Hi all,
I'd like to one or both of these two applications:
http://dssi.sourceforge.net
http://joebutton.co.uk/fst/
in Debian. Basically they allow running VST audio plugins under Linux,
using wine.
Both of them are GPL, but unfortunately depend at build time on the
VST SDK, which is non-free
This one time, at band camp, Free Ekanayaka said:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to one or both of these two applications:
>
> http://dssi.sourceforge.net
> http://joebutton.co.uk/fst/
>
> in Debian. Basically they allow running VST audio plugins under Linux,
> using wine.
>
> Both of them are GPL, b
On Thu, 02, Mar, 2006 at 10:26:46AM +0100, Free Ekanayaka spoke thus..
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to one or both of these two applications:
>
> http://dssi.sourceforge.net
> http://joebutton.co.uk/fst/
>
> in Debian. Basically they allow running VST audio plugins under Linux,
> using wine.
>
> Both
On Thu, 02, Mar, 2006 at 10:26:41AM +, Mark Hymers spoke thus..
> dssi may require the VST SDK and will need to be in non-free as far as I
Mea culpa. I meant contrib of course if they just need the non-free
header to build.
Mark
--
Mark Hymers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"I once absent-mindedly o
|--==> Mark Hymers writes:
MH> Well, first of all, DSSI itself is in Debian main already (see pkg-dssi
MH> on alioth) and doesn't require the VST SDK to build.
MH> Some plugins for
MH> dssi may require the VST SDK and will need to be in non-free as far as I
MH> can tell, however there a
|--==> Stephen Gran writes:
SG> dssi is already in Debian, and doesn't use non-free software to build.
SG> For the other, I have no idea, but if it really needs non-free software
SG> to build, it's not suitable for main, at least.
And indeed I was thinking to contrib, but I'm wondering if p
Hi,
I'm wondering whether a document that's licensed under a DFSG-free
license, with TeX/sgml/whatever sources available and all, may use
non-free fonts. For example, the LaTeX source would contain
\usepackage{lucidabr}
and you'd be able to create the document from that source only if you
have
> Also note hosted applications are no new things, they are even more of
> a dying out thing, as in former times it was normal to not have your
> own computer but use other people's computers. No free software
> license
> ever saw a problem with those. Nowadays most people have their own
> compute
Hi Frank!
You wrote:
> I'm wondering whether a document that's licensed under a DFSG-free
> license, with TeX/sgml/whatever sources available and all, may use
> non-free fonts. For example, the LaTeX source would contain
> \usepackage{lucidabr}
> and you'd be able to create the document from tha
Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Frank!
>
> You wrote:
>
>> I'm wondering whether a document that's licensed under a DFSG-free
>> license, with TeX/sgml/whatever sources available and all, may use
>> non-free fonts. For example, the LaTeX source would contain
>> \usepackage{lucidabr}
Free Ekanayaka wrote:
> |--==> Stephen Gran writes:
>
> SG> dssi is already in Debian, and doesn't use non-free software to build.
> SG> For the other, I have no idea, but if it really needs non-free software
> SG> to build, it's not suitable for main, at least.
>
> And indeed I was thinkin
|--==> Josh Triplett writes:
>>
>>Cleary this would imply that the package can't be build from source by
>>build daemons, but should be built manually by the maintainer, who has
>>agreed the VST SDK license and downloaded the headers.
JT> Yes, a package in contrib may require things whi
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - There's no automated way to reproduce the documentation exactly as the
> author wants it, and once we would establish one, there would be no
> way to detect whether a new upstream version changed that.
>
> The reason for this is that building (La)T
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As a consequence, you can't be sure to get the same document by simply
>> running pdflatex over the source file.
>
> This is an excellent reason for why the documentation *should* be
> rebuilt. How do you know that you can make a reasonable document
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, everything in orig.tar.gz must be DFSG free.
Err, of course. That's why I ask. Does debian-legal think that a
document with a DFSG-free license and with sources available except for
the embedded fonts is DFSG-free or not?
I don't want to hear te
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I forgot to answer one question - please follow up to devel if you want
to discuss this, since it isn't a legal issue.
> If the usual dtx mantra:
>
> pdflatex .dtx
> makeindex -s gind.ist
> makeindex -s gglo.ist -o .gls .glo
> pdflatex .dtx
>
> runs without
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Err, of course. That's why I ask. Does debian-legal think that a
>document with a DFSG-free license and with sources available except for
>the embedded fonts is DFSG-free or not?
I can't see anything in the DFSG which would forbid it, so it looks
free to me. With the no
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I think not. AFAIK, the binaries in main must be built from the sources
>in main, which wouldn't be possible in the case you're describing.
This is not true and has never been true.
The requirement is that it must be *possible* to build our packages only
using packages i
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, everything in orig.tar.gz must be DFSG free.
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
Err, of course. That's why I ask. Does debian-legal think that a
document with a DFSG-free license and with sources available except for
the embedded fonts is D
Scripsit Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm wondering whether a document that's licensed under a DFSG-free
> license, with TeX/sgml/whatever sources available and all, may use
> non-free fonts.
I think the source itself can be free (and, hence, can be in a source
package in main), but I don't
Scripsit Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> How do you fix errors in the document?
> By waiting for upstream to release a new version.
Even though _you_ may not want to take the time to fix errors, it is
essential for freedom that _the user_ has the tools he needs to fix
errors if he so desire
Are there objections to including the new H.264 encoder in Debian?
For details, see bug 354667 (request for packaging).
Debian maintainer Christian Marillat currently maintains an unofficial
package, and we would like your advice on whether this GPL'd codec meets
the DFSG.
Christian Marillat wro
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 01:26:56PM -0800, David Liontooth wrote:
>
> Are there objections to including the new H.264 encoder in Debian?
> For details, see bug 354667 (request for packaging).
>
> Debian maintainer Christian Marillat currently maintains an unofficial
> package, and we would like yo
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:54:24 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
> > Assuming that the original author has the right to distribute and
> > let re-distribute PDF files using that font without limits, would it
> > be okay for main to distribute the compiled
Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 01:26:56PM -0800, David Liontooth wrote:
>>
>> Are there objections to including the new H.264 encoder in Debian?
>> For details, see bug 354667 (request for packaging).
>>
>> Debian maintainer Christian Marillat currently maintains
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:45:12PM +, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> >
> > The codec has dozens of different corporations holding patents over
> > it, who will try to extract royalties for it in countries where
> > those patents are upheld (ie, USA), and giving it "this is free
> > because it's GPL" hu
Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 10:45:12PM +, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> >
>> > The codec has dozens of different corporations holding patents over
>> > it, who will try to extract royalties for it in countries where
>> > those patents are upheld (ie, USA), and giv
Hello Junichi
Can you please identify yourself as someone who has legal qualification to
make the following assertions. I am concerned that any arbitrary Debian user
can take offence to our license without reasonable legal grounds. I simply
do not know who you are.
I've opened bugs now, I d
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 12:09:39AM +, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>
> Sure, On2 has allowed free use of *its* patents relating to VP3. That
> doesn't mean that some obscure company will pop up out of nowhere with
> a bunch of patents they claim *also* apply to VP3, and that On2 has
> been infringing
Frank K=FCster asked:
> Does debian-legal think that a
> document with a DFSG-free license and with sources available except for
> the embedded fonts is DFSG-free or not?
I don't think a binary file follows the DFSG as a whole if it
contains fonts which do not follow DFSG 2 ("Source Code").
Sorry
"Ross Bencina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Can you please identify yourself as someone who has legal qualification to
> make the following assertions. I am concerned that any arbitrary Debian user
> can take offence to our license without reasonable legal grounds. I simply
> do not know who you are.
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 08:39:32PM -0500, Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm not saying the patent issue should be ignored. It just strikes me
> > as silly to even start comparing Theora with H.264.
>
> Certain graphic artists would say the same of GIMP vs Photoshop, or compare
> their
32 matches
Mail list logo
