Adam Borowski writes:
> Is slalib the contents of libraries/sla/ in the repository you linked
> to?
Yes.
> If so, it appears the current upstream is not the sole copyright
> holder, and there are many other contributors dating from 2004 for
> sla, and 1989 for the project as a whole (counting on
On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 10:32:16AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012, Olе Streicher wrote:
> > This is something I have to discuss with the upstream author (who
> > also sells the unobfuscated version). He probably would then make a
> > specific license which would allow its distrib
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012, Olе Streicher wrote:
> This is something I have to discuss with the upstream author (who
> also sells the unobfuscated version). He probably would then make a
> specific license which would allow its distribution, but he is not
> willing to put the original source code under GP
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Aha, I see. In this case... well, I don't think there's a solution
> that's entirely satisfactory.
>
> The closest thing I can think of, is that one is called libfooN, while
> the other libfooN-nonfree, they conflict & replace each other, and b
debian-de...@liska.ath.cx (Olе Streicher) writes:
> Gergely Nagy writes:
>> debian-de...@liska.ath.cx (Olе Streicher) writes:
>>> For example "saods9" would use slalib as a shared library, and I want to
>>> git the user a choide to run it either with the free, or with the
>>> non-free version.
>
Gergely Nagy writes:
> debian-de...@liska.ath.cx (Olе Streicher) writes:
>> For example "saods9" would use slalib as a shared library, and I want to
>> git the user a choide to run it either with the free, or with the
>> non-free version.
> Are the two libraries actually ABI compatible? Somehow I
debian-de...@liska.ath.cx (Olе Streicher) writes:
> Björn Esser writes:
>> So I'd suggest name the free one slalib and the other one
>> slalib-nonfree or vice versa (like the unrar example).
>
> The problem is that I want the dependent programs to be linked against
> any of them.
>
> For example
Gergely Nagy writes:
> If it is obfuscated, then it is most probably not the preferred form of
> modification (and not the real source, but something derived from that),
> thus, them being GPL'd is invalid, and it's not even fit for non-free,
> as far as I see.
This is something I have to discuss
debian-de...@liska.ath.cx (Olе Streicher) writes:
> There is another version of this library available, where the (C)
> sources are available (and put under GPL), but obfuscated, so that they
> cannot go into "main" but would have to go into "non-free". However, I
> am thinking about packaging thi
How about doing it like it's done with the unrar package:
According to packages.debian.org there are two pkgs.
unrar
unrar-free
So I'd suggest name the free one slalib and the other one
slalib-nonfree or vice versa (like the unrar example).
Cheers,
Björn
2012/2/8 Olе Streicher :
> Hi,
>
> the
10 matches
Mail list logo
