Well, maybe the GPL is broken when it comes to situations like this. What
I don't understand is, if something doesn't contain any GPL'd code, how
can the GPL force me to put my product under it. So it has the interface
calls to library/.dll, copyrights don't cover how something works,
patents d
I am the previous maintainer of mgetty (and the maintainer on file in
the latest version.)
I had given it to Siggy Brentrup because I didn't have time to
maintain it anymore. Siggy then had a fire and was unable to develop
it for some time. About 1 - 1.5 months ago, he told me he would have
a ne
The following message is a list of items to be completed for the upcoming
releases of Debian GNU/Linux. If something is missing, incorrect, or you want
to take responsibility for one or more items, please send email to:
Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This document was last modified at Time-stam
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
One package with misc/general manpages and another with development
manpages. What do you think?
--
Nicolás Lichtmaier.-
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
'=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Ole?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F8rgen?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?Tetlie=22?=
wrote:'
>
>Hello,
>
>for SmallEiffel (which I am packaging) to work at all, it needs an
>env-variable to be set. Should it be set with a preinst-script? I
>wouldn't like that to happen to my system, but I don't see any o
On Jun 2, 11:50am, Peter Tobias wrote:
> > - slay - tiny script to kill all processes a user has. This is ready.
>
> 'kill -9 0' does this too :-).
Oh, not really.
It kills all *your* processes, while slay kills someone else's processes.
There's a tiny difference, isn't it?
I'm only not absolutel
Mark Eichin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> libdb would be an issue if you used the db interfaces; if you used the
> dbm_* interfaces, you'd presumably be ok...
But the original libdb was covered by the BSD copyright; the libc6
copyright states: "All code incorporated from 4.4 BSD is under
Mark Eichin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Given that we already have "sp" and a bunch of other sgml tools, it
> would be nice if someone packaged jade as well -- since it has decent
> conversion tools, as metioned below...
I start packaging it yesterday and should be ready for upload soon. It
com
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One package with misc/general manpages and another with development
> manpages. What do you think?
What would be the relative sizes of each? In theory I'm in favor.
--
Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12167 Airport Rd, DeWitt MI 4
Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
>ESR has, IMHO, decided to start a pissing match about ncurses
>development. I have no desire to participate or watch.
Mr. Dorman's opinion is understandable but mistaken.
The senior maintainers and copyright holders of ncurses (Zeyd benHalim
and myself) both feel very
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
> >ESR has, IMHO, decided to start a pissing match about ncurses
> >development. I have no desire to participate or watch.
> Mr. Dorman's opinion is understandable but mistaken.
Although I feel a deep and abiding disgust a
> The senior maintainers and copyright holders of ncurses (Zeyd benHalim
> and myself) both feel very strongly that Thomas Dickey hijacked the
> project in a way that was unethical, injurious to the interests of
> the free-software community, and arguably flat-out illegal under our
> license terms
I just wrote:
> In addition, all of the programs
> compiled against it should be moved out of the main distribution,
> and into contrib.
(I just noticed that dselect/dpkg falls into this category)
This is not a good situation.
Cheers,
- Jim
pgpPwqLOmli3A.pgp
Description: PGP signature
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
> From: Enrique Zanardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Only NON-COMMERCIAL distribution allowed.
>
> That puts it in non-free.
OK, I have gotten some replies from the author regarding copyright
issues. Does it still belong in non-free? (It appears his intent
John Goerzen:
> What is the proper section for Perl modules? Should they go into
> devel, interpreters, libs, what?
>
> I am a little confused about this since Perl modules kinda fit the
> descriptions for all of those.
They're used at runtime, so they shouldn't go in devel.
The modules aren't t
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Redistribution of
> modified versions by other people than myself is not allowed.
This sentence is still problematic. We are distributing modified
binaries and files to modify the source (though not actually
distributing modified source).
Guy
--
T
: And you have, I believe, stated that you are unwilling to see ncurses
: released with a license that guarantees redistribution or modified
: versions at this time.
: How do we resolve this issue?
A. Find an curses library that works. Ncurses not only has a licence problem
but as far as I can
s
On 3 Jun 1997, John Goerzen wrote:
> OK, I have gotten some replies from the author regarding copyright
> issues. Does it still belong in non-free? (It appears his intent is
> basically to keep companies from charging for it...) Below is the
> copyright file I'm distributing with it:
[...]
Th
From: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Kees Lemmens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yep, as long as the CDROM's are sold for reasonable prices: all software on
> these distributions is free, so they only should be paid for their efforts
> to put it on the CD's. I think a maximum of approx. 20-25 $ coul
> "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
> > >ESR has, IMHO, decided to start a pissing match about ncurses
> > >development. I have no desire to participate or watch.
> > Mr. Dorman's opinion is understandable but mistaken.
>
> Although I feel a deep and abi
Hi.
In 1.3 release announcement Debian compatibility with rpm and
Slackware packages mentioned 2 times. And one time it explicitly
states that it is achieved via enclosed utility to convert
mentioned packages to Debian format. (This is "alien", right? :)
How can we cope with the fact that Slackw
Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> I don't yet know. I believe Debian's position on this is (a)
> unreasonable, and (b) not even internally consistent. Are you going
> to also cease immediately distributing all of the important software
> released under the Artistic License and similar ones?
I don't thin
From: "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Are you going to also cease immediately distributing all of the
> important software released under the Artistic License
This appears to be a red herring. The Artistic License policy on
modifications does not seem to be much different from the GPL's.
A
25 matches
Mail list logo
