On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 09:41:28AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > If a package is distributed under a DFSG license, a dependency with the
> > [Sun's]
> > JDK (or other non-free libraries/compilers/tools) make it non-free?
>
> No, it moves it to "contrib" (that's where I've put Muffin). C
On Tuesday 7 December 1999, at 2 h 44, the keyboard of Julio Maia
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would RMS love the fact that some packages require the non-free JDK to
> compile, while being distributed under the GPL?
Muffin is in that case. Yes, it is probably on the edge of GPL-compliance. I
p
On Mon, Dec 06, 1999 at 02:30:11PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> *I* would not mind (I'm a pragmatic), providing the *detailed* (i.e.
> Makefile) instructions for recompiling are in the Debian package (one of the
> packages which started the thread seems genuinely incompilable on Debian).
On Monday 6 December 1999, at 10 h 49, the keyboard of Stefan Gybas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it is Java-specific as JAR files are architecture independent (unlike
> ..o and .a files).
It changes nothing to the issues of freedom vs. non-freedom.
> 1. building the package is a lot f
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> IMHO, it is not a Java-specific issue and I would post it on debian-project.
I think it is Java-specific as JAR files are architecture independent (unlike
.o and .a files).
I also have a Java package (GNUJSP) which just uses the upstream JAR instead
of recompiling. I
On Monday 6 December 1999, at 5 h 47, the keyboard of Julio Maia
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to have a direction to follow regarding the use of pre-compiled
> classes in Debian packages. In other words, is really necessary to compile
> all the classes that go inside a Debian package,
6 matches
Mail list logo
