hi,
i am looking for information on how the debian teams
views legal status of faac and xvid. work for a
company where we use debian, folks on the research
team want to do use these for some reason. before i
install these i wanted to check on the legal status
for there quite a bit of messages on
seven sins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i am looking for information on how the debian teams
> views legal status of faac and xvid. [...]
I can't see either package is in debian. I think the only
public information on the *teams*' views (as opposed to individuals
on debian-legal) is usually the
Hi,
Thank you for the links. I shall pursue them. The
company is based in US. Really appreciate the info.
regards
shiva.
--- MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> seven sins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i am looking for information on how the debian
> teams
> > views legal status of faac and x
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 06:33:17PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Alvaro Lopez Ortega:
>
> > Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> >>> Some days ago I asked about the viability the idea of creating a new
> >>> architecture of Debian using the OpenSolaris stack.
> >>
> >> Just the kernel or libc as well?
Thanks Steve for bringing up again the issue of the Stixfonts!
I have sent them my feedback on the issue of the modification/removal of
the base set of glyphs, though I do not know if anything else needs
changing.
You may read here a summary of the discussion:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-l
While I would like to belive that the FSF knew exactly what they were doing,
I am not certain.
It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may actually be
upheld in the case of static libraries. The fact that linking the .o's of
the library directly with your program is equivelen
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Joe Smith wrote:
It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may actually be
upheld in the case of static libraries. The fact that linking the .o's of the
library directly with your program is equivelent to linking the library with
the object files of your pro
On Wednesday 07 September 2005 03:50 pm, Joe Smith wrote:
> If that statement is true and if it does not qualify as a licence
> exception, then
I think Linus and the KernelDev team has been pretty consistent that they
consider it their interpretation of the GPL as applied to their software. As
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 04:08:51PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Joe Smith wrote:
>
> >It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may actually be
> >upheld in the case of static libraries. The fact that linking the .o's of
> >the library directly with your program
9 matches
Mail list logo
