Re: Intent to package xmemos
[Shouldn't this be on debian-legal instead of devel?]
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 04:03:20PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > BTW, I'm happy to seek a license change, I just object to BTS
> > harassment and declaration like `XWatch should not be in there'.
> Please, try to not get upset. We will treat all packages on an equal base. A
> bug in the BTS is not much more then a few bytes on some server somewhere.
> I think the reason no bug report was filed against lyx is that people
> are/were in faith believe that the situation with Lyx was resolved by a
> license change. It seems this is wrong.
(All quotations are from the clarifaction.)
I was the one who filed the original bug report on Lyx, that got the
license change. IMO, the license clarification solved the problem. ("The
terms of the GPL apply save where they conflict with this statement."
combined with permission to combine Lyx with other programs was enough.)
It's not GPL'ed ("While LyX has been released nominally under the GPL in
the past, it has in fact never been truly GPL."), and the license
resulting from the combination of the GPL and the clarification is
David Starner - OSU student - email@example.com
If you want a real optimist, look up Ray Bradbury. Guy's nuts.
He actually likes people. -David Brin