I've started packaging the toolkit, and while I was looking through the
docs I discovered this formal legalese stuff. I don't speak lawyer, nor
do I know enough about the licenses Debian willingly puts up with to say
whether this is OK or not.
So is this tolerable?
-- starts --
1. This Lic
> Someone please package this - I need my time for other stuff.
I'd volunteer *right now*, but I don't understand the package building
system yet; I've used deb-make and occasionally gotten tripped up by it
trying to package scsh. If a walkthrough was available, I'd certainly
appreciate it, a
> Amulet is a huge free C++ GUI toolkit. Please see
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~amulet . It builds and runs out of the box on Debian.
> Someone please volunteer to package it.
There's a slight problem with that, BTW. From the Amulet documentation:
Amulet is available for free by anonymous FTP or W
> Um, geez. Did anyone think to actually ask them? There is every
> possibility they would say "sure, go right ahead". It never hurts to ask.
> Duh.
Try and remember that permission can be revoked at any time. This is why
I prefer the GPL; I can be pretty certain I'm not going to have my feet
> > "ghughes" == ghughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ghughes> True. However, it can't handle gzipped pages, and
> ghughes> hacking it to do so seems a) special case (because
> Ermm... on my system it can. lynx 2.7-1 (self compiled).
> netscape also handles it very well. I can't say
5 matches
Mail list logo
