Package: gs-common
Severity: serious
Hi *,
I am filing this bug/writing this mail because there is a big problem
in the gs packages in woody which needs fixing before release. I would
like to get comments on the changes I want to implement.
Currently I maintain the following set of Ghostscript
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 08:29:00PM +0200, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
> The problem here is that we can't distribute it under the terms of the GPL
> (read the kde announcement) while they say it is plain GPL, so they say
> they can include other people's GPL-ed stuff. glibc2 doesnt have a
> contradicto
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 01:44:18PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> > people to distribute LyX in both source and binary forms. This permission
> > certainly includes linking against GUI toolkits like XForms, Motif, GTK,
> > Qt
> > or Win32.
>
> `... and distributing the resulting binary
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 11:58:16AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> How about this one?
>
> I told him I would remove the first sentence but other than that it looks
> okay to me.
>
> Michael
>
> - Forwarded message from Matthias Ettrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
> If we do something like this
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 12:25:12PM +0200, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > I agree that by using XForms in development, and XForms *is* needed to
> > > > compile and run LyX, we have implicitly allowd all users to link Lyx
> > > > with XForms.
> > > > [...]
> > >
> > > I don't think s
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I told him I would remove the first sentence but other than that it looks
> okay to me.
Yeah.
With that first sentence in, I think he'd argue that he doesn't need
anyone's permission to apply it to third-party GPLed software: he's
declaring what the GPL
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 12:25:12PM +0200, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
> > How can we be sure that LyX does not include things not written by them?
>
> Wait a moment. Don't let this become ridiculous. How can we be sure that
> Ulrich Depper didn't include n
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 12:25:12PM +0200, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
> How can we be sure that LyX does not include things not written by them?
Wait a moment. Don't let this become ridiculous. How can we be sure that
Ulrich Depper didn't include non-GPL stuff in his glibc? You can ask this
ofr every
> people to distribute LyX in both source and binary forms. This permission
> certainly includes linking against GUI toolkits like XForms, Motif, GTK, Qt
> or Win32.
`... and distributing the resulting binary.' should be added.
You can always link in the privacy of your home. What GPL for
>> > > I agree that by using XForms in development, and XForms *is* needed to
>> > > compile and run LyX, we have implicitly allowd all users to link Lyx
>> > > with XForms.
>> > > [...]
>> >
>> > I don't think so. It is not enough for KDE, why should it be enough for
>> > LyX ?
>>
>> It's not en
>looks good to me, with or without the first sentence.
For me too.
>it's true, anyway. the GPL is often a source of misunderstanding and
>confusion. witness KDE, for example.
Yes, your right. But I think this sentence doens´t fit well into a license
file.
>if ettrich is willing to write
6:02 ---
Matthias Ettrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 12.10.98 12:54:20
Bitte antworten an lyx@via.ecp.fr
An: lyx@via.ecp.fr
Kopie:Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Blindkopie: Mummert&Partner
MeskesM/D/ExternalStaff/WLB)
Thema:Re: copyright problem
>>
>> I
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Michael Meskes wrote:
> How about this one?
>
> I told him I would remove the first sentence but other than that it looks
> okay to me.
looks good to me, with or without the first sentence.
it's true, anyway. the GPL is often a source of misunderstanding and
confusion.
Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 04:07:31PM +, Raja R Harinath wrote:
> > > I agree that by using XForms in development, and XForms *is* needed to
> > > compile and run LyX, we have implicitly allowd all users to link Lyx
> > > with XForms.
> >
> > I don't see how it follows. "
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 11:18:53PM +0200, Bart Schuller wrote:
> Because *implicit* permission isn't good enough. By default *nothing* is
> allowed. So every right the authors grant you had better be written down
> in a license accompanying the software, otherwise one of the authors (or
> sometimes
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 04:07:31PM +, Raja R Harinath wrote:
> > I agree that by using XForms in development, and XForms *is* needed to
> > compile and run LyX, we have implicitly allowd all users to link Lyx
> > with XForms.
>
> I don't see how it follows. "we have implicitly allowed all use
How about this one?
I told him I would remove the first sentence but other than that it looks
okay to me.
Michael
- Forwarded message from Matthias Ettrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
If we do something like this, I'd rather suggest a text like:
The GPL is often a source of missunderstandin
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 10:52:19PM +0200, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > I agree that by using XForms in development, and XForms *is* needed to
> > > compile and run LyX, we have implicitly allowd all users to link Lyx
> > > with XForms.
> > >
The main difference is that LyX is THEIR code. The problem w/ KDE is not so
much its own code, rather it links other peoples GPL app w/QT and KDE to make
Kapp. This is the brunt of the legal issue. The authors of app where not asked
if it was ok to link w/QT, nor was the license modified to refl
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 10:52:19PM +0200, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
> > [...]
> > I agree that by using XForms in development, and XForms *is* needed to
> > compile and run LyX, we have implicitly allowd all users to link Lyx
> > with XForms.
> > [...]
>
> I don't think so. It is not enough for KDE,
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 04:07:31PM +, Raja R Harinath wrote:
> I don't see how it follows. "we have implicitly allowed all users to
> link LyX with XForms" does not imply "we have implicitly allowed
> (re)distribution of the resulting LyX binaries", which I guess is the
> issue at hand.
Becau
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would this be enough for LyX? I think so.
>
> - Forwarded message from Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
>
> To: lyx@via.ecp.fr
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: copyright problem
> From: [E
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Michael Meskes wrote:
> Would this be enough for LyX? I think so.
>
>
> [...]
> I agree that by using XForms in development, and XForms *is* needed to
> compile and run LyX, we have implicitly allowd all users to link Lyx
> with XForms.
> [...]
I don't think so. It is not en
Would this be enough for LyX? I think so.
- Forwarded message from Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
To: lyx@via.ecp.fr
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: copyright problem
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes)
Date: 11 Oct 1998 19:17:04 +0200
[...]
I agree that by
On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 00:13:09 EDT Igor Grobman ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> I recently (yesterday, in fact) discovered a wonderful Tcl/Tk-based irc client
> for X called cIRCus. It is by far the best graphical irc client I've seen.
> My first thought was, of course, to package it for Debian, b
I recently (yesterday, in fact) discovered a wonderful Tcl/Tk-based irc client
for X called cIRCus. It is by far the best graphical irc client I've seen.
My first thought was, of course, to package it for Debian, but the copyright
is quite restrictive. There is no source, and it states that "i
26 matches
Mail list logo
