Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > What if there was a package wget++ that communicated with openssl
>> > entirely through system() or exec() calls? It would construct
>> > appropriate input and pa
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 09:58:00AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Interpreters are a different issue from the exec() situation. The
> program being interpreted generally does not communicate with the
> interpreter at all.
If the interpreted program and the interpreter can't communicate, then
usual
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:30:33 +, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 11:28:35PM +, Andres Baravalle wrote:
>
> First off, irrespective of legality and morality, does Debian need
> another comic downloader in t
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 01:50:58PM +, Andres Baravalle wrote:
> I suppose that it would mean excluding *all* the syndicated comics
> (dilbert, calvin and hobbes etc.). They cover 2/3 of the comics.
> They will not give me an explicit permission, but I'd like to know if
> I'm doing anything wr
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 09:58:00AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Interpreters are a different issue from the exec() situation. The
>> program being interpreted generally does not communicate with the
>> interpreter at all.
>
> If the interpreted program
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 04:15:58PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> The interpreted program interacts (I don't think "communicate" is the
> appropriate word) with the virtual machine (in a loose sense of the
> word) presented by the interpreter. It does not communicate with the
> actual implementatio
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [MJR sceptical that this sort of branding bug gets fixed quickly]
> To be honest (and I wrote the code in Bugzilla which does the
> reporting), that's more to prevent anonymous DOS, because they are very
> processor intensive. If you want to see them a
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Do you really want to argue that software under licences which try to
> >affect other pieces of unrelated software meets the DFSG?
> Yes, because I do not believe that it is a "restriction on other
> software".
A licence esse
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
>
> > Debian adds in all of the debian-specific control files, including man
> > pages. Even if you discount that, Debian reserves the right to modify
> > Kaffe at will.
>
> Debian-created man pages, or any other modifications of K
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Eclipse is, similarly, not a derivative of Kaffe and by itself is
> > not subject to the GPL.
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 11:07:37PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> The key word is "by itself". There is no problem with Eclipse being
> distributed alone. T
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 10:19:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >Do you really want to argue that software under licences which try to
> > >affect other pieces of unrelated software meets the DFSG?
> > Yes, because I do not bel
11 matches
Mail list logo
