Dave Howe wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
So where did the above "PDF and PS are programming languages" argument
come from? References, please!
PDF and PS *are* programming languages, and quite powerful ones.
However, they are entirely interpreted - the output of a pdf "compiler"
would be a static image
Joe Smith schrieb:
Florian Grandel wrote:
I have to make a correction from my earlier post. I said:
core library licensed under GPLv2
This is not true. See [1] for the core xdoclet license which doesn't
seem to be any standard license.
The licence you linked to is the standard 3-clause B
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:29:42 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
> Francesco Poli writes:
>
> > When there is no source (== preferred form for making modifications)
> > available, I do not think we should call the work DFSG-free.
>
> I would clarify the ambiguity of “available”: The upstream
> developer, by
[ CCing debian-legal for comments ]
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 10:37:49PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 01:35:30AM +0200, Cristian Greco wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 08:27:19PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > > $ ldd /usr/bin/qbittorrent | grep ssl
> > > libssl
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 05:06, Cristian Greco wrote:
> [ CCing debian-legal for comments ]
>
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 10:37:49PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 01:35:30AM +0200, Cristian Greco wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 08:27:19PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> >
>>
5 matches
Mail list logo
