Just resending this question since all other issues with this
package are now resolved - is it acceptable for us to distribute an
mp3 encoder? I assume that it will have to go into non-free due to the
various patent issues (a similar thing to GIF encoding?).
m.
Mikolaj J. Habryn writes:
> ...is it acceptable for us to distribute an mp3 encoder?
Sure. But not from any servers located where it infringes any patents.
> I assume that it will have to go into non-free due to the various patent
> issues (a similar thing to GIF encoding?).
No, it isn't non-fr
On Sun, Dec 20, 1998 at 02:30:28PM -0500, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> In order for QT to qualify as a Debian system library it would have to
> be a
>> 'required' package, and it would drag in X. No way are we going to bloat
>> the system like that. The 'system library' idea thus fails for pu
On Sun, Dec 20, 1998 at 09:43:37AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I agree that the linking clause is not strictly required for the material
> > originated by the KDE authors, but many people disagree with me on this.
> > Adding a linking clause would do no harm and would satisfy everyone and
>
... A combined work would have a shared Copyright
and still be under the GNU GPL which would prevent Troll Tech from
releasing the combined work under other licensing terms.
This would almost certainly cause a rift to develop between their
Professional Edition and their Free
programme should not be in the Debian packages, unless Debian officially
grants Qt the 'system library status' to use the respective exception
clause in the GPL.
There is no such thing as "system library status" in the GPL. That's
a misunderstanding of a certain paragraph in the GPL,
Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> Kevin Forge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> In order for QT to qualify as a Debian system library it would have to
> be a
>> 'required' package, and it would drag in X. No way are we going to bloat
>> the system like that.
Kevin Forge writes:
> Now when you can get back to me with an explanation of how to make Motif
> a System lib on Solaris...
I neither know nor care just what might or might not be a system lib on
Solaris or BSDI.
> ...not make QT ( under the QPL ) one in Debian or any other Linux
> distribution t
> "j" == john <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
j> Sure. But not from any servers located where it infringes any
j> patents.
...and I assume that there is currently no mechanism by which we can
distribute it automatically, a la non-US? And am I likely to be liable
for anything if I do
On Sun, Dec 20, 1998 at 09:31:17PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> ... A combined work would have a shared Copyright
> and still be under the GNU GPL which would prevent Troll Tech from
> releasing the combined work under other licensing terms.
>
> This would almost certainly ca
Opps -:- My last post used BSDI and Solaris interchangeably.
Just do a search and replace ( Solaris -> BSDI or BSDI -> Solaris :)
Kevin Forge wrote:
>
> Ben Pfaff wrote:
> >
> > Kevin Forge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> In order for QT to qualif
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I neither know nor care just what might or might not be a system lib on
> Solaris or BSDI.
You should. Otherwise somebody is violating the GPL with all those
Motif based GPL apps. Wasn't XEMacs linked to Motif years ago.
I.e. Before LessTif was drool on the lip o
The Debian project
is huge now, we are finding that some mirrors are mirroring only part of
the distribution, often just the binaries for certain architectures
because they just don't have that many gigabytes of HD space. It could
be argued that you can still get the source "
Mikolaj J. Habryn writes:
> I assume that there is currently no mechanism by which we can distribute
> it [an mp3 encoder] automatically, a la non-US?
None that I know of.
> And am I likely to be liable for anything if I do the work of packaging
> it in a pro-Fraunhofer country, even if it is dis
Kevin Forge writes:
> You should. Otherwise somebody is violating the GPL with all those Motif
> based GPL apps.
That must be determined by the authors of those apps.
> So debian doesn't have any system libraries ?
One could argue that, yes. Go and reread the GPL and think about the fact
that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I neither know nor care just what might or might not be a system lib on
> > Solaris or BSDI.
Kevin Forge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You should. Otherwise somebody is violating the GPL with all those
> Motif based GPL apps. Wasn't XEMacs linked to Motif years ago.
16 matches
Mail list logo
