[cc to lwn dropped, this is also heading offtopic for -legal]
On Mon, May 29, 2000 at 10:17:19AM -0700, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> > Or unless the Harmony project [2] succeeds to a similar degree that
> > lesstif has and KDE can happily link against it. Or, unless Troll Tech
> > folds and Qt becomes B
On Mon, May 29, 2000 at 05:12:52PM -0700, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> was referring to) and some to debuild or dpkg-buildpackage. So there may
> well be an official requirement to use debuild or dpkg-buildpackage, but
> the general documentation and also the debianized pine documentation has
> not cau
Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> When I build pine debs from debianized
> source I certainly have no intention of distributing them to anyone else,
> and I believe this would be true for virtually every ordinary Debian user
> who built KDE debs on their machine. Especially if Debian specifically
> raised the
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> > But my impression is that not every debianized source tree can be used with
> > the debuild command. For example, can you use debuild with the debianized
> > pine source tree that is distributed with Debian? When I built it a nu
(This is not intended to be published in LWN, and I'd just as soon drop
the Cc.)
Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> But my impression is that not every debianized source tree can be used with
> the debuild command. For example, can you use debuild with the debianized
> pine source tree that is distributed wi
Hi,
> On Sun, 28 May 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> > KDE, in source form or not, cannot be an official part of Debian until
> > its license problems are resolved. Source is great, but you have to be
> > ale to leagally build it, link it against the required libraires, use it,
> > and distriute binaries
On Mon, May 29, 2000 at 09:55:38AM -0700, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> I am glad we agree that source is great. But the rest of your sentences
> that I have just quoted are the nub of our disagreement. I believe the GPL
> says nothing about the *private* use of software.
Debian isn't exactly private.
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, May 28, 2000 at 10:04:30AM -0700, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> [in response to Tobias Peters]
>
> > I can see why neither Debian nor KDE wants to change here, and it is also a
> > practical impossibility for KDE. Unfortunately, that leads to the
> >
On Sun, 28 May 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> > One current problem for Debian (unlike rpm-based distributions) is it does
> > not have a standard source-package format.
>
> You are quite mistaken. Debian may not have a source package format that
> rpm users can easly understand.
When running xgettext on a program, it generates a .pot
file that starts with:
# SOME DESCRIPTIVE TITLE.
# Copyright (C) YEAR Free Software Foundation, Inc.
# FIRST AUTHOR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, YEAR.
#
Should (must?) the "Copright FSF" line remain there?
And if so, does this have any consequences
Alan W. Irwin wrote:
> One current problem for Debian (unlike rpm-based distributions) is it does
> not have a standard source-package format.
You are quite mistaken. Debian may not have a source package format that
rpm users can easly understand. However, it does have a source package
format, one
On Sun, May 28, 2000 at 10:04:30AM -0700, Alan W. Irwin wrote:
[in response to Tobias Peters]
> You and others have brought up the possibility of KDE changing their
> license. I cannot speak for KDE, but I suspect they are reluctant to change
> from the GPL.
Which is well within their rights. Bu
12 matches
Mail list logo
