Re: upx under GPL

2001-03-11 Thread James Troup
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > |This package isn't under just the GPL as the copyright file says, but > > > > |the GPL plus some very important exceptions. > > > > | > > > > |-- > > > > |James > > > > > > > > I wish a statement from James why the extra permissions make the packa

Re: upx under GPL

2001-03-11 Thread Eduard Bloch
#include Sam TH wrote on Sun Mar 11, 2001 um 05:43:58AM: > > > |This package isn't under just the GPL as the copyright file says, but > > > |the GPL plus some very important exceptions. > > > | > > > |-- > > > |James > > > > > > I wish a statement from James why the extra permissions make the pa

Re: upx under GPL

2001-03-11 Thread Sam TH
On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 01:27:46PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote: > On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 06:25:34PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > > That is not my problem. The package was rejected because of: > > > > |This package isn't under just the GPL as the copyright file says, but > > |the GPL plus some v

Re: upx under GPL

2001-03-11 Thread Richard Braakman
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 06:25:34PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > That is not my problem. The package was rejected because of: > > |This package isn't under just the GPL as the copyright file says, but > |the GPL plus some very important exceptions. > | > |-- > |James > [...] > > I wish a statemen