On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 08:24 AM, David R. Morrison wrote:
rpl
Sounds like we can distribute rpl as a binary. Besides the author of
rpl is a fink user. :)
~ 153 % rpl -L
rpl 1.4.0 by Joe Laffey, LAFFEY Computer Imaging.
Visit http:
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 09:46, David R. Morrison wrote:
> Hi Folks.
>
> I'd like to add to the Fink website a brief explanation that a small number
> of the 0.5.0a-stable packages can not be distributed in binary form, and
> that users who want them should consult the license first and then compile
Just for reference: the current list of packages which are stable in 0.5.0a
but not included in the binary distribution is:
analog
file
freetype-hinting-bin
freetype-hinting-shlibs
freetype-hinting
fvwm-icons
host
hx
mpg123
pdflib
pdflib-shlibs
pine
pine-ssl
povray
revtex
rpl
tetex-macosx
tetex-te
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
snip>
In this regard, mpg123 is tagged as Restrictive (which it is) and so
doesn't make it to the binary distribution whereas the License says :
Here are some comments on this topic from our in house lawyer.
The software may not be sold for
Le mardi, 10 déc 2002, à 16:14 Europe/Paris, David R. Morrison a écrit :
One of the main themes of the Fink project is careful respect for the
licenses which software developers include with their code. Most Fink
packages are based on software with one of the "open source" licenses
which explic
One of the main themes of the Fink project is careful respect for the
licenses which software developers include with their code. Most Fink
packages are based on software with one of the "open source" licenses
which explicitly allow distribution in binary form (sometimes with the
requirement that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Dienstag, Dezember 10, 2002, at 03:46 Uhr, David R. Morrison wrote:
Hi Folks.
I'd like to add to the Fink website a brief explanation that a small
number
of the 0.5.0a-stable packages can not be distributed in binary form,
and
that users
