribute
> > > a copy of the license with the binaries, even when you ship the source
> > > separately.
> > WITH or WITHIN?
> Actually, the preposition used in section 1 o
Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001205 20:37]:
> > Fortunately, things aren't very severe right now. And, certainly,
> > I think that if we could pull a solution together by the time that
> > Woody freezes, that would indicate good faith.
>
> It migh
* Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001205 20:37]:
> Fortunately, things aren't very severe right now. And, certainly,
> I think that if we could pull a solution together by the time that
> Woody freezes, that would indicate good faith.
It might not hurt to wait for RMS to get back to us wrt what
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:49:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > > Doesn't the fact that we are totally geared towards a target
> > > > system that is Debian matter?
>
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Actually, it does make a
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:49:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > Doesn't the fact that we are totally geared towards a target
> > > system that is Debian matter?
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Actually, it does make a difference -- we're not in violation of the
> > GPL for an
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001205 19:05]:
> Oh, I agree it's not likely. But surely there are Theo wannabies
> (horror) who do have the time.
I'm still in training.
>:->
--
``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all
really impressed down here, I can tel
On 5 Dec 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Okay, "you". No sweat off my nose if you wish to exclude me.
>
> Well, I ask because again your motives for posting are unclear.
>
> For all I know, you're Theo de Raadt, and you're deliberately trying
> t
Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001205 18:49]:
> > For all I know, you're Theo de Raadt, and you're deliberately trying
> > to drive a wedge between the FSF and Debian out of hatred for
> > everything GPL and everything that is not OpenBSD.
>
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001205 18:49]:
> For all I know, you're Theo de Raadt, and you're deliberately trying
> to drive a wedge between the FSF and Debian out of hatred for
> everything GPL and everything that is not OpenBSD.
Naw, if you think Theo has that kind of time (or
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Okay, "you". No sweat off my nose if you wish to exclude me.
Well, I ask because again your motives for posting are unclear.
For all I know, you're Theo de Raadt, and you're deliberately trying
to drive a wedge between the FSF and Debian out of hatred for
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, John Galt wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:49:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > Doesn't the fact that we are totally geared towards a target
> > > system that is Debian matter?
> >
> > Actually, it does make a diffe
Okay, "you". No sweat off my nose if you wish to exclude me.
On 5 Dec 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Can we really expect others to follow the DFSG when we do so
> > only when convenient?
>
> "we"?
>
--
Pardon me, but you have obviously mi
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can we really expect others to follow the DFSG when we do so
> only when convenient?
"we"?
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:49:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Doesn't the fact that we are totally geared towards a target
> > system that is Debian matter?
>
> Actually, it does make a difference -- we're not in violation of the
> GPL for any
>However, Debian is in a different position, and the problem is that
>people can and do pull .debs off the Debian site and install them on
>other distros. The license really does require that we give them a
>copy of the GPL, and that's a reasonable requirement.
I believe this is doable without fo
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.2.1.0
Severity: normal
I noticed another typo in upgrading-checklist.text. "theshared"
should be spelled as "the shared" in the following section.
Sorry for the multiple bug reports.
3.2.0.0
Packaging Manual:
- Noted that newer dpkg versions do not requ
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 12:15:39AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:24:35PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Not exactly. If I upload /bin/ls from my system to a BBS without
> > providing source, I am violating the GPL. If I start distributing
> > GPL'd .debs without source (
17 matches
Mail list logo
