Re: doom source GPL'd

1999-10-05 Thread Joseph Carter
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 09:21:26AM +, Andre Majorel wrote: > - should their "contract" be enforced on the tools ? > - if so, would that prevent them from going in the main section ? Note the collections of wads on CD for $15 or so... I have one such CD. The point is that you couldn't take the

Re: doom source GPL'd

1999-10-05 Thread Andre Majorel
At 00:57 1999.10.04 +0100, you wrote: >Andre Majorel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >How can they put limitations on your piece off work, I do not understand, do >they have a patent on wad files (I do not think so). I don't think so either but they act like they had. IIRC, the deal was : OK, we'll le

Re: doom source GPL'd

1999-10-04 Thread Joseph Carter
On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 12:57:35AM +0100, Edward Betts wrote: > > I would also love to see the following utilities packaged : [..] > > At this rate we are going to need a tasks-doom Recommends: doom-wad | doom-wad-editor Who needs a tasks-doom? =p > > I'm unsure whether Doom hacking utils can

Re: doom source GPL'd

1999-10-03 Thread Edward Betts
Andre Majorel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please by all means use the latest semi-public beta (no link from the > home page) http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/yadex/yadex-1.1.0.tar.gz. > Yadex 1.0.1 is severely obsolete. Now that I'm done with DeuTex, I hope > to resume work on Yadex and release v1.1

Re: doom source GPL'd

1999-10-03 Thread Andre Majorel
At 13:17 1999.10.03 -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: >On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 12:41:51PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: >> It looks like the doom source is now under the GPL. >> (http://www.doomworld.com/). This clears up the previous licencing problems >> that were keeping it out of debian. It will still be f

Re: doom source GPL'd

1999-10-03 Thread Joseph Carter
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 01:48:35PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: > > Yeah, we'll package the evil music server in the meantime. => > > I did a *lot* of hacking on the music server, making doom communicate with > it via a pipe and other things and got it working really well. > > It is evil though, it h

Re: doom source GPL'd

1999-10-03 Thread Joey Hess
Joseph Carter wrote: > I'm hoping to convince the lxdoom and dosdoom people to throw it and the > sound server away. They suck and are evil. Would be better to write > sound support directly these days (and is now actually reasonable to do. > I even have soundfonts that make Timidity Not Suck---I

Re: doom source GPL'd

1999-10-03 Thread Joseph Carter
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 01:33:29PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: > > Joe Drew has lxdoom and I have agreed to sponsor his packages as soon as > > I'm caught up with school again. > > Ok, he might want to look at my old lxdoom package, which has several > patches in it. (ftp://kitenet.net/pub/code/debian

Re: doom source GPL'd

1999-10-03 Thread Joey Hess
Joseph Carter wrote: > Joe Drew has lxdoom and I have agreed to sponsor his packages as soon as > I'm caught up with school again. Ok, he might want to look at my old lxdoom package, which has several patches in it. (ftp://kitenet.net/pub/code/debian/) What about the music server? -- see shy jo

Re: doom source GPL'd

1999-10-03 Thread Daniel Burrows
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 12:41:51PM -0700, Joey Hess was heard to say: > It looks like the doom source is now under the GPL. > (http://www.doomworld.com/). This clears up the previous licencing problems > that were keeping it out of debian. It will still be fit only for contrib > for now, since it n

Re: doom source GPL'd

1999-10-03 Thread Joseph Carter
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 12:41:51PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: > It looks like the doom source is now under the GPL. > (http://www.doomworld.com/). This clears up the previous licencing problems > that were keeping it out of debian. It will still be fit only for contrib > for now, since it needs non-fr