A p proval Letter
Joseph
Trusted Bank Group
Ref: 82710
Sir:
this letter is to confirm that you have been a.pproved
to ref i nance for a
conventional mor t gage at 3.75% pending completion
of your application.
We have verified that you fit our mor t gage guidelines
to qualify for our low
lity for one and awful ambiguities for
another.
The QPL ended up not what I expected at all. There are a couple of
clauses in that license that are truly terrible and reading through the
thing you can see that clearly if you speak English (or some variant of)
natively.
--
Joseph Carter <[E
hostile to free software in
general. If you have these opinions, why the hell did you become a Debian
developer in the first place?
Seems like the new maintainer fonecall wasn't very effective.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (h
, they grant you the band a license to perform the
music nowadays. So it is in the US, thanks to the RIAA.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
The QuakeForge Project (http:/
t they are interested in making Qt 2.0 and
later GPL compatible to keep certain people satisfied with their attempts
at doing the right thing. I'm not satisfied.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20
On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 12:19:05PM +0200, J . H . M . Dassen wrote:
> While Qt2 is under a free license (after a drafing process in which Debian's
> Joseph Carter provided extensive feedback), this license, the QPL, is
> unfortunately not compatible with the GPL. This has been
me.
> and the source could go into mainsince the interreaction of the gpl and
> qpl is in the .deb form...and not the source form.
>
> that sound logical?
Not without the slightest clue what you're talking about, no.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
an't be uploaded without specific exemptions for
Qt and any GPL'd apps that link the libs are going to have the same
problem.
This is precisely what Troll Tech won't fix and KDE wants to ignore.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
De
won't fix and KDE
> > wants to ignore.
>
> By the way, should the shared libs also have the exception for Qt?
LGPL doesn't require it, but it can't hurt.
(This makes 11 for the people counting on irc..)
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
roject
that are the largest source of contention. IF KDE's entire codebase were
written by KDE developers, this issue would have been resolved two years
ago if not perhaps longer.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http
eption. No way!
Several people on this list have argued this loophole exists today. It
doesn't, but they argue that it does anyway. =p Such arguments were
re-used by the QuakeLives project (a project which was in "competition
with"(?) QuakeForge, which I run) including referencing K
Okay guys, how about a few suggestions?
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/) 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
if macOS is for the co
Please help
> me debug it.
>
> --
> Talin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "I am life's flame. Respect my name.
> www.sylvantech.com/~talinMy fire is red, my heart is gold.
> www.hackertourist.com/talin Thy dreams can be...believe in me,
>
good enough if it is indeed what you want.
Given the number of people who seem to want the same and try to cook up
their own license as a result (Debian is very familiar with these - most
of them whose authors can no longer be located are unfortunately relegated
to non-free status even though it'
; infringing the patent, not the data.
There is no patent on LZW decompression. Only compression.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
The QuakeForge Project (http://quakef
arga (though uncompressed) and at least one major
variant of Targa uses LZW. Don't even think about it - I'd close the bug
without a second thought.
There is no legal problem here. There might be a political problem, but I
really don't care about that.
--
Joseph Carter <[
is legal problem.
> Problem is that LZW gifs aren't free, therefore :
> b) shouldn't be i nmain
> a) can't be distributed under GPL, and Debian breaks GPL distributing them
I love your logic. Take your holier-than-thou crusade and bother somebody
else.
--
Joseph Carter &
unless we're worried that the second may have been the
intent and we'd rather not have to have a court decide the first is
correct possibly after an expensive court battle. I think we're probably
okay myself.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DC
o have issues with reality. I wouldn't take any sort of
definition of "legal" he provides too seriously since he demonstrates a
profound lack of any understanding of the subject every time he feels he
needs to comment. Common sense isn't, so they say.
--
Joseph Carter <[
ense situation for Galeon.
If you don't mind the dual license, this seems pretty doable.
> We would greatly appreciate any advice or ideas in resolving this
> issue.
Good luck, with the license stuff and with the browser.. =)
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
lling to
register yourself with the government as exporting software and agree to
not knowingly export to countries such as Iraq, which the government
happens to not like at the moment.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://ww
assume full risk for doing so naturally if Janet Reno
and the FBI booth decide they don't like you. I personally wouldn't
bother registering with anyone, but then I was exporting PGP under ITAR
penalties 7 years ago.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> G
hey will just go away... ;-)
I tried that with mosfet.. He's earned himself a permanent place in my
killfile. He's not gone away - unfortunately, people seem compelled to
react to his flamebait.
*sigh* I wish the Trolls would just fix the damned license so I wouldn't
have to hear a
ced
Debian is the devil and will do anything to make sure KDE never "gives in
to Debian's demands".. All the while, flamewars continue and egos are
bruised. KDE in Debian? Hah, not likely. And there's not a fucking
thing I can do about it. I tried and failed.
--
Josep
whole host of reasons beginning with it being a court's
determination rather than yours as to what permission if any is implicitly
granted. But it is legal.
That doesn't mean Debian is willing to accept it. To much is totally
subjective that way and Debian has always insisted that the li
eady looked long and hard. There isn't one.
Dismiss it? No, no real easy way to do that. You'd have to call their
bluff and risk the lawsuit to do that. To be frank (well, in order to be
Frank I couldn't be Joseph could I?), pine just isn't worth it. And
regardless, if the
, this would put it in main.
I'd use it with vorbize, I've been itching to play with that more and
perhaps send a few bug reports and perhaps some patches. Ogg Vorbis being
free of patent BS and about as good as 2/3 of the mp3 files on my drive,
well, I may have a pile of CDs to re
before we
> learnt about UW's)?
I'd assume so. Possibly incorrectly, however the point is that you try to
do something and the licensor says "you can't!", but the language doesn't
say that you can't or actually says that you can
--
Joseph Carter <[E
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 06:08:56PM +0200, Tobias Peters wrote:
> It's time to celebrate and get the KDE packages back into the dist:
> http://www.trolltech.com/company/announce/gpl.html
>
> Special thanks to Joseph Carter who told them all the time where the
> problems were.
And don't feed the
trolls. Paul is a pathetic poor excuse for a wannabe troll and you fell
for it.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
The QuakeForge Project (http://quakef
me that DFSG #3
> speaks of things that have to be "allowed," not things that are
> "required." (I've never been too fond of textual arguments though.)
I flatly refuse to get into an argument quibbling over the spirit vs. the
language of the DFSG.
--
Joseph Carter
es anyone volunteer for rewriting
> this? :)
I'll rewrite it if the author is willing to have it rewritten. I don't
want to waste my time with it if the author is going to reject the changes
because they came from Debian or because they're not necessary or whatever
the hell else that
. The Regents of the University of
California had the right to remove it from their software and only theirs.
They don't own the rights to Apache. Not to a lot of software, in fact.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http
lose apache and postfix if I ever moved to the
Hurd given that they're both free and quite usable.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/) 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
who gives a shit about US law
anyone living in the US.
ee
is hot! By reading this sentance, you agree that it in fact is a sentance
and also that it is funny. Hukt awn foniks wurks fer mea! Do not look
into laser with remaining eye. Do not adjust your TV set. This paragraph
makes no sense except that about five people who read it will be slightly
am
d so does not apply here as long as the DFSG
is satisfied.
> Anyway, the GPL is freer than the patent license, so forbids
> redistribution (at least in the country in which the patent holds).
Not really. The patent would have to place restrictions on distribution
of rtlinux for
le.
Your gut feeling is wrong. Without a license, the program cannot be
distributed at all. DJB knows this. He likes it that way, apparently.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A
n some way because rtlinux itself is, and therefore the patent
doesn't restrict this.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforg
it all working stable together,
release it under the GPL and watch DJB's face for the flash of pure rage
and hatred
Ahhh, it would be so nice to see...
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 226
I'd bet DJB would really only get up in arms about it if you called
> it "freeqmail" or something.
Oh, he'd have kittens. muahahahaha
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 22
the translation.. It's not GPL compatible,
if that matters to you.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/) 44F9 8FF7 D7A3
in
the license. It says you may do those things and it gives no limitations
on doing them.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/) 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
"I have a bone to pick, and a few to break."
-- Anonymous
t
our own dangers if we don't have to.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/) 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
wow... simple maths
mission of the Apache Group.
>
>You might find this solution acceptable, since it is DFSG compatible.
This is a much less annoying alternative. It is not however GPL
compatible until after the name has changed.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuP
on the wdiff,
it's a vast improvement. Nothing changed seems non-free, but I didn't
give it a good reading to compare it with the GPL if someone else would
like to do that. (ncftp can use readline can it not?)
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DA
air use is fair use, and therefore not subject to restrictions.
The collection may be under Copyright, but I would hope a fairly liberal
license.
My name and number are not Copyrighted, however the fonebook you read them
in most certainly is.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
laws I know of which would make
distributing a fortune database (even as part of a larger collection sold
for profit) anything but fair use, if properly attributed.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20
7;d really be interested in a way to do that
> that doesn't similarly affect the GPL, at least as interpreted by Stallman
> when he came after L. Peter Deutsch regarding linking to readline's API
> from Ghostscript.
There are holes in the DFSG that fixing would be hard. There
ducts derived from this software may not be called "VOCAL", nor
> may "VOCAL" appear in their name, without prior written
> permission."
>
> Is this compatible with the third clause of the DFSG ? It looks like a
> restriction on the distribution.
T
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 09:46:15AM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> > idea.cpp
>
> This could be a serious problem. What's the current Debian stance on
> IDEA? Can it go in non-US/main, or just non-US/non-free?
Heavily patented in some places. Non-free.
--
Joseph Cart
, and close the flood
gates of their email. Brilliant strategy: annoy them till we get our way.
=)
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Free software developer
[ ] DOGBERT
[ 2 ] RICHARD STALLMAN
[ 3 ] BUFFY SUMMERS
[ 1 ] MANOJ SRIVASTAVA
[ 4 ] NONE of the abo
ght licenses as legal documents may not be modified except by the
holder of the Copyright under law. As such, NO license is itself able to
meet the terms of the DFSG and must be excepted.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Free software developer
Lucas' Law: Good wi
ays be critical to some in all cases, but as a general rule it
is NECESSARY to be able to modify the code you run on your machine. It is
not so necessary to be able to modify a license document or an icon or a
font.
Of course, these are merely my opinions, and I could be wrong.
--
Joseph Carter <
de
in the RFC is RSA's though, so you have to go by the text of the RFC if
you do that.
(We had the same problem about a year and a half ago with RSA's md4 code
and had to get a working GPL'd version..)
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Free software dev
ibuting fortunes-matrix in
main, then there are also problems with every other fortune database
Debian has, plus dict-wn, and probably a large collection of other things.
Attributed quotations are fair use, it's as simple as that regardless of
what the MPAA, RIAA, CBAA, XYZZY, and anyone else for
e from feeling
like we're abandoning our ideals because several other people have been
threatened with potential lawsuits (but never actually sued...)
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Free software developer
Debian Linux is a solid, comprehensive product, and a genuine
Sending spam that has been considered mail fraud to a list with suffixed
by -legal ?
heh
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Free software developer
0 7 * * * echo "...Linux is just a fad" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -s "And
remember..."
pgp
to defend their rights.
How then should free software projects handle Copyright? Advice would be
appreciated. I'm sure I'm not the first person to ever worry about this.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Free software developer
taniwha: Quote material :)
En
who contributed the unrolling of a pair of for
loops which iterated through three-float arrays, which we didn't want
anyway. But I digress..)
Anyway, I'm not sure if that is any better than just listing 30 lines of
names. In fact, I suspect it's worse.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL P
f someone ever tries to pull a stunt like that
again. Consider me cynnical if you like, but I know for sure there's
someone else out there who thinks he can get away with that kind of crap.
Not if he's looking at MY code, he won't.
Assigning Copyright to the FSF is not
't promise a quick resolution but will follow up
if we reach any major conclusion that we're all 100% sure is right or so.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Free software developer
Put *that* in you .sig and smoke it, Knghtbrd.
You know he will read this :>
heheheheh.
pgpYqyHxkrSu1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ble to declare it sinful to violate the GPL.
It would throw a few BSD guys I know into fits. ;) Definite potential
there just for the sake of watching them sputter about the evils of GNU
for an hour or so. =D
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Free software developer
Yeah, well that's why it's numbered 2.3.1... it's for those of us
who miss NT-like uptimes
pgpS57ECb44kp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
best license for what it does at the
moment. People wouldn't use it if there were something better. So far,
there isn't.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Free software developer
Knghtbrd: Using -3dfx or -svga?
Mercury will do something sane with i
s
speaking together over a pipe or a documented network protocol, or even
some types of plugin systems.
You can expect that the next version of the GPL will try to close up these
potential holes as well as the FSF guys can, naturally.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> F
I'm sure
most corporations would rather I could not choose to do otherwise, I can
and have. If they don't like it, they can go to hell and inquire about
blizzard conditions when they arrive.
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Free software developer
Oh no, not again.
-- Manoj Srivastava
pgpRhZYHUJHlA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
be listed in the package description
IMO. That way you can see it there before you download the package and
find out of the patent applies to you, or that you really don't care if
someone else says it does or not. (I don't, but I've already offered my
opinion on that, which is worth
expected. The DFSG applies to everyone, even the
FSF. Discrimination against publishers is most certainly at odds with
item 6 of the DFSG.
This has no bearing on RFCs, however it does bears mentioning when the
suggestion that people take a look at the FD
s
and the FBI will open a can of whoop-ass on you. Now if they would get
their hands on the punk responsible for w32.klez for filling my mailbox
with hundreds of these silly things while I wasn't here. =p
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
d the
author seems to have been hit by a bus or something. =( Still, you might
have more luck now than I did before, and it is a really good soundfont.
I use the 12 meg version, but advise using the 8 meg font for a Debian
package, if you can find it and the author.
--
Joseph Car
A great many more people than have ever seen this thing before are seeing it
now for the first time, so here's a little recap. Note these events are as
I see them, not necessarily as they are. Facts may be wrong. If you
disagree, tough--the point isn't this but what comes after. Flames to
/dev/
Of course, this one has the actual attachments. I didn't manage to stop the
last one from sending before it was too late to fix it.
Naturally.
--
Show me the code or get out of my way.
THE Q PUBLIC LICENSE
version 0.9+knghtbrd3
On Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 04:39:50PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> --On Mon, Nov 30, 1998 8:03 am -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Milan Zamazal writes:
> >
> >> This makes SWI Prolog non-free because of one its licensing clause:
> >
> >>6. If you base research on SWI-Prolog and publish on
[liberal use of paragraph reformatting ahead...]
On Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 08:47:47PM -0600, Andreas Pour wrote:
> >1. License cannot control distribution of independant patches. In
> > order to have any binding control over the license of a patch, it
> > has to be applied to the so
On Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 10:17:04PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> >1. License cannot control distribution of independant patches. In order
> > to have any binding control over the license of a patch, it has to be
> > applied to the source. If someone didn't want Troll Tech to use the
On Tue, Dec 01, 1998 at 03:25:52AM -0600, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > The GPL talks about it as a modified version of the program. I'm talking
> > about a patch file. At that point, they are two seperate works. (Some
> > people disagree with this, but they were the people saying KDE source code
> >
On Tue, Dec 01, 1998 at 11:58:04AM +0100, Warwick Allison wrote:
> >that this omission will need to be rectified unless the patch clause
> >is entirely eliminated [perhaps in favor of a relabelling clause --
> >I see no reason to call a Qt derivative Qt if the API might be different].
>
> Relabell
On Tue, Dec 01, 1998 at 01:44:11PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Relabelling is a problem - we want Linux distributors to be able to
> > make changes and still call it Qt and libqt.so. Otherwise we create a
> > mess.
>
> Hmm... What kind of mess would you anticipate if you called it "Modified
> Qt
On Tue, Dec 01, 1998 at 10:07:16PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> I think this probably counts as non-DFSG free because it restricts against
> fields of endeavor (although it's a little unclear if the additional
> restriction is mrequired or merely encouraged). But it's also hilarious.
> Don't read furt
On Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 07:49:09AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> This is a non-sensical thread that refuses to die on the XL or Beowulf
> list... it's just interesting to note s/o at RH is also talking with Troll.
Why wouldn't there be? There's someone from Debian talking to them. =>
--
I -REALLY- want Troll Tech to make the current Qt fit under the QPL, REALLY.
Then this thread could die finally!
--
Show me the code or get out of my way.
pgpsuGVPmNB0p.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Dec 04, 1998 at 12:19:23AM +0100, Jens Ritter wrote:
> In Germany it is generally impossible to patent software.
mpeg1, audio layer 3.
--
Show me the code or get out of my way.
pgpHtLhGMEPZ4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Dec 03, 1998 at 11:20:50PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Hmm... I just noticed that 0.91 of the QPL is available, and it
> looks like it might actually be compatible with the GPL. Way to
> go Joseph!
>
> 0.91 would indeed make most of this discussion moot (I think).
Yo
On Thu, Dec 03, 1998 at 11:24:14PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Then again: the restriction where Troll must be able to use modified
> versions of Qt in a proprietary fashion conflicts with the GPL.
>
> Oh well...
It's not a requirement.
--
Show me the code or get out of my way.
pgpyvTd2yklIs.
First I just want to thank everyone who has worked with me on the QPL, we
made it rule! Especially I'd like to thank Troll Tech for giving us Qt and
working with us to put Qt under a license we can all agree on. Sit down and
have a beer or something Trolls, you deserve it. =>
Of course, that d
On Fri, Dec 04, 1998 at 02:49:30AM -0500, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> > - 3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your
> > - modifications in a form distinct from the Software. The following
> > + 3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute them in a
> > +
which I think is a step in the right
> direction).
Consider my fix for both problems which have been pointed out to me. If you
have an additional point, make it specific. If you don't, I can't fix it.
It's simple as that. Troll Tech has bent over backwards to make this g
On Fri, Dec 04, 1998 at 04:55:25PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Consider my fix for both problems which have been pointed out to me.
> > If you have an additional point, make it specific. If you don't, I
> > can't fix it. It's simple as that. Troll Tech has bent over backwards
> > to make this goo
On Fri, Dec 04, 1998 at 03:06:58PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Joseph Carter quotes from the QPL:
> > This license covers modification and distribution of the
> > Software, use of third-party application programs based on the Software,
> > and development of free so
Mr. Russell,
I am writing you with regard to your petition[1] to Troll Tech, AS asking
them to GPL their Qt library. I felt I could not with clear conscience
sign this petition and I would like in this letter to address the
concerns in my mind as they relate to it. I am sending Carbon Copies of
On Fri, Dec 18, 1998 at 09:24:28AM -0500, Kevin Forge wrote:
> Joseph Carter wrote:
>
>
>
> Keep it up. Just curious. Is GPL compatibility essential for
> putting QT & KDE in Debian main ?
It's essential for burying this license issue once and for all. It's
On Fri, Dec 18, 1998 at 10:00:45AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I started to, last summer. I gave up after getting a few dozen authors,
> and I ran out of time for that kind of research. Someone else in Debian
> was going to continue the work of compiling the names, but I forget who
> it was...
Tha
[ I took the liberty of reformatting your message to fit a text display
and be more readable in the process. ]
On Sat, Dec 19, 1998 at 02:49:27PM +0100, Avus wrote:
> > Essentially in the end the headers and whatnot will read "This
> > application is licensed under the GPL. We also allow linking
On Sat, Dec 19, 1998 at 10:17:25AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Basically the GPL with a provision to allow linking to QT. For the bulk
> > of KDE that isn't needed since it was WRITTEN to use QT. This is an
> > "implicit declaration" ( I think that's the term ).
>
> I agree that the link
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
>
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
On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 07:13:54AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> okay! important idea!
> but what has this to do with KDE? or the QT license?
Debian is concerned about Qt's license and about the future of KDE.
> dont you understand that the most important thing is to keep
> KDE moving forwar
On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 01:19:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > The draft update of the DFSG has not been accepted. It hasn't even
> > received a great deal of support. And in any case, thanks to the
> > comments of various Debian developers, the QPL fulfills this draft
> > anyway.
>
> Also, note
[ I'm snipping a few people from the Cc list for replies to this message
by trimming the Mail-Followups-To: header. ]
On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 02:07:13AM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Troll Tech's stated goal is to be compatible with all of these licenses
> which meet the Open Source Def
On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 10:27:17AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Anybody remembers who ships XEMacs ?
>
> Just about everybody, including Debian. Why?
... Linked to lesstif ...
--
NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!
1 - 100 of 273 matches
Mail list logo
