Your message dated Wed, 12 May 1999 06:08:55 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line this is not a bug
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility t
On Wed, May 12, 1999 at 01:01:59PM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Encumbered in which country? In many countries (including the one
> where non-us.debian.org resides) software patents are not accepted.
>
> Which country is that? If it is in Europe, I am afraid
> the situation may be abo
On Wed, May 12, 1999 at 13:01:59 -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Encumbered in which country? In many countries (including the one
> where non-us.debian.org resides) software patents are not accepted.
>
> Which country is that?
The Netherlands.
> If it is in Europe, I am afraid the situ
Encumbered in which country? In many countries (including the one
where non-us.debian.org resides) software patents are not accepted.
Which country is that? If it is in Europe, I am afraid
the situation may be about to change.
I'd like to know RMS' opinion on the issue: why should I
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I generally believe this is the same as the system BIOS and these things
> should probably be allowed into main if they are otherwise free. An
> example of the kind of thing coming to mind would be a SDK for a system
> that runs on Linux and then the emu
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Zack Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Joel Klecker wrote:
>>The main problem is that 2.0 kernels do not support sigaltstack(),
>>this causes such things as m4 to fail when run on a Linux 2.0 system
>>if it was compiled on a glibc 2.1 system using 2.2 kernel he
Joel Klecker wrote:
>At 19:15 -0400 1999-05-09, Michael Stone wrote:
>>On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 04:03:01PM -0700, Guy Maor wrote:
>>> Because it requires glibc 2.1 and kernel 2.2.
>>
>>Which reminds me, we should probably make it clear that 2.0 kernels will
>>not work properly with potato if we do
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And it is currently not legal to use RSA without RSAREF in the US.
Just a slight correction: my understanding is that to use these
algorithms in the US, you must use RSAREF, get an appropriate license
from RSA (generally by purchasing one of their crypto
On Wed, May 12, 1999 at 02:13:04 -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> It's possible because software patents are illegal where pandora is.
Do we have conclusive evidence of that? I happen to live where pandora is,
and AFAIK it may not be possible to get an algorithm patented here, but it
may well be that
On Tue, May 11, 1999 at 06:26:11PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> Richard> I think that the best basic policy is that a package can
> Richard> go in `main' if it doesn't require any non-free software
> Richard> *on your machine*. Making use of non-free software on
> Richard> anothe
On Tue, May 11, 1999 at 11:21:28PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> I was just taking a bit of a look around the new non-us trying to figure
> out what our stance was on things like IDEA and RSA and unfortunately
> can't figure it out. :| (BTW the dns has been swtiched over.. email
> [EMAIL PROTECTE
On Tue, May 11, 1999 at 23:21:28 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> It seems from what I have heard that we consider IDEA and RSA to be
> non-free due to the patents on them in various countries and this is why
> we have the gpg-rsa and gpg-idea modules in non-free. However we also have
> libssl, open
[follow ups to -policy]
I was just taking a bit of a look around the new non-us trying to figure
out what our stance was on things like IDEA and RSA and unfortunately
can't figure it out. :| (BTW the dns has been swtiched over.. email
[EMAIL PROTECTED] if there are issues)
It seems from what I h
On Tue, May 11, 1999 at 07:04:57PM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
> deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian stable main
> deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US stable main
>
> I would be happy with that.
* knghtbrd is counting seconds until pandora with reorganized non-US
becomes
> "Richard" == Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> I think that the best basic policy is that a package can
Richard> go in `main' if it doesn't require any non-free software
Richard> *on your machine*. Making use of non-free software on
Richard> another machi
I think that the best basic policy is that a package can go in `main'
if it doesn't require any non-free software *on your machine*.
Making use of non-free software on another machine is unfortunate
but does not put you in the same moral dilemma as having it on
your own machine.
But there could be
I can also support having apt's sources.list be something like this:
# Something about this being sources.list and pointin you at
# sources.list(5) for info on its format
#
# The general outline of an entry for http:
# deb http://your.server/mirror release dist di
17 matches
Mail list logo
