On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 01:48:43PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Any reason, aside from the lack of volunteers, why we can't do what we
> do with netscape/staroffice/etc.? Even if we can't distribute it, can't
> we have a loader package? (No, I'm not volunteering, I don't own a 3dfx
> card either.
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 01:48:43PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> James A. Treacy wrote:
>
> > A number of people would like to see a 3dfx package of mesa. This can
> > not be done unless there is a legal package of glide (under the
> > current license I can't even get the libs since I don't own a 3
James A. Treacy wrote:
> A number of people would like to see a 3dfx package of mesa. This can
> not be done unless there is a legal package of glide (under the
> current license I can't even get the libs since I don't own a 3dfx
> card).
Any reason, aside from the lack of volunteers, why we can'
Edward Betts writes:
> This is a new licence on a new version that has NOT been uploaded.
That was not clear to me.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
On Sat, 10 Oct, 1998, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Roderick Schertler writes:
> > If nobody wants to take up this torch I'm going to suggest the existing
> > package be dropped from the distribution. If anybody _does_ want to try
> > to deal with this, please let me know.
>
> > New license:
> > ---
On 10 Oct 1998 16:48:44 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> This proprietary commercial software and if it is on any Debian servers
> it must be removed *immediately*.
It is as if you ignored the explanatory part of the message and just
read the license. That wasn't useful. I know the license doe
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 04:48:44PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > If nobody wants to take up this torch I'm going to suggest the existing
> > package be dropped from the distribution. If anybody _does_ want to try
> > to deal with this, please let me know.
>
> > New license:
> >
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 04:48:44PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> This proprietary commercial software and if it is on any Debian servers it
> must be removed *immediately*. No waiting to see if they might change the
> license. It must be removed *now*.
>
A number of people would like to s
Roderick Schertler writes:
> If nobody wants to take up this torch I'm going to suggest the existing
> package be dropped from the distribution. If anybody _does_ want to try
> to deal with this, please let me know.
> New license:
>
> ...
> ...
This proprietary commercial software
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 01:14:17PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> Roderick> RESTRICTIONS: You may not: 1. Sublicense the Materials;
> Roderick> 2. Reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the
> Roderick> enclosed software; 3. Use the Materials for for any
> Roderick> platform or
On 10 Oct 1998 13:14:17 -0700, Ben Gertzfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
[license elided]
>
> This is *so* non-free it can't even go on our FTP site. You can't make
> copies of the materials other than for back-up purposes.
I know, that's exactly what I said in my message. I was asking if
anybod
> "Roderick" == Roderick Schertler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Roderick> RESTRICTIONS: You may not: 1. Sublicense the Materials;
Roderick> 2. Reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the
Roderick> enclosed software; 3. Use the Materials for for any
Roderick> platform or prod
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 11:21:12 -0500, Zed Pobre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> libglide-voodoo:
> Provides: libglide
> Conflicts: libglide, libglide-voodoo2, libglide-voodoorush
>
> libglide-voodoo2:
> Provides: libglide
> Conflicts: libglide, libglide-voodoo, libglide-
The Glide library is a mess. It's non-free and no source is available. As
distributed by the upstream author you get a library called libglide2x.so,
with no embedded soname. I had packaged up an old version of this library.
I went to update the package and I found that the situation has gotten
14 matches
Mail list logo
