Why not modify chromium to read the api keys from a file, rather than
building them into the binary? The file could then be put in a separate
package. If necessary in non-free.
This would have the additional benefit that those of us who want
chromium to under no circumstances send every word we ty
Alexey Eromenko wrote:
> Hello Debian People !
>
> Debian 6.0 (Squeeze) ships packages [2] that integrate with web services
> (called in modern term 'Cloud Computing' or SaaS,
> 'Software-as-a-Service' if you will), such as the Facebook API.
> What if Facebook decides to close down it's APIs tomor
Simon McVittie wrote:
> Not that I know of; judging by putting this wording into Google, only Joey
> uses it. I called it "the ikiwiki basewiki license" above, but I don't think
> that's necessarily a good way to refer to it out of context. The rest of
> ikiwiki is not under this license (it's most
I may need to package liblinebreak, as it seems that new versions of
fbreader will use it. Thought I'd run the licenses past legal, though
I think I've convinced myself they are free.
The main license is BSD-ish:
7 * Copyright (C) 2008 Wu Yongwei
8 *
9 * This software is provided
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> A game where "targets" move across the screen to a predetermined point
> or line, where the player hits a button/key/mouse click as the target(s)
> crosses that point or line, and gets points.
> Any thoughts on that?
Nice description of space invaders.
--
see shy jo
signa
MJ Ray wrote:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnewsense-users/2007-05/msg00072.html
My limited understanding is that ScummVM games are software whose
preferred form of modification is the game files as distributed. Since I
have never actually modified a ScummVM game, I am unsure as to the tool
Don Armstrong wrote:
> The bright line is actually pretty straight forward: Do you modify the
> file with syntactic whitespace or the file without? Is it preferable
> to modify the file without the keyword expansion or with?
Preferable by whom? That is a matter of personal preference and taste,
wh
Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> I've asked the upstream to provide proper source code, but so far he
> effectively refused to do that, although it seems to be a very simple
> operation to perform.
I'm repeating this since it was buried in a footnote in a probably
pointless subthread. There's no partic
Don Armstrong wrote:
> Obviously we should try to figure out if the author was lying or
> making fun of -legal first, but if it was actually true and debhelper
> was GPLed, then we can't do anything else.
Why? debhelper is also developed in vim[1], I don't have to ship vim with
it, why would I nee
Mike Hommey wrote:
> However, the GPL requires the prefered form for modification to be
> provided. And what the author uses to modify is definitely not the
> whitespace-free version.
The same could be true of any secret modifications to any program made
by its upstream author. Perhaps the debhelp
znc contains a Csocket file with this license. I wonder if the requirement that
source code must be made available for no more than "a nominal fee" is
acceptable.
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification,
* are permitted provided that the following conditi
olive wrote:
> By the way are you aware that for pi none of your proposal is true
Um, yes, that was sort of the point.
> (exept maybe Choice 4 which is unclear). pi is transcendental, and in
> particular irrational (which implies that you cannot write it with a
> final number of decimal). Your
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> However, Option 1 was the consensus of this list, and thus we've been
> overridden[0]. I feel that we now need to figure out why the project as
> a whole has rejected the draft position statement [2]
-=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
MJ Ray wrote:
> What software of interest is under this licence?
subwiki
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Academic Free License 2.1 has been discussed here before and is
IIRC non-free, how about version 1.1? License follows:
Academic Free License
Version 1.1
This Academic Free License applies to any original work of authorship (the
"Original Work") whose owner (the "Licensor") has placed the followin
olive wrote:
> The lisence for the bitsream (package ttf-bitstream-* in main) font
> state among other:
>
> [...]
> The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package but
> no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
> itself.
> [...]
> (see the full lice
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What do you people in debian-legal think about people who distribute
> ISO images on their websites but no ISO with sources nor a written
> promise? Should we consider there is an implicit offer and just ask
> for the sources?
A file is a file is a file. It doesn't matte
Hector Blanco wrote:
> My name is Hector Blanco.
> I developed a game called 'Debian vs Pimientos' in which you
> have to kill peppers, using the Debian logo as a ship.
> Well, more info is here:
> http://www.neopontec.com/en/games/index.php?sec=game&gid=1
>
> Some persons commented me that this w
Karsten M. Self wrote:
> debian-legal and DPL added to distribution.
I'm afraid that by escalating this unnecessarily, as well as resorting
to certian rhetoric (for which I cannot be bothered to do a
point-by-point rebuttal), you've convinced me it's best I bow out of the
discussion, permantly.
T
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> The same, really, applies to freeciv and the innumerable clones of
> games, from Pac-Man to Doom, with anything resembling characters and a
> storyline; but that's not a problem for debian-mentors.
H.
BTW, doom is open source software and is not a clone.
--
see s
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Is the GPL in the .udeb (or elsewhere in d-i)?
No.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Henning Makholm wrote:
> > found in /usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/native/copyright", which turn out
>
> What you should include is the exact notice found in the upstream
> source which says that the program is covered by the GPL. As far as I
> can see from a random sample (src/fnmatch.c) from the s
Henning Makholm wrote:
> > found in /usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/native/copyright", which turn out
>
> What you should include is the exact notice found in the upstream
> source which says that the program is covered by the GPL. As far as I
> can see from a random sample (src/fnmatch.c) from the s
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> Looking into sarge I found a number of manpages, that do not look
> redistributeable as they are licensed under the G"F"DL but do not
> include the full licence text needed to be distributeable. Especially
> Debian-specific ones seem to be affected due to some templates d
Joey Hess wrote:
> > Cobblers. Any reasonable person can see I was only asked for the
> > argument in one direction and I didn't yet know the contrary arguments
> > well enough to summarise them. You should have seen that, as it was in
> > the message you replied
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-12 20:33:22 +0100 Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From the perspective of someone coming in late and reading the
> >thread,
> >you are a proponent of choice of venue clauses not being DFSG free.
>
> Cobblers. Any reason
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-12 18:40:36 +0100 Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I don't think you're making a viable argument.
>
> I was trying to summarise the argument as described to me. I think
> it's rude of you to ignore that and shoot the
MJ Ray wrote:
> As I understand it, it limits all those rights by allowing the
> licensor to require out-of-pocket expenditure by any licensee on legal
> representation in the given venue, instead of possibly representing
> yourself in the court local to your offence as seems to happen
> otherw
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 09:15:41AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > The "quake2" and "lxdoom" packages are in contrib, due to lack of free
> > > data
> > > sets. This is long and strongly established, I believe.
> >
> > Lack of free data sets period, or lack of free data
Sven Luther wrote:
> If i came up with the following :
>
> 1) A description in text form of what the individual bits of this 1K
> boot sector does, and what is needed for miboot booting.
> 2) a small C program or shell script which generate said 1K boot
> sector from some kind of more for
Rick Thomas wrote:
> I got as far as the point where the d-i tries to install a
> bootloader. It died there because there is no boot loader for the
> oldworld subarchitecture.
It's good to know that it got that far.
> Declare that all OldWorld machines must have a minimal MacOS
> partition wit
Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, we had it in woody boot-floppies, it seems.
I will be charatable and assume that was an accident, similar to many of
the dozens of other non-free peices of software we have shipped in
woody, and removed from sarge.
> Also, maybe we should remove d-i from main altogether
Jeremie Koenig wrote:
> The plan was to request a sarge-ignore tag on the "d-i build-depends on
> miboot, which is in contrib", and try to find a better solution for next
> releases.
This is the first I've heard of this. Has the sarge-ignore status of the
GFDL docs really created such a slippery s
Branden Robinson wrote:
> I heard (on IRC) that someone wrote some DFSG-free WAD files for Quake
> -- some sort data set to facilitate a World War II battle simulation.
>
> If this fact is validated, the quake packages might be able to be moved
> to main. This is definitely something that can hap
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 07:46:11PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > On 2003-11-17 18:46:53 + Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I think this one's non-free too. It's certainly absurdly overbearing.
> >
> > I agree. Over-generalisation. Given that there s
Ryan Underwood wrote:
> I am trying to get my improved fork of the icculus Wolf3d ready for
> release. There are tons of new features, but I am unclear on the
> license.
>
> The original license supplied with the wolf3d sources (released in 1995)
> seems to be the same license that the proprietar
Branden Robinson wrote:
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
>
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Suppose you (Mr. Foo) write an essay: "Why the BSD license is best, by
> Mr. Foo." No matter what copyright license your essay is under -- even
> if it's in the public domain -- nobody can modify it to "Why the GPL
> license is best, by Mr. Foo." That's fraud (misrepre
John Goerzen wrote:
> All of the arguments being made about freeness of documentation -- that
> somebody may want to develop a document based on the original -- would also
> apply to licenses (perhaps I wish to develop a license based on the GPL).
> Yet we are ignoring the problem with the license
MJ Ray wrote:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As the discussion about FDL and the RFCs continues, I have seen various
> > people attempt to disect the DFSG, or to redefine "software" in a highly
> > loose manner, or to question DFSG's applicability to non-software items.
>
> If FDL-c
This is a new one to me. It's the license of elfutils, which is included
in rpm 4.2.
The Open Software License
v. 1.0
This Open Software License (the "License") applies to any original
work of authorship (the "Original Work") whose owner (th
MJ Ray wrote:
> > (And thus makes it easier to
> > apply pressure to change the licence).
>
> Are there cases where software has fixed its licence as a direct result
> of being put into non-free, except for cases where it was in main before?
Yes, there are many cases of this apparently happening.
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> > Is there some policy about which patents do we ignore and which do we
> > respect?
>
> We do not ignore any patent.
Who is Branden supposed to send the royalty checks for patent #4,197,590
to again? (That's the XOR cursor patent.)
--
see shy jo
pgpIA1
Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Again, moving a program to non-free will motivate people to
> write a free equivalent.
Actually, moving a program to non-free has historically been much more
likely to convey a message to the author of that program: "WAKE UP!"
When the author wakes up and realizes that thei
Branden Robinson wrote:
> > It's annoying, but does not really make it not free, I hope. Remember
> > that we dealt with the FSF snail mail address changing; said address is
> > in the GPL and is in copyright statements that point to the GPL. Many
> > licenses and statements of copyright contain in
Branden Robinson wrote:
>4. The location of the original unmodified document be
> identified.
>
> BUG: Walter Landry has pointed out:
>
> "[The GNU FDL] requires me to preserve the network location of where
> Transparent versions can be found for four years. Even if
Alan Woodland wrote:
> Im looking into packaging quake 1 for debian at the moment
Quake 1 was in debian before. I forget why we dropped it, but I think it
had little to do with licensing and a lot to do with the maintainer at
the time. Anyway, I'm pretty sure this license was discussed a/ long tim
Anthony Towns wrote:
> I can't see how that's even meaningful. How do you make a soundfile part
> of a text document?
I was amused the other day to find abiword, when I asked it to save a
document as html, offering to inline the images in the document in
base64 encoding. I'm not sure what browser
Alex Romosan wrote:
> now, this can also be interpreted as anthony saying debian was founded
> before the WHY-FREE manifesto so the manifesto couldn't be our raison
> d'être. i don't think it was either, since at the very beginning
> (and i've been using debian since early in 1995) there was no
> o
Anthony Towns wrote:
> As such, we cannot accept works that include "Invariant Sections" and
> similar unmodifiable components into our distribution, which unfortunately
> includes a number of current manuals for GNU software.
It may be worth noting that GNU manuals are hardly the only thing
effec
This reply consists only of non-topical editorial comments.
Anthony Towns wrote:
> In November 2002, version 1.2 of the GNU Free Documentation License (GNU
> FDL) was released by the Free Software Foundation after a long period
> of consultation. Unfortunately, some concerns raised by members of t
Mark Rafn wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Terry Hancock wrote:
>
> > In many cases, it is to the benefit of the community that
> > a standards body officially approves the specification, which
> > would seem to translate to not allowing modified versions to
> > be distributed
>
> It doesn't transl
Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Russell" == Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Russell> Nahhh. I'm just reading Bruce's commentary to you. He
> Russell> edited Debian's members words into the DFSG. Do you
> Russell> think he was wrong about the intent of the
> Russell> n
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> Then please remove the GPL from all debian packages, and make non-free
> all those that include it. Or can the GPL be modified, can it be changed
> at will? No. Does it make it non-free: NO.
Could you do us all a favour and save our time by not draggin
Eric Baudais wrote:
> The only text which can be an invariant section is the text pertaining
> to the author's relationship to the document.
[...] Even entire sections that may not be deleted or changed are
acceptable, as long as they deal with nontechnical topics (like this
one). [...]
Andrea Borgia wrote:
> Fine, then ship an unmodified version. Just run configure with the
> appropriate values, pack the resulting binary and we should all be set.
And what are we then supposed to do when there is a security hole in
pine, or a bad interaction with something else in debian that ups
Jeff Licquia wrote:
> To clarify Steve's otherwise excellent reply: recent gnutls ships with
> an OpenSSL compatibility library. The libraries are LGPL, so there
> should be no problem with compatibility.
>
> I haven't tried it yet, but I intend to with CUPS. I'd recommend you
> give it a try.
Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 06:15:07PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Another example is that RMS considers the original (unclarified)
> > Artistic License too ambiguous to be free, while we list it as an
> > example of a DFSG-free licence.
>
> I wish we could back away from
Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
> Freeswan (the user space daemon and the kernel module) needs Eric Young's
> libdes to work.
I know from researching for mindterm that version 3.06 of Eric Young's
libdes (from 1993) was licensed under the GPL. I don't know how much the
libdes library has changed since then
Walter Landry wrote:
> Did Mindterm make any modifications to the code after they learned of
> the new licensing conditions? If so, they might have thought that
> they had to put modifications under the new license.
Well it's a little bit hard to tell if they modified it at some point;
the change
Steve Langasek wrote:
> This is what puzzled me about this question. If the old code was C and
> the new code is entirely Java, are there enough recognizable portions of
> the old code left to be able to call mindterm a derivative work of
> libdes? Algorithms are not copyrightable, and there are
Branden Robinson wrote:
> I wonder if it possible to reconstruct the existing mindterm code base
> from all the known DFSG-free code using a recipe. This recipe could
> then be handed to the FTP admins.
Only if you have an automatic C to java translator program..
An example closer to home for yo
Walter Landry wrote:
> What is the license on the java modifications by Mindbright? The
> snippet above doesn't make it clear, but the usual custom is to place
> modifications under the same license as the original. In which case
> mindterm is still undistributable :(
What "java modifications"?
h 1.2.12 as well, and openbsd
removes it; which wouldn't change the overall point.)
I have attached an attempt at updating mindterm's copyright file with
this information.
--
see shy jo
This is a Debian prepackaged version of mindterm.
This package was put together by Joey Hess <[EMAIL
Steve Langasek wrote:
> These two situations seem quite analogous to me.
Seems like quite a stretch to me.
> Does placing either condition (monetary compensation, or warranting
> that they're not planning to destroy the Earth) on access to
> particular mirror sites violate the licenses of softwar
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Currently, the Debian installer (boot-floppies/dbootstrap) already asks
> whether to put non-free in the apt sources.list. It seems to me that
> creating a separate set of install disks for the GNU distro would be
> sufficient to eliminate this question and configure only
Stephen Turner wrote:
> Actually, my understanding was that debian-legal couldn't agree whether it
> was free or not, although I agreed to change it so that we could all agree
> that it was free.
Yeah.
> An actual date would be helpful. I am working on a new version at the
> moment, and I was pla
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> So this is still around; the current license for analog seems to be
> non-free, but the upstream maintainer is willing to adapt. However,
> it needs to be resolved; the freeze is coming. If it can't be
> resolved, then bug 121916 will operate (as it should) to keep a
[ Is Bram on this list? ]
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Peter writes a GPLd program. The John distributes a copy of the GPLd
> program to Mary, and he must give Mary the source. He does not have
> to give the source to Peter. He and Mary are allowed to keep the
> changes entirely secret if they
Branden Robinson wrote:
> START OF PROPOSAL
>
> 1) A copyright holder is permitted to withhold permission to modify or
> remove copyright notices upon a work, or parts of a work, under
> copyright by that holder. Permission to modify or remove copyright
> notices not used as such (i.e., as exampl
Stephen Turner wrote:
> I think that the original complaint, and some of the responses, are missing
> the point. It is explicitly permitted to charge someone for sending them the
> program, and "reasonable" does not specify any limit. This seems to satisfy
> the DFSG perfectly well to me.
The way
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> That requirement imposes a maximum price that can be charged for a
> copy of the program. Whether it blocks Debian or not isn't the point;
> if I make a CD with only analog, and charge $20,000 for it, then I'm
> violating the license, and that makes analog a non-DFSG-
It seems we have to question this license from time to time. I wish it
was somthing better understood like the GPL. Anyway, here is the current
complaint, with my comments at the end:
- Forwarded message from "Dwayne C. Litzenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Package: analog
Version: 2:5.1-1
Neil Conway wrote:
> Basically, the author is objecting to the Debian policy of referring to
> the system-wide copy of the GPL; he is arguing that a copy of the GPL
> should be included with his package, which is GPL'd. He makes some
> pretty good points, but Debian policy disagrees with him.
RMS
John Galt wrote:
> Because you failed to answer my question about three exchanges ago: if the
> GNU in Debian GNU/Linux isn't a form of credit where credit is due,
> then what is it?
Try reading the first paragraph of http://www.debian.org/ and/or the
Debian FAQ sometime. They'll give you two diff
Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 04:34:15PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Richard Braakman wrote:
> > > We usually allow some time for license issues to be resolved. In the
> > > extreme case of KDE it was more than a year :)
> >
> > You f
Richard Braakman wrote:
> We usually allow some time for license issues to be resolved. In the
> extreme case of KDE it was more than a year :)
You forget: KDE was removed from the archive during that time.
--
see shy jo
Branden Robinson wrote:
> "Hock" would appear to be a slang word of more recent origin that most
> public-domain dictionaries, sadly. If I hock my guitar, it means I go to
> the pawnbroker's and use it as collateral for a short-term loan.
Well, it's in wordnet:
v : give as a guarantee [syn: {pa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ultimately, it is the page author's responsibility to provide a link to
> source, not the server operator's. One way could be to place the
> mindterm jar into a world-readable location, then have a mindterm-src
> deb which places the source tarball/zip (or both; but I'd r
I had an amusing thought last night. This is a GPL'd java applet -- so
for it to be useful, you must put the binary up for download by clients
-- in other words, redistribute it. Well, that triggers GPL point #3,
which requires that the source code be made available to, at least by a
written offer.
Mindterm is a implementation of ssh in java, that can run in popular web
browsers, on popular operating systems, letting you get at slightly less
popular but much more fun and rewarding things in a fairly secure way,
without fiddling around with actually installing anything on said popular
operatin
Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> This article is reproduced from
> Issue #12 of The Perl Journal
> by the kind permission of the editor.
>
> So, here are my questions:
>
> #1) Am I allowed to include this tutorial in the Debian package? Notice
> that the tutorial is already included
Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 03:24:19PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Look up "tort" in a legal dictionary.
> >
> > Who gave this man a legal dictionary?
>
> What?
Somebody needs to take it away from
Branden Robinson wrote:
> Look up "tort" in a legal dictionary.
Who gave this man a legal dictionary?
--
see shy jo
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > You quote wrong. It says:
> >
> > | 1. Any action which is illegal under international or local law is
> > | forbidden by this licence.
>
> Ok, then the licence is old. Take the new from analogs home page. There
> it is "Any use"
He's correct, the current part of the
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> > 1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is forbidden
> > by
> > this licence. Any such action is the sole responsibility of the person
> > committing the action.
> >
David Starner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 11:58:59PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Please let me know what you think.
> >
> > - Forwarded message from Dave Cinege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
> >
> > The Analog licence states:
> >
> > 1
Please let me know what you think.
- Forwarded message from Dave Cinege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Dave Cinege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 02:50:19 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Analog licence violates DFSG
Reply-To: [EMAIL P
Jens M?ller wrote:
> The FAQ says in 13.1:
>
> "You do not need permission to distribute anything we have released, so that
> you can master your CD as soon as the beta-test ends. "
>
> Does that mean I am not allowed to sell the test-cycle CDs? (Well, the
> test-cycle will end soon anyway...)
O
Jens M?ller wrote:
> The FAQ says in 13.1:
>
> "You do not need permission to distribute anything we have released, so that
> you can master your CD as soon as the beta-test ends. "
>
> Does that mean I am not allowed to sell the test-cycle CDs? (Well, the
> test-cycle will end soon anyway...)
SCOTT FENTON wrote:
> Hi. I'm working on putting together a booklet of open source licences
> with the DFSG in the appendix, and I need to know, what's the copyright
> on the DFSG? Can I typeset it in LaTeX, or do I need special permission
> for that? And if I do need permission, where do I get it?
SCOTT FENTON wrote:
> Hi. I'm working on putting together a booklet of open source licences
> with the DFSG in the appendix, and I need to know, what's the copyright
> on the DFSG? Can I typeset it in LaTeX, or do I need special permission
> for that? And if I do need permission, where do I get it
Clay Crouch wrote:
> The license does not restrict the _distribution_ of it. It can be
> sold as part of an aggregate.
>
> So, I am not sure Clause 1 (Free Redistribution) of the DFSG applies.
> It is Clause 6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor) that
> troubles me And I am not %100
Clay Crouch wrote:
> So, to the "brass tacks". Is requiring payment for commercial exploitation
> considered 'discrimination' WRT the DFSG?
The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
^^^
selling
Clay Crouch wrote:
> The license does not restrict the _distribution_ of it. It can be
> sold as part of an aggregate.
>
> So, I am not sure Clause 1 (Free Redistribution) of the DFSG applies.
> It is Clause 6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor) that
> troubles me And I am not %100
Clay Crouch wrote:
> So, to the "brass tacks". Is requiring payment for commercial exploitation
> considered 'discrimination' WRT the DFSG?
The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
^^^
selling
http://www.491.org/projets/api/
Shocking.
--
see shy jo
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
(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
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
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
