Off-topic was: Re: Licensing question

1999-02-22 Thread John Hasler
George Bonser writes: > Because if they try to sell SuperCahsier E-Commerce Solutions to people > they will also have to provide them with the source code ... which means > that the purchaser can in turn resell it at a lower cost. As long as they > are selling the SERVICE they are safe. No they ar

Re: Licensing question

1999-02-22 Thread John Hasler
George Bonser writes: > So you sell them the binary for $250,000 but license it under GPL. This > means that if they EVER provide ANYONE a binary, they also must provide > the source code. This is a strong deterrant that will likely prevent them > from ever redistributing the binary (to keep the so

Re: How to get hold of the "sather" maintainership?

1999-02-22 Thread Jules Bean
On Sat, 20 Feb 1999, Norbert Nemec wrote: > Hi, > > I posted couple days ago to debian-devel, asking about the package > "sather", officially maintained by [EMAIL PROTECTED] He obviously took > over that package two years ago and never submitted. Now I got a > response from someone who obviously

Re: Licensing question

1999-02-22 Thread Peter S Galbraith
Shaleh wrote: > > 5. For commercial use of this software, you may charge for the > >installation and/or management, but not for the software > >itself. Usage in a commercial service must display the > >copyright prominently. > > GPL says you may charge for media, not the software,

Re: /usr/bin vs /usr/sbin

1999-02-22 Thread Joseph Carter
On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 03:45:43AM -0800, George Bonser wrote: > > > Sbin is for system run binaries, daemons, etc. This sounds appropriate > > > here. > > > > sbin is for STATIC binaries. For some reason none of the Linux dists > > (unless slackware does and the knghtbrd package has a memleak)

Re: /usr/bin vs /usr/sbin

1999-02-22 Thread Ben Collins
On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 03:45:43AM -0800, George Bonser wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Joseph Carter wrote: > > > > Sbin is for system run binaries, daemons, etc. This sounds appropriate > > > here. > > > > sbin is for STATIC binaries. For some reason none of the Linux dists > > (unless slackware

Re: /usr/bin vs /usr/sbin

1999-02-22 Thread Roland Rosenfeld
On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Joseph Carter wrote: > > Sbin is for system run binaries, daemons, etc. This sounds > > appropriate here. > sbin is for STATIC binaries. Please read section 3.10 of fsstnd (/usr/doc/debian-policy/fsstnd) before you write something like this... Ciao Roland -- * [

Re: /usr/bin vs /usr/sbin

1999-02-22 Thread Joseph Carter
On Sun, Feb 21, 1999 at 11:54:00PM -0500, Shaleh wrote: > > I'm working on packaging fakebo, which is a utility for logging the > > activities of the (windows-based) BackOrifice and NetBus trojans. In > > it's original makefile it installed to /usr/local/bin, which I've > > changed to $(DESTDIR)/u

RE: /usr/bin vs /usr/sbin

1999-02-22 Thread Shaleh
On 22-Feb-99 Gregory T. Norris wrote: > I'm working on packaging fakebo, which is a utility for logging the > activities of the (windows-based) BackOrifice and NetBus trojans. In > it's original makefile it installed to /usr/local/bin, which I've > changed to $(DESTDIR)/usr/bin. Because it's a p

/usr/bin vs /usr/sbin

1999-02-22 Thread Gregory T. Norris
I'm working on packaging fakebo, which is a utility for logging the activities of the (windows-based) BackOrifice and NetBus trojans. In it's original makefile it installed to /usr/local/bin, which I've changed to $(DESTDIR)/usr/bin. Because it's a program which wouldn't usually be run by normal