Re: Licensing, was elvis package

Mark W. Eichin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The motif code in emacs is relatively new, and totally cosmetic. Hm... in that case, I'm surprised it's there at all. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

> emacs needed to work with motif to run on proprietary operating systems Uhh, that's deep into fantasy land. Emacs didn't use *any* widget set until emacs19, and emacs18 worked all over the place (and the problems it had on newer platforms had far more to do with memory allocation than window s

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

At 14:17 28/04/98 -0400, Raul Miller wrote: >Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> which is my point on, the fact that it's a little hypocritical (not very, >> but a little), for the FSF to make emacs compilable out of the box for >> Motif. They would never do that for Qt, which would be "fre

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > which is my point on, the fact that it's a little hypocritical (not very, > but a little), for the FSF to make emacs compilable out of the box for > Motif. They would never do that for Qt, which would be "free" to compile > with, but Motif, which would cos

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

At 13:09 27/04/98 -0400, Raul Miller wrote: >Richard Braakman wrote: >> >The GPL specifically forbids the OS vendor from making use of the >> >shipped-with-the-OS clause. (This closes a large loophole). >> >So if Motif is considered a standard part of the Red Hat OS, then >> >everyone *except* Red

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

At 13:04 27/04/98 -0400, Raul Miller wrote: >Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But you did need a special license to compile for Motif. > >Good point. which is my point on, the fact that it's a little hypocritical (not very, but a little), for the FSF to make emacs compilable out of the b

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

At 13:04 27/04/98 -0400, Raul Miller wrote: >Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> As an aside, I am beggining to think that we need a better license, >> >> from a legal perspective, because with all the issues of shared >> >> libraries, "essential parts", and who knows what else, if someon

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

Richard Braakman wrote: > >The GPL specifically forbids the OS vendor from making use of the > >shipped-with-the-OS clause. (This closes a large loophole). > >So if Motif is considered a standard part of the Red Hat OS, then > >everyone *except* Red Hat can distribute such a program. Shaya Potter

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But you did need a special license to compile for Motif. Good point. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> As an aside, I am beggining to think that we need a better license, > >> from a legal perspective, because with all the issues of shared > >> libraries, "essential parts", and who knows what else, if someone > >> would really try to challange the GPL in

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

Richard Braakman wrote: >Shaya Potter wrote: >> What defines a standard linux installation. Each dist. in reality is it's >> own OS. Red Hat ships Motif, would it be legal for them to distribute a >> GPL'd program linked with Motif, and not for debian? > >The GPL specifically forbids the OS vendo

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

At 04:14 PM 4/26/98 -0400, Raul Miller wrote: >Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> As an aside, I am beggining to think that we need a better license, >> from a legal perspective, because with all the issues of shared >> libraries, "essential parts", and who knows what else, if someone >>

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

At 12:08 26-04-98 -0400, Raul Miller wrote: >Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> You're probably thinking of xemacs. > >[Or, as other people have pointed out, emacs for systems where you >don't need a special license to be legally entitled to use motif.] But you did need a special license to

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, GPL or less restrictive as far as source code redistribution is > concerned. Right? Unless you want to discuss the particulars of license details, yes. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troub

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

> There were really two issues brought up in this thread: > > (1) That the GPL required that other linked in software also > be GPL licensed. This is false. Well, GPL or less restrictive as far as source code redistribution is concerned. Right? Alex Y. -- _ _( )_ ( (o___ +-

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raul Miller) wrote on 26.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, > > > under Section 2) in object code or executable f

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raul Miller) wrote on 26.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, > > under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of > > Sections 1 and 2 above p

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, > under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of > Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: >

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

> Please quote the relevant section. With pleasure :) > Meanwhile, here's an extract from the GPL that might interest you: > >These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If >identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, >and can be reasonably con

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not exactly. GPL says that I can distribute a binary if it's source code > of it and all of it parts (and libraries used) is available under GPL. Please quote the relevant section. Meanwhile, here's an extract from the GPL that might interest you:

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

> Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > First of all, there is no distinction between static and dynamic > > linkage from either Motif license or GPL point of view. (Well, > > actually Motif has one restriction on distribution of statically > > linked _shared_libraries_, for quite obvious r

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First of all, there is no distinction between static and dynamic > linkage from either Motif license or GPL point of view. (Well, > actually Motif has one restriction on distribution of statically > linked _shared_libraries_, for quite obvious reason - to

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

> Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If you think the GPL is wierd, you should take a look at the Motif > > > license for Linux. > > > > Looking... > > And so??? > > > > Way less restrictive as far as linking with the library is concerned. > > You're talking about dynamic linking or

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you think the GPL is wierd, you should take a look at the Motif > > license for Linux. > > Looking... > And so??? > > Way less restrictive as far as linking with the library is concerned. You're talking about dynamic linking or static linking? De

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

> If you think the GPL is wierd, you should take a look at the Motif > license for Linux. Looking... And so??? Way less restrictive as far as linking with the library is concerned. Alex Y. -- _ _( )_ ( (o___ +---+ | _ 7

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What defines a standard linux installation. Each dist. in reality > is it's own OS. Red Hat ships Motif, would it be legal for them to > distribute a GPL'd program linked with Motif, and not for debian? Only if the result can "be licensed as a whole at no

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

Shaya Potter wrote: > What defines a standard linux installation. Each dist. in reality is it's > own OS. Red Hat ships Motif, would it be legal for them to distribute a > GPL'd program linked with Motif, and not for debian? The GPL specifically forbids the OS vendor from making use of the shipp

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

> As an aside, I am beggining to think that we need a better license, from a > legal perspective, because with all the issues of shared libraries, > "essential parts", and who knows what else, if someone would really try to > challange the GPL in a court, I don't know if it would stand up. > > Sha

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

At 09:40 26-04-98 -0600, James LewisMoss wrote: >> On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 09:52:32 +0300 (IDT), Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >> My main point was this: if the GPL has this clause about the > >> components of a program being free, what with the large quantity > >> of programs being Qt

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

At 09:28 26-04-98 -0400, Avery Pennarun wrote: >On Sun, Apr 26, 1998 at 09:06:56AM -0400, Alex Yukhimets wrote: > >> Linking with Motif of GPL'd software only allowed on operating systems >> which get shipped with Motif as an essential part of it (like Solaris). >> Which means that linking with Mot

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

At 09:06 26-04-98 -0400, Alex Yukhimets wrote: >> >My main point was this: if the GPL has this clause about the >> >components of a program being free, what with the large quantity of >> >programs being Qtized, why haven't we seen any action? >> >> Probably because it's allowed, doesn't the FSF d

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You're probably thinking of xemacs. [Or, as other people have pointed out, emacs for systems where you don't need a special license to be legally entitled to use motif.] -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscrib

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Probably because it's allowed, doesn't the FSF distribute emacs linked or > with the ability to link out of the box against Motif? You're probably thinking of xemacs. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe"

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

> On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 09:52:32 +0300 (IDT), Shaya Potter <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> said: >> My main point was this: if the GPL has this clause about the >> components of a program being free, what with the large quantity >> of programs being Qtized, why haven't we seen any action? Shaya>

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

On Sun, Apr 26, 1998 at 09:06:56AM -0400, Alex Yukhimets wrote: > Linking with Motif of GPL'd software only allowed on operating systems > which get shipped with Motif as an essential part of it (like Solaris). > Which means that linking with Motif on Linux is not allowed. (I asked RMS > directly

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

> >My main point was this: if the GPL has this clause about the > >components of a program being free, what with the large quantity of > >programs being Qtized, why haven't we seen any action? > > Probably because it's allowed, doesn't the FSF distribute emacs linked or > with the ability to link

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

On Sun, Apr 26, 1998 at 09:52:32AM +0300, Shaya Potter wrote: > Probably because it's allowed, doesn't the FSF distribute emacs linked or > with the ability to link out of the box against Motif? "linked or with the ability to be linked" -- perhaps that's the critical difference. I don't think FS

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

David Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 11:49:10PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: >> David Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > So why haven't we seen this enforced, or has it happend but quietly? >> > I do note that there is no kemacs.., but there are things like >> > krpm..

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

David Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My main point was this: if the GPL has this clause about the > components of a program being free, what with the large quantity of > programs being Qtized, why haven't we seen any action? I don't know. Where are these large quantity of programs? Most li

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

On Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 11:49:10PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > David Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So why haven't we seen this enforced, or has it happend but quietly? > > I do note that there is no kemacs.., but there are things like > > krpm.. hrm.. I'd have to look at the list, but... on

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

David Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was, for those of you who are not mind readers, of course referring > to the Qt stuff. My mind was half out the door...:-> Oh.. er... I still don't understand what you were trying to say. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

David Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So why haven't we seen this enforced, or has it happend but quietly? > I do note that there is no kemacs.., but there are things like > krpm.. hrm.. I'd have to look at the list, but... one would think that > at least RMS would enforce things under the FSF'

Re: Licensing, was elvis package

On Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 08:16:58PM -0700, David Welton wrote: > > So why haven't we seen this enforced, or has it happend but quietly? > I do note that there is no kemacs.., but there are things like > krpm.. hrm.. I'd have to look at the list, but... one would think that > at least RMS would enfo

Licensing, was elvis package

On Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 11:09:25PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in > > whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any > > part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third > > parties und

Re: elvis package

Charles Briscoe-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'm pretty sure that a program must be either entirely GPLed, > >> or contain no GPLed parts. In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Raul Miller writes: > >More precisely, the non-gpled parts must not have terms which prevent > >compliance with the

Re: elvis package

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Raul Miller writes: >Charles Briscoe-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm pretty sure that a program must be either entirely GPLed, >> or contain no GPLed parts. > >More precisely, the non-gpled parts must not have terms which prevent >compliance with the gpled

Re: elvis package

On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Alexey Marinichev wrote: > Anyway, I do not think we should have X support compiled in > vim, rather it should be a different package or something like > that. It's pretty bad debian policy forbids it. Do like I do with wmaker: compile several binaries[1]. One with X, one w

Re: elvis package

On Wed, Apr 22, 1998 at 06:27:03PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > I'm pretty sure that a program must be either entirely GPLed, > > or contain no GPLed parts. > > More precisely, the non-gpled parts must not have terms which prevent > compliance with the gpled parts. Uhh, the GPL does not state

Re: elvis package

Charles Briscoe-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm pretty sure that a program must be either entirely GPLed, > or contain no GPLed parts. More precisely, the non-gpled parts must not have terms which prevent compliance with the gpled parts. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT

Re: elvis package

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: >On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Martin Schulze wrote: > >> This might look confusing but the situation is different as >> the author of vile is aware of the unfreeness and distributes >> new parts under the GPL. >> >> "the bulk of vile _cannot_ be covered by the GPL

Re: elvis package

On Fri, Apr 17, 1998 at 01:30:36PM -0400, Alex Yukhimets wrote: > > 4 or 5? No, in fact there are only 2 vi clones in main: nvi and vim. > > ae and emacs in vi-mode certainly don't count. elvis, unlike nvi and vim > > is the only one with X support. We should continue to push for it to be > > made

Re: elvis package

On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Martin Schulze wrote: > On Fri, Apr 17, 1998 at 08:51:57PM +0100, James Troup wrote: > > Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > It's free as it seems from the first view. The second view tells > > > you it's non-free, unfortunately. > > > > > > Nevertheless I'

Re: elvis package

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > I wish you good luck contacting the author. Neither the former > elvis maintainer, Anders Something, nor me were able to contact > him. We both sent mail to him but didn't get any response. This > makes me very sad and angry about it. This is the r

Re: elvis package

Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Someone wrote: > > > 4 or 5? No, in fact there are only 2 vi clones in main: nvi and vim. > > > ae and emacs in vi-mode certainly don't count. elvis, unlike nvi and vim > > > is the only one with X support. We should continue to push for it to be > > >

Re: elvis package

On Fri, Apr 17, 1998 at 08:51:57PM +0100, James Troup wrote: > Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > It's free as it seems from the first view. The second view tells > > you it's non-free, unfortunately. > > > > Nevertheless I'm packaging it right now. > > You ask Martin not to work

Re: elvis package

Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's free as it seems from the first view. The second view tells > you it's non-free, unfortunately. > > Nevertheless I'm packaging it right now. You ask Martin not to work on elvis because it's non-free but then announce you're working on the non-fr

Re: elvis package

On Fri, Apr 17, 1998 at 09:38:01AM -0700, David Welton wrote: > On Sat, Apr 18, 1998 at 02:13:52AM +1000, Martin Mitchell wrote: > > > > We have about 4 or 5 other vi clones so there is no need for > > > re-packaging it. If you don't need it I'd appreciate you work > > > on better packages. > >

Re: elvis package

On Fri, Apr 17, 1998 at 02:13:01PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 1998 at 09:11:41AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > This fails #3 and #7 of the DFSG. (Bug#14953 from 16 Nov 1997) > > Ho hum.. the web server is still down. Unfortunately

Re: elvis package

Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 17, 1998 at 09:11:41AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > This fails #3 and #7 of the DFSG. (Bug#14953 from 16 Nov 1997) Ho hum.. the web server is still down. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscrib

Re: elvis package

On Fri, Apr 17, 1998 at 09:11:41AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Elvis is non-free and the author ignores all mail coming from us, > > both copyright mails as well as bugreports and fixes. > > Er... then why isn't it in non-free? Also, why is it our hig

Re: elvis package

Someone wrote: > > 4 or 5? No, in fact there are only 2 vi clones in main: nvi and vim. > > ae and emacs in vi-mode certainly don't count. elvis, unlike nvi and vim > > is the only one with X support. We should continue to push for it to be > > made free. I wish you good luck contacting the author

Re: elvis package

> 4 or 5? No, in fact there are only 2 vi clones in main: nvi and vim. > ae and emacs in vi-mode certainly don't count. elvis, unlike nvi and vim > is the only one with X support. We should continue to push for it to be > made free. Vim 5 has *very* nice X interface for both Athena and Motif. I,

Re: elvis package

Enrique Zanardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Apr 18, 1998 at 02:13:52AM +1000, Martin Mitchell wrote: > > > > 4 or 5? No, in fact there are only 2 vi clones in main: nvi and vim. > > ae and emacs in vi-mode certainly don't count. elvis, unlike nvi and vim > > is the only one with X suppo

Re: elvis package

Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Elvis is non-free and the author ignores all mail coming from us, > both copyright mails as well as bugreports and fixes. Er... then why isn't it in non-free? Also, why is it our highest preference editor? Also, what aspect of the copyright notice puts

Re: elvis package

On Sat, Apr 18, 1998 at 02:13:52AM +1000, Martin Mitchell wrote: > > We have about 4 or 5 other vi clones so there is no need for > > re-packaging it. If you don't need it I'd appreciate you work > > on better packages. > > 4 or 5? No, in fact there are only 2 vi clones in main: nvi and vim. >

Re: elvis package

On Sat, Apr 18, 1998 at 02:13:52AM +1000, Martin Mitchell wrote: > > 4 or 5? No, in fact there are only 2 vi clones in main: nvi and vim. > ae and emacs in vi-mode certainly don't count. elvis, unlike nvi and vim > is the only one with X support. We should continue to push for it to be > made free

Re: elvis package

Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I will take over the orphaned elvis package, unless someone else has already > > said they'll do it. > > Elvis is non-free and the author ignores all mail coming from us, > both copyright mails as well as bugreports a

Re: elvis package

On Fri, Apr 17, 1998 at 03:22:46AM +1000, Martin Mitchell wrote: > I will take over the orphaned elvis package, unless someone else has already > said they'll do it. Elvis is non-free and the author ignores all mail coming from us, both copyright mails as well as bugreports and fixe

elvis package

I will take over the orphaned elvis package, unless someone else has already said they'll do it. Martin. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]