On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 03:27:50PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The Debian logo license is expired. Is there a plan to update it or
> > automatically roll it over again?
>
> Now that we have the constitution we can just vote on the license so we
> don't
Marcus Brinkmann writes:
> Nevertheless, the GPL says the source code is the preferred format to change
> the program.
> We can't redistribute this until we get our hands on the normal source under
> the same license.
De-obfuscating the code (which is permitted by the license) would produce
an or
That was the next issue I wanted to tackle after the proposed DFSG update.
On 18-Jan-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The Debian logo license is expired. Is there a plan to update it or
> automatically roll it over again?
>
--
==
My apologies - my fingers went faster than my brain and I sent this to the
wrong list by mistake.
*blush*
--Jeff
On 18 Jan 1999, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
> I heared on Solaris you have a daemon, which takes username/password
> and tells you if the combination is OK.
rpc.pwdauthd. Nice idea, but Linux doesn't have (as far as I am aware) any
kind of a credentials mechanism so you know you're talking to a _r
Previously [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The Debian logo license is expired. Is there a plan to update it or
> automatically roll it over again?
Now that we have the constitution we can just vote on the license so we
don't have to extend it every couple of months.
Wichert.
--
Previously Philipp Frauenfelder wrote:
> True. Here is an excerpt of this ugly code (I'm sending as is,
> no line breakin):
Looks like code to remove nodes from a double-linked list. The uglifying
seems quite simple to fix though, using a vi-macro and indent I got it
readble in a couple of seconds
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The Debian logo license is expired. Is there a plan to update it or
> automatically roll it over again?
Why not change it to a constantly rolling over license. The way I
understand it, we have this license to prevent bad things from being done
with
On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 07:37:38AM +0100, Philipp Frauenfelder wrote:
>
> This should be possible. the #ifdefs are not uglified and what I
> copied from the source above does not look to ugly. If it's
> really necessary to change something one could renicify the
> source.
Nevertheless, the GPL sa
The Debian logo license is expired. Is there a plan to update it or
automatically roll it over again?
Just curious,
--
Brian Servis
-
"Never criticize anybody until you have walked a mile in their shoes,
because by that time
Hi,
Craig Sanders:
> alternatively, the uglified files are GPL-ed, so it is permissable to
> de-uglify them :-)
True. Here is an excerpt of this ugly code (I'm sending as is,
no line breakin):
{ GNODE h,*hp; assert((node)); ; if ((( node )->next) /*;static void gs_ide30
(node);
*/ ) (( (( node
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Your dual-license scheme would be DFSG-compliant.
I'm not so sure about that, given that DFSG talks about allowing
derived works to be distributed under the *same* license as the
original.
Here is my current attempt to dodge around that:
Foobar is copy
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> alternatively, the uglified files are GPL-ed, so it is permissable to
> de-uglify them :-)
> depending on how hairy they are, it might be no more than a few hours
> work with gnu indent and vi (s/vi/your preferred text editor/)
It's not as bad as it co
13 matches
Mail list logo
