Montreal Thu Dec 3 06:59:44 1998
Would it have been okay for Debian to make kde-source packages without
fear of being sued by the debian-fear-inspiring kde or qt
folks? Seeing that KDE source is not derived from Qt...
-N.
Thought this might be relevant to the kde source thread.
-N.
-- forwarded message --
Path:
news.mcgill.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!pitt.edu!portc02.blue.aol.com!bignews.mediaways.net!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-han1.dfn.de!news.uni-paderborn.de!not-for-mail
From: Axel Boldt <[EMAIL PROT
Montreal Fri Jan 22 13:45:25 1999
David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I use LyX as my main word processor, and it's found in Contrib.
Then why send this email? It is only likely to start a long flame war
with the potential result of having LyX removed from Contrib. Is that
what you want?
Montreal Fri Jan 22 13:58:08 1999
> Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 10:42:00AM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> > >
> > > This permission certainly includes linking against GUI toolkits like
> > > XForms, Motif, GTK+, Qt or Win32. A copy of the GNU General Public
> > > License
Montreal Sun Jan 24 05:47:21 1999
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Starner wrote:
>
> > Actually, LyX depends on XForms, so fixing Qt won't help. Fixing Qt will
> > let us add KLyX (LyX ported to Qt), which would be a good substitute.
>
> Has anyone in Debian ever approached
Montreal Sun Jan 24 09:10:52 1999
[disclaimer: all imho and all up for debate.]
Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is Debian a paying customer here? Is it particularly appropriate for
> > Debian to approach developers in this way? Isn't this something the
> > XForms developers can decide
Montreal Tue Feb 2 13:54:50 1999
Have you guys seen RMS's article yet?
http://x13.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=439484995&CONTEXT=917981479.400752729&hitnum=0
Now consider the fact that the LGPL has a backdoor in it and allows
you to convert the work to GPL. Debian could select LesserGPL'ed
librar
Montreal Fri Mar 12 11:35:53 1999
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Has anyone looked at the final QPL yet? I'm curious if it is GPL
> compatible now, and if not exactly why not.
The GPL requires you to distribute a derivative product under the
terms of the GPL. QPL will not let y
Montreal Fri Apr 9 21:21:29 1999
Do applications like Netscape Navigator or Star Office actually comply
with the LGPL requirements?
Thanks,
Navin.
Montreal Sat Apr 10 01:31:26 1999
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Navindra Umanee writes:
> > Do applications like Netscape Navigator or Star Office actually comply
> > with the LGPL requirements?
>
> What LGPL requirements do you think they might be violatin
Montreal Sat Apr 10 18:51:45 1999
Ahh. Thanks a lot to both of you for clearing this up.
Navin.
Montreal Sun Apr 11 08:52:30 1999
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/04/11/0554227
Help avoid the Open Source license flames.
Cheers,
Navin.
Montreal Fri May 28 00:31:13 1999
Under Linux, why are you using GTK+ instead of Qt? Politics. Most of
the truly nerdy open source people prefer GTK+, since Qt is not quite
free enough for the deepest dogma. We want the enthusiasm of those
super-geeks right from the beginning, so we are making t
Montreal Fri May 28 08:23:17 1999
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please don't be dissuaded by politicians or their harassment.
> > Apparently the authors think it's okay, so if you want to do it, just
> > go right ahead. You might want to establish a dialog with the
> > AbiSource fo
Montreal Fri May 28 08:50:34 1999
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> KDE was pulled for LEGAL reasons. They are close to being resolved, but
> to be quite honest, all the people pretending they are political and not
> legal are GETTING IN THE WAY of fixing the problem.
Btw, neither Calde
Montreal Fri May 28 17:09:01 1999
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ivan writes:
> > Debian just lives by the CYA policy. :) I don't know about the others.
> > They probably follow the same thoughts as everyone else.
>
> Or the advice of their attorneys.
>
> Lawyer to Red Hat exec: "If we
Montreal Sat May 29 09:55:38 1999
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Riku Voipio wrote:
> > Why doesn't QTv2 fall under the "system" clause?
>
> It might, but that will make no difference. That clause would let other
> people distribute GPL'd programs linked with Qt. It wouldn't help
Montreal Sat May 29 10:03:30 1999
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is hotly debated, some people say that nothing X-based should be
> considered "part of the operating system", others say that Qt, gtk, and X
> are all part of Linux, and others still say that Qt would have to be at
>
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I am really disappointed in was the reaction I saw places such as
> Slashdot. We all know the average Slashdot poster these days is .. not
> exactly guaranteed to be clued, but I believe the comments I read were an
> embarassment to each and everyone
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Previously Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > No, file formats are not copyrightable, only actual files.
> > Otherwise clones of proprietary packages with proprietary file
> > formats would be in violation of copyright.
>
> We're starting to digress here though.. le
20 matches
Mail list logo
