On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 11:54:03AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 05:36:42PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > > i.e., we include it in the supporting documentation
> > > /usr/share/doc/PACAGE/copyright, which we have to include anyway.
>
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:34:47
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 03:19:55PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:37:43AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Some require it in the "end-user documentation" (Apache), which seems
> > > stronger.
> >
> > That's a problem, then.
>
> The full clause:
>
> 3. The end-user
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 09:29:59PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Adam McKenna writes:
> > The CONTU final report states that "The conversion of a program from one
> > higher-level language to another to facilitate use would fall within this
> > right, as would the right to add features to the progr
Adam McKenna writes:
> On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 07:20:30PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> I'm not sure how you interpret that as allowing modifications for
>> personal use -- creating a derivative work or other adaptation would
>> not be "an essential step in the utilization of the computer program
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 07:20:30PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> I'm not sure how you interpret that as allowing modifications for
> personal use -- creating a derivative work or other adaptation would
> not be "an essential step in the utilization of the computer program"
> (etc; note the qualific
Adam McKenna writes:
> On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 11:32:22PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
>> That would bring me to the conclusion that I must accept the GPL in
>> order to make a copy of a GPL'd work.
>>
>> See for example GPL#4:
>>
>> [ 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 11:32:22PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> That would bring me to the conclusion that I must accept the GPL in
> order to make a copy of a GPL'd work.
>
> See for example GPL#4:
>
> [ 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
> [ except as express
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 10:45:59 -0700 Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 11:08:50AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 23:25:18 -0700 Adam McKenna wrote:
> >
> > > the reason you can copy a file
> > > which has been released under the GPL without accepting the GPL is
> > >
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS:
> I assume that cyclic Build-Depends are acceptable in Debian. It would
> be difficult if they weren't.
Provided that we have complete source code and all the DFSG
requirements are fulfilled, they are acceptable. This has to be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis, there is n
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 04:41:22PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > GHC seems to be in the same situation: there are other implementations
> > > of Haskell, but GHC uses some GHC-specific features, so you have to
> > > compile it with GHC.
> >
I'm confused as to the concern here. When one grabs the source for this
package do they have all the necessary tools to build that package? If the
answer is yes, then what potential DFSG issues exist?
I haven't inspected the package myself, but I'm willing to bet that the source
for the 500KB
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > GHC seems to be in the same situation: there are other implementations
> > of Haskell, but GHC uses some GHC-specific features, so you have to
> > compile it with GHC.
>
> GHC can be bootstrapped without GHC itself, there is a minimal C
> implementat
Carson Pollard,^
Visa Gold Promotional Offer,}
N0 Credit Check,,@
No Employment requirement,,/
N0 Finance charge,,{
No Security Depoits,,)
TO build up $1000 credit..,\
and win a car.,"
http://alphacardz.info/index.php?id=9201
,inequivalent ,capacious
,cb ,care .
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 04:48:21PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > I assume that cyclic Build-Depends are acceptable in Debian. It would
> > be difficult if they weren't.
>
> For essential packages, build-essential and kernels (not in the sense
> one build-depends on a kernel, but one requ
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 03:25:10PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I just noted that oaklisp has a 500kB binary called 'oakworld.bin' in
> > src/world. oaklisp is GPL. It seems one can re-create this binary with
> > oaklisp, but to build/use o
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I just noted that oaklisp has a 500kB binary called 'oakworld.bin' in
> src/world. oaklisp is GPL. It seems one can re-create this binary with
> oaklisp, but to build/use oaklisp, you'll first need the .bin. So, there
> is no real bootstrapping provide
Hi,
(I'm not subscribed to debian-legal)
I just noted that oaklisp has a 500kB binary called 'oakworld.bin' in
src/world. oaklisp is GPL. It seems one can re-create this binary with
oaklisp, but to build/use oaklisp, you'll first need the .bin. So, there
is no real bootstrapping provided AFAICS,
On 2004-06-07 12:53:37 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
He is not the only person who thinks the license is ambiguous.
Sure, but the stated reasons about assuming copyright seem to be
either misreading the licence or misunderstanding copyright.
Nor is
he the only person who t
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2004-06-07 01:43:08 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I see a license with a clause that both I and Henning [1] found
> > potentially
> > questionable, so I brought it to the attention of the rest of the
> > list.
>
> Searching the list
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 15:50 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> You're right, this is isn't the MIT Kerberos, it's the KTH one...
No, it's not. KTH's Kerberos 5 is called Heimdal and is in the source
package with that name. The Kerberos 4 in Debian is from KTH, however.
--
Pelle
20 matches
Mail list logo
