On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Seth Arnold wrote:
> * Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001206 21:30]:
> > Task packages are packages whose names are prefixed with `task-'.
> > Typically they are empty metapackages that merely depend on a collection
> > of other packages.
>
> Joey, nice work; I agree wit
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
> Heck, I just duplicated Manoj's feat of downloading the 'ls' binary
> from the FSF's own site at ftp.gnu.org, and I can't help but notice
> that not only does the binary not contain the GPL (I ran strings to
> check), but there isn't even a copy of the GPL
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Brian Mays wrote:
>
> But what if someone (named Fred) downloads our package and makes an RPM
> out of it (using alien) and gives it to his friend (named Bob, who knows
> nothing about Debian) and is hit by a car and dies. Oh my god! Bob would
> then be left without knowle
On 1 Dec 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Rando" == Rando Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Rando> The problem with that is, an aliened .deb has been received
> Rando> from us,
>
> This statement is not correct. The Debian proj
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Brian Mays wrote:
> > The problem with that is, an aliened .deb has been received from
> > us, thus counting as us distributing it. And the aliened .deb (and
> > the resulting .rpm/slack .tgz) would not contain the gpl in this
> > circumstance, which makes us be violating the g
On 1 Dec 2000, Ketil Malde wrote:
>
> Do we really need to actuall include the GPL in every .deb containing
> GPL code? Just because there's a server where the .debs can be
> downloaded by themselves? Does this also extend to a server with
> source tree - e.g. since I can make a copy of a singl
On 1 Dec 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Rando" == Rando Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Rando> Unfortunately, the Argument posed by RMS, apparently, is that
> Rando> it needs to be INCLUDED with all packages, no matter what
> R
On 1 Dec 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Overdose of my name follows: ;)
> >>"Rando" == Rando Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rando> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Brian Mays wrote:
> >> Rando Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
On 1 Dec 2000, Brian May wrote:
> IMHO, Some people seem to be confusing two issues:
>
> 1. is it legal to use a package with other operating systems? YES.
> 2. does Debian support using packages with other operating systems? NO.
>
> The fact that the license says packages can be used anywhere is
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Brian Mays wrote:
> Rando Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Okay, so what's the problem with all gpl'd packages Depending on a
> > > package called 'license-gpl' ?
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell,
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 12:55:39PM -0700, Rando Christensen wrote:
> > That way, even dpkg would warn on a --install that license-gpl was
> > suppossed to be installed as well, which counts, IMO, as accompanying all
> > gpl'd pr
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> I have an idea: we hack gzip to automatically decompress a particular
> coding sequence to the text of the GPL. Then all we have to do is
> force people to use our hacked gzip (screw up the magic in our header)
> and we don't have to use any additional
Okay, so what's the problem with all gpl'd packages Depending on a package
called 'license-gpl' ?
That way, even dpkg would warn on a --install that license-gpl was
suppossed to be installed as well, which counts, IMO, as accompanying all
gpl'd programs with the GPL itself.
It's horribly ugly as
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Rando Christensen wrote:
> look a little harder:
>
> xanielle:/bin% strings ls
>
> This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
> warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
> PURPOSE.
>
Not
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Brian Frederick Kimball wrote:
> At 09:35 pm -0800 on November 29, 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ strings /bin/ls | egrep -i gpl\|license
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
>
> /bin/ls does not contain a "notice placed by the copyright holder
> saying it may be
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Seth Arnold wrote:
> * Rando Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001129 21:27]:
> > What I would most like to see myself is adding a /etc/licensing/
> > directory in which every license used on the system can esist, for
> > example:
> >
> &
On 29 Nov 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Rando Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What does everyone think? Is this too farfetched of a plan, or is it a
> > Good Idea?
>
> It's not a horrid idea, but it doesn't solve the problem, which is
IMO, no matter WHAT way it's implememented, there is a strong issue
here, and it could be implemented WAY past the GPL, to other licenses as
well.
What I would most like to see myself is adding a /etc/licensing/
directory in which every license used on the system can esist, for
example:
/etc/lic
18 matches
Mail list logo
