On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 06:08:13PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 04-Apr-00, 17:27 (CDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Unfortunetly, it's not consistent with many of the non-DFSG-free
> > licenses. You'd be violating licenses if you did this with many of the
> > packages in non-free,
>
> 1. N
On 04-Apr-00, 17:27 (CDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Unfortunetly, it's not consistent with many of the non-DFSG-free
> licenses. You'd be violating licenses if you did this with many of the
> packages in non-free,
1. Non-free is not Debian. :-)
2. I'm not sure this is true. Don't we have to ha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 03:12:14PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> > That scheme is totally consistent with the intentions of DFSG-free licenses.
>
> Unfortunetly, it's not consistent with many of the non-DFSG-free licenses.
> You'd be violating licenses if you did t
begin [EMAIL PROTECTED] quotation:
> Unfortunetly, it's not consistent with many of the non-DFSG-free
> licenses. You'd be violating licenses if you did this with many of
> the packages in non-free, so if you want to do it for any of those,
> you should take a look at the license first. (Because
On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 03:12:14PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> That scheme is totally consistent with the intentions of DFSG-free licenses.
Unfortunetly, it's not consistent with many of the non-DFSG-free licenses.
You'd be violating licenses if you did this with many of the packages in
non
That scheme is totally consistent with the intentions of DFSG-free licenses.
I bet it would be really popular here in San Francisco, where we also have
a bunch of courier services.
I assume that nobody going to call anything "Official Debian" (or any
incautious or unacknowledged use of any tradem
Dear,
We
are planning to start a new download site for public downloads which will be a
little different from all existing download sites.
In
short words the users will be able to do a “download” of public available
software but instead of getting the information electronically vi
On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 07:42:36PM +0200, Andreas Voegele wrote:
> Are the QPL and the LGPL compatible or should the Qt notice mentioned
> at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html also be used?
>
> I have asked the author of the Python Bindings for Qt and KDE if he
> could add the Qt not
Are the QPL and the LGPL compatible or should the Qt notice mentioned
at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html also be used?
I have asked the author of the Python Bindings for Qt and KDE if he
could add the Qt notice and he is going to add it, but he is also
considering to use the LGPL i
I wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > In other words, if I write a GPL'd function find_outer_otter, and you
> > call it from your own function locate_inner_otter, in you program
> > frob-otters, then:
> > 2) If locate_inner_otter is not derived from find_outer_otter, but
> > you dis
10 matches
Mail list logo
