Re: Non-free question

Hi Peter! You wrote: > > I'm considering packaging BET, a 128-bit blowfish-encrypted talk daemon. > > However, it relies on a non-DFSG complian library, even though the program > > itself is GPL. > > The license needs to have an exemption for the GPL-incompatible > library it uses. Indeed. If t

Re: Non-free question

Warren Stramiello wrote: > I'm considering packaging BET, a 128-bit blowfish-encrypted talk daemon. > However, it relies on a non-DFSG complian library, even though the program > itself is GPL. The license needs to have an exemption for the GPL-incompatible library it uses. Peter

Re: Non-free question

On Fri, 04 May 2001, Warren Stramiello wrote: > Sorry, didn't clarify. I should package the library for non-free and the > bet for contrib, correct? Yes. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond

Re: Non-free question

> Sorry, didn't clarify. I should package the library for non-free and the > bet for contrib, correct? Correct. Eric

Re: Non-free question

Sorry, didn't clarify. I should package the library for non-free and the bet for contrib, correct? ~Warren Stramiello

Re: Non-free question

> I'm considering packaging BET, a 128-bit blowfish-encrypted talk daemon. > However, it relies on a non-DFSG complian library, even though the program > itself is GPL. Then it belongs in contrib. Anything which is itself free but has non-free dependencies should go in contrib. Eric

Non-free question

I'm considering packaging BET, a 128-bit blowfish-encrypted talk daemon. However, it relies on a non-DFSG complian library, even though the program itself is GPL. I'm presuming BET should therefore go into non-free, and I should also package the library itself. Is this correct? If so, are there an

Re: Non-free question

Hi Peter! You wrote: > > I'm considering packaging BET, a 128-bit blowfish-encrypted talk daemon. > > However, it relies on a non-DFSG complian library, even though the program > > itself is GPL. > > The license needs to have an exemption for the GPL-incompatible > library it uses. Indeed. If

Re: Non-free question

Warren Stramiello wrote: > I'm considering packaging BET, a 128-bit blowfish-encrypted talk daemon. > However, it relies on a non-DFSG complian library, even though the program > itself is GPL. The license needs to have an exemption for the GPL-incompatible library it uses. Peter -- To UN

Re: Non-free question

On Fri, 04 May 2001, Warren Stramiello wrote: > Sorry, didn't clarify. I should package the library for non-free and the > bet for contrib, correct? Yes. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond

Re: Non-free question

> Sorry, didn't clarify. I should package the library for non-free and the > bet for contrib, correct? Correct. Eric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Non-free question

Sorry, didn't clarify. I should package the library for non-free and the bet for contrib, correct? ~Warren Stramiello -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Non-free question

> I'm considering packaging BET, a 128-bit blowfish-encrypted talk daemon. > However, it relies on a non-DFSG complian library, even though the program > itself is GPL. Then it belongs in contrib. Anything which is itself free but has non-free dependencies should go in contrib. Eric -- To U

Non-free question

I'm considering packaging BET, a 128-bit blowfish-encrypted talk daemon. However, it relies on a non-DFSG complian library, even though the program itself is GPL. I'm presuming BET should therefore go into non-free, and I should also package the library itself. Is this correct? If so, are there a