Re: xdm package
On Sun, 25 Oct, 1998, Russell Coker wrote:
> >It is a xdm replacement with an NeXT type look
> As kdm is an xdm replacement with KDE look...
As gdm is an xdm replacement with a gtk look
> IMHO it's not clearly illegal. IMHO not much is clear at all. I believe that
> what I am doing by compiling code which is written by members of the KDE team
> and designed to be linked with the QT libraries (it can't and hasn't been run
> any other way) is clearly complying with the wishes of the authors of all the
> code (both KDE and QT) in question. If the binaries I produce are said to be
> non-distributable then it's due to a technicality of the GPL. In which case I
> could produce a source package as has been done with Qmail and PINE.
I agree that a source package is fine, but it seems such a shame, KDE is a
nice piece of software, I think it would run even better on my machine now I
have upgraded to 64Mb.
> >KDE packages are not distibuted with debian, because KDE have not provided a
> >licence to which the packages can be distributed. It is NOT a debian policy
> >issue, it is a legal issue.
> However using the BTS is not related to the distribution of the software. We
> could use the Debian BTS to track bugs in Microsoft software if we wanted to,
> as long as we didn't distribute the MS software in question that would be quite
Again I agree, I see no reason why we shouldn't use the debian bug tracking
system for monitoring KDE, it might need some modification however. And with
proper settings in the /etc/apt/sources.list users need never know that the
packages they are downloading are not coming from debian.
About tracking Microsoft bugs: i do not think the bugs system would cope :-)
a=IO::Socket;perl -M$a -e$a'::INET->new(PeerAddr=>"host:139")->send(1,MSG_OOB)'
-- winnuke in ONE line