On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 03:18:18PM -0500, Shaleh wrote:
> That allows it to live in contrib -- woopie. Until they have a non forms
> based
> GUI, it matters little.
But noone will ask for the removal of LyX anymore.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes | Go SF 49ers!
Th.-Heuss-St
On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 03:18:18PM -0500, Shaleh wrote:
> > I just learned that the LyX copyright file was corrected to explicitely
> > state that linking against a non-free library is okay. This however wasn't
> > really needed as 'The law is quite clear that th
On 29-Jan-99 Michael Meskes wrote:
> I just learned that the LyX copyright file was corrected to explicitely
> state that linking against a non-free library is okay. This however wasn't
> really needed as 'The law is quite clear that the release of the software by
> th
I just learned that the LyX copyright file was corrected to explicitely
state that linking against a non-free library is okay. This however wasn't
really needed as 'The law is quite clear that the release of the software by
the original authors and copyright holders changed the license
Ian Jackson writes:
> Susan G. Kleinmann writes ("Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on ly
x/copyright ? "):
> ...
> > This is my synopsis of the relevant parts of Chapter 2:
> >
> > Packages go into contrib if their copyrights or patents require that they:
> > a. allow distribution of
Susan G. Kleinmann writes ("Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on
lyx/copyright ? "):
...
> This is my synopsis of the relevant parts of Chapter 2:
>
> Packages go into contrib if their copyrights or patents require that they:
> a. allow distribution of no so
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Dale Scheetz writes ("Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copy
right ?"):
> ...
> > Pine is in non-free because it's copyright places restrictions on the
> > distribution of source. Xforms has more severe restrictions on the
> > distribution of source than pine d
Dale Scheetz writes ("Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on
lyx/copyright ?"):
...
> Pine is in non-free because it's copyright places restrictions on the
> distribution of source. Xforms has more severe restrictions on the
> distribution of source than pine does
Dale Scheetz writes:
> Pine is in non-free because it's copyright places restrictions on the
> distribution of source. Xforms has more severe restrictions on the
> distribution of source than pine does. It is my understanding that this
That's why there is no source available. :-)
> source distrib
Dale Scheetz writes ("Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on
lyx/copyright ?"):
> [...] xforms is improperly
> located in contrib instead of non-free where it belongs (because source is
> not distributed). [...]
Sourceless packages are fine to distribute in cont
Michael Meskes writes ("Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on
lyx/copyright ?"):
...
> Ahem, this isn't exact enough IMO. With a standard Debian system I am able
> to rebuild LyX.
You can't rebuild LyX entirely from source using only packages in th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes ("Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on
lyx/copyright ?"):
> > All packages in the Debian distribution proper must be freely useable,
> > modifiable and redistributable in both source and binary form. It must
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes ("Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on
lyx/copyright ?"):
> > All packages in the Debian distribution proper must be freely useable,
> > modifiable and redistributable in both source and binary form. It must
> >
On Sat, 24 Aug 1996, Michael Meskes wrote:
> I think our consensus is that the non-free tree is for programs not freed by
> teh copyright, while binary-only packages belong into contrib. Thus contrib
> is the correct location.
Pine is in non-free because it's copyright places restrictions on the
Dale Scheetz writes:
> > That's exactly the point. I cannot recompile any package that uses Motif
> > since I don't have it. But I can recompile LyX since we have an xforms
> > package available.
> >
> Folks that buy my CD can too, but that's because xforms is improperly
> located in contrib inst
On Thu, 22 Aug 1996, Michael Meskes wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes:
> > The aims of the policy detailed below are:
> > * That any user be able to rebuild any package in the official
> > Debian distribution from the original source plus our patches.
>
> Ahem, this isn't exact
On Thu, 22 Aug 1996, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > All packages in the Debian distribution proper must be freely useable,
> > modifiable and redistributable in both source and binary form. It must
> > be possible for anyone to distribute and use modified source code and
> > their o
Ian Jackson writes:
> 2. Package copyright
>
>
> Please study the copyright of your submission *carefully* and
> understand it before proceeding. If you have doubts or questions,
> please ask.
>
> The aims of the policy detailed below are:
> * Tha
I think the "you must rename the file if you change it" restriction of the
LaTeX style sheet files is one that we _can_ live with. This should not
require them to go in contrib or non-free. Ian, I don't know how you'd
say this in the policy manual.
Thanks
Bruce
Let's assume the packages that depend on Motif will eventually get better as
LessTif matures (by the way, someone should package LessTif _now_).
I don't have a problem with your proposal. Can counter-argument be directed
to me, please?
Thanks
Bruce
> All packages in the Debian distribution proper must be freely useable,
> modifiable and redistributable in both source and binary form. It must
> be possible for anyone to distribute and use modified source code and
> their own own compiled binaries, at least when they do so a
Bruce, if you feel it is appropriate, I'd like you to use your magic
fiat power to end the discussion about lyx, contrib, and so forth, by
endorsing the appropriate part of the new policy manual. I've
attached a copy below.
According to that part lyx, all the Motif packages and the compress
insta
22 matches
Mail list logo
