Re: Is this better for tomsrtbt?

2001-04-25 Thread Tom Oehser
here with bzip2, I get 51,200 bytes for BSD, GPL, and LGPL, tarred. That should be acceptable for a TRB distribution archive, no? It breaks one of the primary design goals, which is that the tarball can be created from the floppy and vice versa in a completely symetrical way, because

RE: Is this better for tomsrtbt?

2001-04-25 Thread Dave J Woolley
From: Tom Oehser [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Now, again, as I read it, if I provide an http or ftp directory, which contains 10 files, and one of those has all the licenses, and one is the tarball that makes the floppy, and one is an html file that clearly lists both and explains what they

Re: Is this better for tomsrtbt?

2001-04-25 Thread Karsten M. Self
on Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 07:44:56AM -0400, Tom Oehser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: here with bzip2, I get 51,200 bytes for BSD, GPL, and LGPL, tarred. That should be acceptable for a TRB distribution archive, no? It breaks one of the primary design goals, which is that the tarball

Re: Is this better for tomsrtbt?

2001-04-25 Thread Tom Oehser
Ok, thanks. By the way, I have as a result of these discussions made a bunch of enhancements to http://www.toms.net/rb/license.html, which is pretty difficult to accidentally avoid at this point, and which will be on all the mirrors tomorrow. I added a key of what license goes with which file

Re: Is this better for tomsrtbt?

2001-04-22 Thread mirabilos
about 2 years. Now, guess what libc5.so.5.4.13 file is currently in use on the MuLinux distribution? Yep, the 432,684 byte one I created about 2 years ago. Now, the author of MuLinux does *not* mention that he used This is the foundation of LGPL which libc uses. They have the right

Re: Is this better for tomsrtbt?

2001-04-22 Thread Eric Jacobs
Tom Oehser [EMAIL PROTECTED] What I don't like is other people just copying the *actual binary* without giving any credit or acknoledgement that *they* don't want to bother to compile it *themselves*. As long as they mention where they got it, I'm fine with it. So, in the case

Re: Is this better for tomsrtbt?

2001-04-22 Thread Tom Oehser
Did you add your own copyright notice to these programs? I'm digging around for copyright notices, they're a bit scarce You ought to be covered under GPL in this case. The GPL says: 4. You may not ... sublicense ... and: 6. ... You may not impose any further restrictions ... It

Re: Is this better for tomsrtbt?

2001-04-21 Thread Tom Oehser
What is it you want to protect? I'll give you an example. My bootdisk currently includes a libc5.so.5.4.13 that I have down to only 416,361 bytes. More than 2 years ago, back in October of 1998, I had it only down to 432,684 bytes. I havn't distributed that binary libc.so for about 2 years.

Is this better for tomsrtbt?

2001-04-20 Thread Tom Oehser
*** * This copyright in no way supercedes or nullifies any copyrights or licenses * * of the component parts, such as the BSD and GPL copyrights which cover many * * of the programs, which confer specific rights and