Package: wnpp
There's a bug more than a year old about a new upstream
version available for cipe, with no discussion from the maintainer
as to why this new version has not been incorporated. The
package should probably be orphaned, so that someone who
is more interested can maintain the package:
On 5/27/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/27/05, Matthijs Kooijman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > That's correct; and, with or without that dependency, OpenTTD
> > > infringes the copyright on Transport Tycoon Deluxe under a "mise en
> > > scene" theory, as discussed on deb
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
I don't have access to X and it looks like I won't for some
time to come. sam needs someone with X to do it justice.
Note that sam has a severe bug filed against it. [Looks
fairly easy to fix.]
FYI,
--
Raul
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
I don't have access to X, and won't for some time to come.
This is one of the smallest and simplest window managers around.
This package has some of the oldest bugs in the system against it
(I filed them, but haven't been able to get on a machine which could
reprod
> >>>>> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raul> Look at the situation this way: the GPL restricts the
> Raul> distribution of emacs, not that of independently written
> Raul> code. The question asked was whether i
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 03:42:29PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Years ago when I satrted coding elisp and wasn't concerned about
> licensing issues, I thought I was okay as long as I didn't load
> anything via 'require'. But obviously I was using other people's
> copyrighted code way before t
> > However, even if there are no non-GPLed implementations of the interfaces,
> > a trivial call to buffer-substring would not be worth worrying about.
> > If the code in question falls under fair use, copyright isn't an issue:
> > you need something substantial enough to be considered a copyright
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 02:30:42PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
You said:
> > Anyways: it's legal for elisp code to have a GPL-incompatible license.
> > However, it's not legal to distribute GPLed emacs with such code if that
> > code is intended to be used with emacs to implement some program.
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 09:16:19AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Raul, why are you so quick to dismiss this? You state it like it
> was a matter of fact. Is this documented anywhere?
I didn't dismiss it. [And, what is it that you want documentation on?]
Look at the situation this way: the
On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 08:43:44PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> Is it even legal for elisp code to have a GPL-incompatible license?
> Any elisp code uses the emacs builtin functions extensively. These are
> protected by the GPL. The concept of linking gets very blurry here,
> too.
Why is this eve
Abraham vd Merwe is packaging this, instead of me.
Thanks,
--
Raul
- Forwarded message from Abraham vd Merwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:05:38 +0200
From: Abraham vd Merwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
License: GPL version 2
Site URL: http://www.fefe.de/dietlibc/
Description:
The diet libc is a libc that is optimized for small size. It can be
used to create small statically linked binaries for Linux on alpha,
arm, mips, sparc, ppc and x86. Includes supp
12 matches
Mail list logo
