Your message dated Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:30:16 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line closing
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen t
I downloaded the CVS version of Winex (which seems pretty much the same as
Wine).
Either the CVS version is different to the binaries, or subscribers have
been had. Although,
it compiled, none of the Direct3D stuff worked.
D.Radel.
- Original Message -
From: "Dmitry Borodaenko" <[EMAIL PRO
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 05:17:23PM +1200, D & E Radel wrote:
DER> Any news on this subject?
Sorry for delay, I wasn't subscribed to this bug, so I missed your
message.
I have lost interest in WineX (it doesn't give me any improvement over
standard free Wine), and I am too overloaded to package i
Any news on this subject?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I would volunteer to take that action and package winex-light for
> Debian, if no one else (knghtbrd?) is willing to do it [1], and if no
> one presents here on debian-devel good [2] reasons not to do it. I would
> also very much like to see opinion of Ove Kaaven, current Debian wine
> maintainer
OOPPPSS!!! Sorry about the html post. Should read:
Their argument that if mass distribution of Winex occurs, they''d go out of
business is so NOT valid.
If they had invested mega-bucks developing the code from scratch, they'd
have a point.
However, they have merely *added to* code written by many
Their argument that if mass distribution of Winex
occurs, they''d go out of business is so NOT valid.
If they had invested mega-bucks developing the code
from scratch, they'd have a point.
However, they have merely *added to* code written
by many hardworking volunteers. What do
these people
* Ove Kaaven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020603 11:51]:
> There was a change in the license preamble in the WineX CVS about a week
> ago. Does it suffice?
ooo. spirit vs actual sledgehammers. Of course, it isn't on the HEAD
for some reason on viewcvs.
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/wine
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 06:54:36PM +0200, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> > > > If they simply change the license now to reflect their true
> > > > intentions, then that would be fine.
> > >
> > > There was a change in the license preamble in the WineX CVS about a week
> > > ago. Does it suffice?
> >
> > C
On 3 Jun 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Ove Kaaven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 3 Jun 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> >
> > > If they simply change the license now to reflect their true
> > > intentions, then that would be fine.
> >
> > There was a change in the license prea
Ove Kaaven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 3 Jun 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > If they simply change the license now to reflect their true
> > intentions, then that would be fine.
>
> There was a change in the license preamble in the WineX CVS about a week
> ago. Does it suffice?
C
Ove Kaaven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But in the role of a transgaming affiliate, I'd prefer that you
> don't if you want them to have an income; they're not "lying", the
> license do allow you to make packages, but that permission is meant
> to allow "fair use" (you can make packages for yours
On 3 Jun 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> If they simply change the license now to reflect their true
> intentions, then that would be fine.
There was a change in the license preamble in the WineX CVS about a week
ago. Does it suffice?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
* Ove Kaaven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020603 10:46]:
> you to make packages, but that permission is meant to allow "fair use"
Then the license should have been written that way, eh? Private
distribution of binaries are ok or something to that effect?
Gimmie a break.
--
Scott Dier <[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 03:09:33AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Since Transgaming is essentially lying about the license, would it not
> > be at least valuable to expose them more publicly by starting such a
> > distribution to force their
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 03:09:33AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Since Transgaming is essentially lying about the license, would it not
> be at least valuable to expose them more publicly by starting such a
> distribution to force their hand?
Agreed.
I would volunteer to take that action a
>> 6. Will it be in debian?
>> As things are now, no...
>> Distributing it would only be temporary (most likely, it would be
>> cut off before it even reaches unstable).
> Since Transgaming is essentially lying about the license, would it not
> be at least valuable to expose them more publicly by
Marc Leeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 6. Will it be in debian?
> As things are now, no...
> Distributing it would only be temporary (most likely, it would be
> cut off before it even reaches unstable).
Since Transgaming is essentially lying about the license, would it not
be at least valuable
The following text summarises (for me) the TransGaming experience (most
probably to their relief). I am going to remove all related packages
and look for some orphaned package to satisfy me "tweaking" need :)
Thanks to those on debian-devel (and RMS) for making suggestions to the
text.
=
Wine
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 07:32:25PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> This has never been Debian's attitude, and it shouldn't be so now.
>
> If it has a license appropriate for inclusion in Debian, or the
> non-Debian nonfree archive, and there is a developer interested in
> maintaining Debian p
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 07:48:08AM -0400, christophe barbé wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:45:41PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> > > The ITP says that the source is in sourceforge. Isn't sourceforge
> > > restricted to free software projects?
> > Apparently not. (I wondered this, too.)
> SF.net a
reopen 147303
thanks
Hello Marc,
thanks alot that you are till willing to package the
available WineX parts under the Alladin License!!
Thank you!!
--
Noèl Köthe
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2002-05-23 at 03:37, Marc Leeman wrote:
> I
> suggest to refer to the package from as:
> winex-light
>
> This should reduce the kind of "dilution" and "confusion" reaction, how
> misguided they might be...
>
> the "light" reflects the
> 1. not including Microsoft dll's
> 2. binary insta
WITHOUT CHANGING ANYTHING TO THE CURRENT LIMBO STATE OF THE PACKAGE,
(not pushed into debian for the moment, but in discussion) I
suggest to refer to the package from as:
winex-light
This should reduce the kind of "dilution" and "confusion" reaction, how
misguided they might be...
the "light"
> I'd like to register my objection to this package being installed, even
> in non-free. As a Transgaming subscriber and supporter of their work, I
> don't want to see Transgaming's work be diluted, and I imagine that many
> people feel similarly. I urge the prospective maintainer to reconsider.
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, I agree. But I also said "I urge the prospective maintainer to
> reconsider." because I recognise that it's totally up to the prospective
> maintainer. I personally don't wish it to be included, but can't do a
> whole lot if the maintainer sees different
On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 22:32, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> If it has a license appropriate for inclusion in Debian, or the
> non-Debian nonfree archive, and there is a developer interested in
> maintaining Debian packages in accord with the usual rules, we should
> do so.
Yes, I agree. But I also
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd like to register my objection to this package being installed, even
> in non-free. As a Transgaming subscriber and supporter of their work, I
> don't want to see Transgaming's work be diluted, and I imagine that many
> people feel similarly. I urge the pr
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 09:40:59PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> > * Package name: winex
> > [...]
> > This version of the TransGaming Wine Branch [...]
>
> I'd like to register my objection to this package being installed, even
> in non-free. As a Transgaming subscriber and supporter of their work
On Fri, 2002-05-17 at 16:56, Marc Leeman wrote:
> * Package name: winex
> [...]
> This version of the TransGaming Wine Branch [...]
I'd like to register my objection to this package being installed, even
in non-free. As a Transgaming subscriber and supporter of their work, I
don't want to see
Your message dated Tue, 21 May 2002 21:57:07 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Cannot be packaged: WineX -- wine with compatibility for games
developed using MS DirectX
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has
Marc Leeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> This version of the TransGaming Wine Branch is compiled with OpenGL
> support. The sources can be found (from the original CVS) on
> http://sourceforge.net/cvs/?group_id=17631. This package is compiled
> against the 1.0-2880 version of the NVidia dr
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 10:56:12PM +0200, Marc Leeman wrote:
> This version of the TransGaming Wine Branch is compiled with OpenGL
> support. The sources can be found (from the original CVS) on
> http://sourceforge.net/cvs/?group_id=17631. This package is compiled
> against the 1.0-2880 version of
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 05:19:23PM +0200, Marc Leeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> > > He also mentioned the possibility to change the license to explicitly
> > > forbid the distribution of binaries.
> >
> > How can they do that? Isn't WINE GPL?
>
> Ok, I'm moving onto thin ice her
> > He also mentioned the possibility to change the license to explicitly
> > forbid the distribution of binaries.
>
> How can they do that? Isn't WINE GPL?
Ok, I'm moving onto thin ice here, since I do not know the knitty gritty
of licensing.
Wine used to be a X11 license (I think), which is
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 01:18:56PM +0200, Marc Leeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> He also mentioned the possibility to change the license to explicitly
> forbid the distribution of binaries.
How can they do that? Isn't WINE GPL?
Daniel
--
/ Daniel Burrows <
> > http://sourceforge.net/cvs/?group_id=17631. This package is compiled
> > against the 1.0-2880 version of the NVidia drivers (nvidia: loading
> > NVIDIA NVdriver Kernel Module 1.0-2880 Tue Mar 26 08:12:38 PST 2002)
> > and was built with winex-compile.sh v0.97."
> E, why?
Because I compil
Marc Leeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://sourceforge.net/cvs/?group_id=17631. This package is compiled
> against the 1.0-2880 version of the NVidia drivers (nvidia: loading
> NVIDIA NVdriver Kernel Module 1.0-2880 Tue Mar 26 08:12:38 PST 2002)
> and was built with winex-compile.sh v0.97.
Marc Leeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit:
> Package: wnpp
> Version: N/A; reported 2002-05-17
> Severity: wishlist
>
> * Package name: winex
> Version : x.y.z
what version ?
> Upstream Author : Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
er.. who ?
> * URL : http://sourcef
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2002-05-17
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: winex
Version : x.y.z
Upstream Author : Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://sourceforge.net/cvs/?group_id=17631
* License : Aladdin Free Public License
Description : A D
40 matches
Mail list logo
