*Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> I hate to use Word, and hate to have Word documents on my system
> (you can really grep through them to find stuff and identify a
> document), but it's the standard at my place of work (where I use
> Linux all day). I'm thankful that there exist _free_ readers for
> it.
*Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I, on the other hand, use word2x, and recently, wordperfect,
> and I understand word files. I tell people my preference, and I don't
> send out word files, but I run a capable system.
I should point out that it is far from perfect. I have helped
people
*James Troup wrote:
> *sigh*. No, there is not. I did not accept the other packages. I am
> being perfectly consistent. This is the first package that I have
> review from Incoming of this sort; that's all, nothing more, nothing
> less.
I think James is claiming that he thinks this issu
*Branden Robinson wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't think there is one answer. In they hypothetical
apple case, it's clear that the client should go into contrib. In this
case, it is not punishment, it just makes people aware of what they are
doing when they get that client.
But what if a free cl
Divide and conquer?
Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IIRC, the whole discussion started after an archive maintainer
> rejected a new package that was supposed to go into main, for the
> reason that _he_ thinks it is useful only if it talks a proprietary
> network protocol for which there is no free serve
Hi,
>>"Georg" == Georg Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Georg> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Manoj Srivastava
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Do we have the right to deprive users of choices just because
>> we see no reason to do stuff? Sounds a trifle draconian.
Georg> Uhm - putting TIK
On Sat, May 08, 1999 at 02:49:18PM +, Georg Bauer wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph Carter
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I ask you again, is a perl script which reads freshmeat only good enough
> >for contrib because scoop hasn't published sources to his CGIs?
>
> Hu? You d
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Manoj Srivastava
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Do we have the right to deprive users of choices just because
> we see no reason to do stuff? Sounds a trifle draconian.
Uhm - putting TIK into contrib doesn't "deprive users of choices", it only
slims down main
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph Carter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I ask you again, is a perl script which reads freshmeat only good enough
>for contrib because scoop hasn't published sources to his CGIs?
Hu? You don't access Freshmeat over the free protocol HTTP? Funny.
To be specific: a
On Wed, 5 May 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 03:39:02AM +0200, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> > Yes, I'm sorry to have missed that. Both of you are obviously right.
> >
> > Now, I ask the same question again but with a little difference: Since
> > Policy defines which packages
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 05:42:45PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 05:01:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > First note: There aren't any free TrueType editors? That's not good. There
> > don't even seem to be any projects to create one. That's not good either.
> None that I
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 05:01:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> First note: There aren't any free TrueType editors? That's not good. There
> don't even seem to be any projects to create one. That's not good either.
None that I know of. Correcting this would be good though, anybody else
intereste
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 09:30:53AM -0600, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> RW> You are talking about separating out main because of moral
> RW> reasons, not technical reasons like the one behind contrib's
> RW> creation in the first place, and I don't see a need for it.
>
> Some software in main is t
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 08:06:58AM -0700, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> You'll also find most people are against another section for any reason (see
> debian-devel archives last year regarding the 'cd-ok' section flame war).
The arguments against that were general CUA and technical implementation.
It'
Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> Some software in main is totally useless to me because my computers
> don't send/receive *any* information to/from non-free software, and
> they run all the software in main.
>
> `main' is big enough as it is. If we gut it, I'll have more room on
> my tiny hard disk. M
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 08:06:58AM -0700, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> You are talking about separating out main because of moral reasons, not
> technical reasons like the one behind contrib's creation in the first
> place, and I don't see a need for it.
The reason contrib exists is a moral one -- it'
> Robert Woodcock writes:
RW> Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
>> [Note: I'm not advocating tossing packages out of `main', I'm
>> arguing that we should make a symlinked-to-`main' distro called
>> `pure'. See my proposal.]
RW> You are talking about separating out main because of moral
RW> rea
Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
>[Note: I'm not advocating tossing packages out of `main', I'm arguing
>that we should make a symlinked-to-`main' distro called `pure'. See
>my proposal.]
You are talking about separating out main because of moral reasons, not
technical reasons like the one behind contrib
> Peter S Galbraith writes:
PSG> So word2x could add a pager for plain ASCII and comply with
PSG> pure, because it doesn't *require* a non-free document to be
PSG> useful. i.e. add unrelated functionality that complies with
PSG> `pure'.
Yes.
I'd be surprised if the author actually accep
Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> [Note: I'm not advocating tossing packages out of `main', I'm arguing
> that we should make a symlinked-to-`main' distro called `pure'. See
> my proposal.]
>
> > Karl M Hegbloom writes:
>
> KMH> We've accepted that the Linux kernel itself can go into [pure],
>
> Santiago Vila writes:
SV> Need a little clarification to understand this:
SV> Currently: Debian == main. After this, how things would be,
SV> Debian == pure + main or Debian == pure?
After my proposal:
Debian == main
Pure Debian == pure
So, `Pure Debian' is just a proper subset of `D
[Note: I'm not advocating tossing packages out of `main', I'm arguing
that we should make a symlinked-to-`main' distro called `pure'. See
my proposal.]
> Karl M Hegbloom writes:
KMH> We've accepted that the Linux kernel itself can go into [pure],
KMH> even though it's got support for non-
On 4 May 1999, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> Proprietary protocols are a problem. Let's create a new distribution
> to set apart the packages that can work 100% when connected to a
> network that uses only free software (say an intranet that runs only
> Debian GNU `main').
>
> Free ICQ clients fail
> "Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> [...] people who run Debian who want a functional system,
Anthony> in spite of some alleged impurities?
^^
What?! Cruft in Debian? No way; I'll never believe it.
Anthony> [...] people
> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Manoj> [...], so someday we may have all free systems
Hmmm... `freed systems'?
> "Remco" == Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Remco> Now, I ask the same question again but with a little
Remco> difference: Since Policy defines which packages can go into
Remco> 'main' and which can't, can somebody please point out which
Remco> part of Policy these
On Wed, May 05, 1999 at 08:33:40PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
First note: There aren't any free TrueType editors? That's not good. There
don't even seem to be any projects to create one. That's not good either.
It's nice to see that this sort of discussion points out areas where free
software is
Luis> I've been snooping on this list and thread for quite some
Luis> time, but this one finally made me need to respond.
Welcome, Luis.
Luis> On 4 May 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately, we do not live in a world where all software is
>> free. Neither are
On Wed, May 05, 1999 at 09:50:48PM -0600, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> > Joseph Carter writes:
>
> [...]
>
> JC> I came up with a list of packages affected:
>
> JC> afterstep, aview, cgoban, cjk-latex, dox, enlightenment,
> JC> enlightenment-docs, enlightenment-nosound,
> JC> enlighte
> Joseph Carter writes:
[...]
JC> I came up with a list of packages affected:
JC> afterstep, aview, cgoban, cjk-latex, dox, enlightenment,
JC> enlightenment-docs, enlightenment-nosound,
JC> enlightenment-theme-brushedmetal, enlightenment-theme-clean,
JC> enlightenment-theme-cleanbi
Interesting to note are TTFs...
There are free TrueType font files, but I cannot find a free TTF editor
or converter. So the only way to have a TTF is if you created it with
non-free software that I can find... Based on james' reasoning above as
I understand it, this means that TrueType stuff ca
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 03:39:02AM +0200, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> Yes, I'm sorry to have missed that. Both of you are obviously right.
>
> Now, I ask the same question again but with a little difference: Since
> Policy defines which packages can go into 'main' and which can't, can
> somebody plea
On Wed, 5 May 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
> You're mistaken.
>
> The DFSG tells us whether software goes into non-free or not.
>
> All software in contrib is DFSG-free.
On 5 May 1999, James Troup wrote:
> No it does not. Please read the DFSG. Policy defines what can and
> can't go in main.
On Wed, May 05, 1999 at 11:59:31PM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> > Since the DFSG defines which packages can go into 'main' and which
> > can't,
>
> No it does not. Please read the DFSG. Policy defines what can and
> can't go in main.
This isn't a simple matter of modifying the policy document!
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 12:13:45AM +0200, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> Some people have been arguing that probrams that are only useful if you
> use them to talk to a non-free server should not be in main.
>
> Since the DFSG defines which packages can go into 'main' and which can't,
> can somebody ple
Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since the DFSG defines which packages can go into 'main' and which
> can't,
No it does not. Please read the DFSG. Policy defines what can and
can't go in main.
--
James
Some people have been arguing that probrams that are only useful if you
use them to talk to a non-free server should not be in main.
Since the DFSG defines which packages can go into 'main' and which can't,
can somebody please point out which part of the DFSG these programs fail?
Remco
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> contrib and non-free aren't part of Debian
> and in fact contrib is no longer distributed with our CDs.
Say What!!! Disc 2 of the Official CD Set has a contrib
directory. The Packages file in that directory lists 97
One wrong assumption I keep seeing in this thread is that if you can
read a format, then you can write it. That's simply not true. You
may not have enough information.
For instance, suppose that a file format contains a checksum, with the
calculation of the checksum undocumented. In that case,
many ppl have been using the word2x reader as an example of something that
is useless without nonfree software, and as i don't use it i'd like to ask a
question: is there any free word-format writer around (doesn't have to be
totally functional in that every possible word document can be written by
Luis Villa wrote:
> P.S. I fully support the maintainers who reject tik,
I don't.
> and hope that policy
> will be clarified so that the various ICQ clients and word-format
> converters can be moved out of main.
Now that would be even wor
I say this not because I care, but because it seemed polite to summarise
the IRC `debate' for those not on at the time. And if I get do it, I get
to bias it my way. So. What the hell... :)
On Wed, May 05, 1999 at 12:57:58AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Anthony> On Tue, May 04, 1999 at 10:53:1
Hi,
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> On Tue, May 04, 1999 at 10:53:14PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Imagine when a group of people say "Hey, call us using
>> foo-grubble, and we can have a neat game". And we have to say, sorry,
>> no can do, I use linux, and I am unable to
Hi,
>>"Luis" == Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Luis> On 4 May 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately, we do not live in a world where all software is
>> free. Neither are all protocols. Sometimes, some communication
>> protocols gain popularity with the masses that have no
On Tue, May 04, 1999 at 10:53:14PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Imagine when a group of people say "Hey, call us using
> foo-grubble, and we can have a neat game". And we have to say, sorry,
> no can do, I use linux, and I am unable to do that.
Not exactly. You'd have to say "Sorry,
I've been snooping on this list and thread for quite some time, but this
one finally made me need to respond.
On 4 May 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, we do not live in a world where all software is
> free. Neither are all protocols. Sometimes, some communication
> pro
On Tue, May 04, 1999 at 10:53:14PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[..]
> Of course, it would be nice if we had free server software
> too. That shall come with time. But turning away free software cause
> it talks to non free software on *ANOTHER MACHINE*, hurts the free
> software commu
Hi,
>>"James" == James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
James> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Really? I think otherwise. I think your views are fascist. Stop
>> trying to control people, and impose your mores on them.
James> Control people? Who am I trying to control? I si
Hi,
Unfortunately, we do not live in a world where all software is
free. Neither are all protocols. Sometimes, some communication
protocols gain popularity with the masses that have no free
implementations.
Imagine when a group of people say "Hey, call us using
foo-grubble, a
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> On Mon, May 03, 1999 at 03:15:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Theoretically, one does not provode the software to do
>> _anything_. You may look at it. You may feel inspired to write a free
>> server. You may take p
On Mon, May 03, 1999 at 03:15:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"James" == James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Server != library. There is no linking. There is no requirement to use
> >> it with a non-free server.
>
> James> Hello? No requirement? What, pray tell, does one
On Mon, May 03, 1999 at 07:02:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> James> When talking about common every day usage of a client like
> James> TiK; now using netcat as a server might sound c00l, 3l33t and
> James> funny on IRC, but how useful is it in real life? It's not.
>
> Who ar
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Well there's an obvious discrepancy then, since MANY other programs in
> > > the same boat are already in main, and have been for some time.
> >
> > Yes, because I didn't accept them. This thread only s
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Repeat after me, please. L I N K E R. L i b r a r y. S h a r e d
> l i b r a r y (I hope I am not going too fast here).
You're not going to fast, but you are being offensively condescending.
> James> `Deprive users of choices'? Come agai
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Really? I think otherwise. I think your views are
> fascist. Stop trying to control people, and impose your mores on
> them.
Control people? Who am I trying to control? I simply proposed an
extension/alteration/whatever to policy.
For so
> Branden Robinson writes:
BR> Anyway, my suggestion (which wasn't even a policy proposal,
BR> you'll note) is withdrawn.
I haven't said anything up to now because I thought you and James have
been doing a perfect job of explaining your suggestion. Please don't
withdraw it now.
Allow me t
On Tue, May 04, 1999 at 02:48:18AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Evasion? Evasion? Thems fighting words, almost ;-)
>
> Branden> You are using the existence of documentation for a protocol
> Branden> that has no de facto free implementation as justification
> Branden> for a program's
Hi,
>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> On Mon, May 03, 1999 at 04:14:09PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
>> > b) at some stage there was documentation for motif, but no lesstif.
>> >Would motif linked programs have been suitable for main because it
>> >wa
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > When you have a client under GPL, you have documentation for the
> > protocol in terms of source code, and you should have all you need to
> > write something to communicate with it from the other end.
>
> Not necessarily a complete one. Are you t
On Mon, May 03, 1999 at 10:14:28PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > I'm not saying ICQ or AIM are quite as complicated as X, but I am saying
> > that feasibility in principle is a far cry from feasibility in practice.
> > This is why I am concerned about risk of enslavement to "practically
> > propri
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not saying ICQ or AIM are quite as complicated as X, but I am saying
> that feasibility in principle is a far cry from feasibility in practice.
> This is why I am concerned about risk of enslavement to "practically
> proprietary" protocols, especi
On Mon, May 03, 1999 at 03:21:21PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Anyway, wouldn't the existance of a client implimentation imply sufficient
> information to design and/or code a compatible server?
>
> I would be interested in information concerning the truth or falsity of
> the second statemen
On Mon, May 03, 1999 at 04:14:09PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > b) at some stage there was documentation for motif, but no lesstif.
> >Would motif linked programs have been suitable for main because it
> >was a documented protocol which one could replace?
>
> No, linking isn't the same
Hi,
BTW, if we are deciding to throw out free software cause it is
useless, I vote we throw out vi, which is perfectly useless with
*any* amount of non-free software ;-)
To be more serious, I think deciding to throw software out of
debian on merit or utility (or purity -- remem
Hi,
>>"James" == James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
James> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Hi,
>> >>"James" == James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> Server != library. There is no linking. There is no requirement to use
>> >> it with a non-free server.
>>
Hi,
>>"James" == James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
James> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > > First, you are removing a very important distinction: You have no
>> > > control over what is on the other end of the connection.
>>
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well there's an obvious discrepancy then, since MANY other programs in
> > the same boat are already in main, and have been for some time.
>
> Yes, because I didn't accept them. This thread only started because I
> happened to look at TiK while proce
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The point is that every single TCP/IP client that is in existance now
> > or ever will be has a free server available: netcat. This renders
> > other distinctions meaningless, I think.
>
> Oh, purlease. This is sophistry. When talking about common ev
[Edits headers before editing reply to make sure he remembers to do so]
On Mon, May 03, 1999 at 10:02:08PM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> > > This is the point under contention. Does it matter whether a required
> > > non-free component is on your system? If a package *requires* a
> > > non-free se
Hm...
My own personal feeling is that the client's classification should not
have anything whatsoever to do with a (theoretical) server's
classification.
Anyway, wouldn't the existance of a client implimentation imply sufficient
information to design and/or code a compatible server?
I would
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > First, you are removing a very important distinction: You have no
> > > control over what is on the other end of the connection.
> >
> > Eh? So what?
>
> The point is that every single TCP/IP client tha
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 03, 1999 at 12:25:21PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > > There is NOTHING on your system that is non-free which icq depends on to
> > > run, is there?
> >
> > This is the point under contention. Does it matter whether a required
> > non-free
On Mon, 03 May, 1999, Johnie Ingram wrote:
>
> "Edward" == Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Edward> So IRC and AOL are free clients, non-free servers with no
> Edward> free alternatives, can we do the same with file formats?
>
> Bah, its ICQ thats non-free; IRC clients and servers we
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
> >>"James" == James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Server != library. There is no linking. There is no requirement to use
> >> it with a non-free server.
>
> James> Hello? No requirement? What, pray tell, does one do with TiK if
On Sun, May 02, 1999 at 08:07:15AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> And yet there are two attempts out there to write a free ICQ server. The
> specs are published. Nobody has released one yet but so what?
>
> If the protocol is published the lack of a free server AT THE MOMENT
> should not penalize
On Mon, May 03, 1999 at 12:25:21PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > There is NOTHING on your system that is non-free which icq depends on to
> > run, is there?
>
> This is the point under contention. Does it matter whether a required
> non-free component is on your system? If a package *requires*
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is NOTHING on your system that is non-free which icq depends on to
> run, is there?
This is the point under contention. Does it matter whether a required
non-free component is on your system? If a package *requires* a
non-free server, should tha
Hi,
>>"James" == James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Server != library. There is no linking. There is no requirement to use
>> it with a non-free server.
James> Hello? No requirement? What, pray tell, does one do with TiK if one
James> doesn't connect to a server (non-free)?
(Hate to screw up your threading, guys, but I seem to be missing a message.)
"Edward" == Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Edward> So IRC and AOL are free clients, non-free servers with no
Edward> free alternatives, can we do the same with file formats?
Hmm, a comment and a couple of questio
On Mon, May 03, 1999 at 01:19:35AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Software patents are perfectly valid in Oz. They're even administered
> somewhat more sensibly than in the US.
That's why there aren't so many of them.
[ Joseph, by Ccing me, you're demonstrating just how well you're
reading my mail before replying. There was a nice `Please don't Cc
me' at the top of my previous mail. Please, pretty please with a
cherry on top, be so kind as not to this time, if you reply. ]
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > But that's not correct. The program can start, and it can run, on a
> > > machine with solely free software. contrib is for things that
> > > cannot even do that without non-free software.
> >
> > Well y
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > First, you are removing a very important distinction: You have no
> > control over what is on the other end of the connection.
>
> Eh? So what?
The point is that every single TCP/IP client that is in existance now
or ever will be has a free server av
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But that's not correct. The program can start, and it can run, on a
> > machine with solely free software. contrib is for things that
> > cannot even do that without non-free software.
>
> Well you could make a fake QT which allowed things to start up
On Mon, May 03, 1999 at 02:21:40PM +0300, Brock Rozen wrote:
> > Blah. If a program, foobar, is linked against the non-free libevil,
> > it goes in contrib. The fact that someone is planning, writing or
> > even thinking about writing a libgood DFSG replacement for libevil,
> > does *not* mean we
On Mon, May 03, 1999 at 11:48:29AM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> > And yet there are two attempts out there to write a free ICQ server. The
> > specs are published. Nobody has released one yet but so what?
> >
> > If the protocol is published the lack of a free server AT THE MOMENT
> > should not
"Edward" == Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Edward> So IRC and AOL are free clients, non-free servers with no
Edward> free alternatives, can we do the same with file formats?
Bah, its ICQ thats non-free; IRC clients and servers were GPL from the
start.
netgod
On 3 May 1999, James Troup wrote:
> Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If the protocol is published the lack of a free server AT THE MOMENT
> > should not penalize the software.
>
> Blah. If a program, foobar, is linked against the non-free libevil,
> it goes in contrib. The fact
On 3 May 1999, James Troup wrote:
> > If the protocol is published the lack of a free server AT THE MOMENT
> > should not penalize the software.
>
> Blah. If a program, foobar, is linked against the non-free libevil,
> it goes in contrib. The fact that someone is planning, writing or
> even thi
[ Please don't Cc replies to me on public lists ]
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, May 02, 1999 at 12:41:14PM +, Edward Betts wrote:
> > > > So IRC and AOL are free clients, non-free servers with no free
> > > > alternatives,
> > >
> > > There are free IRC servers, e.g. th
On Sun, May 02, 1999 at 05:40:27PM -0400, James LewisMoss wrote:
> >> Assuming they only patent it in the US.
>
> Joseph> Software patents in pretty much the rest of the world are
> Joseph> illegal. Including Germany for that matter.
>
> FYI (from the patent-news mailing list):
You must exc
> On Sun, 2 May 1999 07:51:05 -0700, Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Joseph> [1 ] On Sun, May 02, 1999 at
Joseph> 11:28:55AM +0100, James Troup wrote:
>> > > We *do* care if, say, Apple comes up with some kind of
>> > > streaming media server and patents the codec.
>> >
>> > This
On Sun, May 02, 1999 at 07:51:05AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 1999 at 11:28:55AM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> > > > We *do* care if, say, Apple comes up with some kind of streaming media
> > > > server and patents the codec.
> > > This makes free implementations of that codec non-
On Sun, May 02, 1999 at 12:41:14PM +, Edward Betts wrote:
> > > So IRC and AOL are free clients, non-free servers with no free
> > > alternatives,
> >
> > There are free IRC servers, e.g. the ircd package in main.
>
> Sorry, I meant ICQ not IRC.
And yet there are two attempts out there to wr
On Sun, May 02, 1999 at 11:28:55AM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> > > We *do* care if, say, Apple comes up with some kind of streaming media
> > > server and patents the codec.
> >
> > This makes free implementations of that codec non-us. =>
>
> Assuming they only patent it in the US.
Software pat
On Sun, 02 May, 1999, James Troup wrote:
> Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So IRC and AOL are free clients, non-free servers with no free
> > alternatives,
>
> There are free IRC servers, e.g. the ircd package in main.
Sorry, I meant ICQ not IRC.
>
> > can we do the same with fi
Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So IRC and AOL are free clients, non-free servers with no free
> alternatives,
There are free IRC servers, e.g. the ircd package in main.
> can we do the same with file formats? catdoc, mswordview and word2x
> all read word documents but there is new fr
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, May 01, 1999 at 06:12:11PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > We *do* care if, say, Apple comes up with some kind of streaming media
> > server and patents the codec.
>
> This makes free implementations of that codec non-us. =>
Assuming they o
On Sat, May 01, 1999 at 06:12:11PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> We *do* care if, say, Apple comes up with some kind of streaming media
> server and patents the codec.
This makes free implementations of that codec non-us. =>
--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Debian GNU/Linux dev
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
