[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, would we be allowed to distribute e.g. LyX source-only under the GPL?
Note that section 10 of the license suggests we ask the author for
explicit permission to distribute it.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a sub
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure if it that black and white.
>
> There's the exception clause for "system libraries"; as Motif is part of
> Unix9[58], and Linux is a variant of that in some regards, one could argue
> (and IIRC, RMS has argued) that linking against Motif
On Sat, Jul 18, 1998 at 08:38:59AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 10:34:41PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > No. There are several reasons why a GPL-ed package may not meet the
> > criteria for main.
>
> That probably means we're
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 10:34:41PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Most of the remainder had GPL licenses. But I was shocked to find that
> > most had *only* GPL licenses. If that was really the case, then these
> > should go in main.
>
> No. There ar
On Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 10:34:41PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Most of the remainder had GPL licenses. But I was shocked to find that
> most had *only* GPL licenses. If that was really the case, then these
> should go in main.
No. There are several reasons why a GPL-ed package may not meet the c
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The following had no copyright files. Some of them had symbolic links ...
> I think that current policy allows this, and I think that policy is a
> mistake
I think it's not explicitly mentioned in the policy but the de facto policy
seems to be that it's
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think we should hold up hamm for this, but I don't
> think we should be making cds with these binaries on them.
OK. Is this something like a consensus ?
Make the CD's without the controversial contrib binaries, and sort
the archive out once we've
The imlib in Hamm has a either gif support or not. The one w/ gif
support I placed in contrib, because the library itself is LGPL'ed. The
version in slink does not have this problem as we introduced ungiflib
(which is DFSG). That is part of why Irenamed my packages from imlib1
to libimlib1. Ho
[This is a verbatim repost of a message I originally posted on
debian-devel with the subject line "Re: Intent to package: GGlyph".
Since this raises several policy issues, I thought I'd repost it
here for comments.]
David Huggins-Daines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, back to the ongoing KDE/GPL
9 matches
Mail list logo
