> This is not true. There are other parts you must not modify, like the
> Copyright notice itself and author information. Also read clause 2.c)
> in the GPL.
I stand corrected. One minor point: you can modify the copyright notice
and author information, if only to add yourself to the list so as t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rando Christensen) writes:
> Okay, so what's the problem with all gpl'd packages Depending on a
> package called 'license-gpl' ?
Nothing is wrong with this idea, except that it is unnecessary. All
packages implicitly depend on the "Essential" packages, and the GPL is
located i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nils Lohner) writes:
> ps. what license is the GPL itself under? :)
You can copy it, distribute it, you can even sell it, but you cannot
change it. Funny, isn't it: the GPL is the only part of a GPLed project
that you are *not* allowed to modify.
- Brian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> However, if I compile the selfsame GPL'd debian package for use on a
> non-Debian system, then it is my responsibility to ensure a copy of
> the GPL of whichever version is cited, travels along with the package
> to the destination.
Note that if you are recompiling the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> So I'm pretty sure, despite my immediately previous messages, that we
> must distribute the GPL in the actual .deb of the relevant package.
> However, nothing compels us to *install* that in any way.
Then what is the point?
Why even bother to in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> I think it would be clearer, and not *that* much of a problem, if we
> added a dependency on base-files.
Note that "base-files" is an essential package, which means that either:
(1) the user is running Debian, which means that this package is al
Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We distribute Debian in its entirety.
Brian Frederick Kimball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No you don't. :)
Well ... aside from occasional server down time, I think that we do
indeed distribute ALL of the Debian distributio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Surchi) writes:
> I'm wondering about the meaning of "distribution". *Our* distribution
> is the whole distro or a single package? What do we distribute? And
> if we distribute a single package too, can we distribute GPL text in
> the same place (more or less) and in t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
> In my case, nobody ever informed me that a three-week deadline, or
> whatever it is, existed.
Well, that is something that should be corrected. The applicants need
to know the timeline established for the procedure. It's only fair.
> I was utt
> Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Surely you do not believe this, do you? There will ALWAYS be useful
> > software (at least, useful to someone) with licenses that fail our
> > somewhat arbitrary criteria for what we consider to be free.
Thomas Bush
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcus Brinkmann) wrote:
> We should just not actively throw [applicants] out if the reply takes
> long. The process should allow for random delays on both sides,
> otherwise there is something wrong.
I don't see anything wrong with a reasonable deadline. The applicant
can a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
> So if you're certain not to agree, then don't keep posting the same
> thing over and over again. Not everyone is thick headed and unwilling
> to hear or consider other positions. If there are people for whom
> absolutely no argument or evidence
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Goerzen) wrote:
> For the sake of the argument, I'll accept in this case your premise
> that non-free software helps users get their work done. Even if I
> assume that, let us ask this: why does this non-free software have to
> be distributed by Debian?
Well, it doesn't,
t; its utility that we are not permitted to distribute it, or can't be
> > bothered to.)
Brian Mays (that's me) added:
> Surely you do not believe this, do you? There will ALWAYS be useful
> software (at least, useful to someone) with licenses that fail our
> somewhat arbitrar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) wrote:
> What do we do in a hypothetical future where non-free software no
> longer exists for general purpose applications? (I.e., the only
> remaining non-free software is so proprietary -- or so marginal in
> its utility that we are not permitted to distri
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 12:33:30AM -0400, Brian Mays wrote:
> > Consider this: we all agree that Debian has the purpose of promoting
> > free software; however, our purpose also is to build a quality
> > non-commercial distribution of Linux (and now Hurd, as the projec
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Taketoshi Sano) writes:
> The cutting of the non-free area will hide the problem, and it
> contradicts the spirit of the creation ("it will at least attract
> enough attention to the problems") and our Social Contract, which says
> "We Won't Hide the Problem".
Well, it certain
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pablo Baena) writes:
x
> I'm not hardly following the thread, somebody probably already
> mentioned this, anyway: stop trying to find replaces for propietary
> software as a reason for not supporting it.
I would like to end one fallacy now: Debian's definition of "non-f
On 19 Oct 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark W. Eichin) wrote:
> Ports has probably advanced, you'd really want * set of mirrors
> (multiple or pattern URLs) * md5sum for exact match, but
> easy-to-upgrade option
The FreeBSD users that I know like the ports system very much. It's
pretty slick.
> The
Since we are discussing how to handle data, including many documents. Why
not use something similar to FreeBSD's ports? That is, we provide a
utility that will download the data from its source (using a link that we
provide to an ftp archive somewhere), check its md5sum, extract the data,
and
> "Philippe" == Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Philippe> I'm just asking for some common sense. This package has 3
Philippe> different levels of details for the world coastline (low,
Philippe> high and full). Are they really needed ? Can't just a low
Philippe> can p
21 matches
Mail list logo
