bug-gtypist
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bug-gtypist] GTypist 2.9 package


From: Felix Natter
Subject: Re: [bug-gtypist] GTypist 2.9 package
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 15:31:04 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux)

Daniel Leidert <address@hidden> writes:

> Am Freitag, den 18.11.2011, 21:43 +0100 schrieb Felix Natter:
>> Daniel Leidert <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>> > Am Montag, den 14.11.2011, 15:38 +0100 schrieb Felix Natter:
>> >
>> > [..]
>> >> #220581 (gtypist: VIM syntax highlighting)
>> >> => as of ~2000-2003, RMS does not allow/want us to include the        VIM 
>> >> Syntax
>> >> highlighting mode in the package. What is the debian policy on this,
>> >> maybe we should include it in the debian package? Has licencing
>> >> changed?
>> 
>> hello Daniel,
>> 
>> > What is the problem here? I did not find any information. Is there a
>> > legal issue? Depending on the answer we can maybe distribute the script
>> > with a separate source and binary package independent from gtypist. But
>> > this depends on the specific issue.
>> 
>> I think it was related to this thread:
>>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/01/msg00000.html
>> 
>> But now...:
>>   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
>> => the vim >= 6.1 licence is said to be GPL-compatible :-)

hello Daniel,

> That's good to hear. But what was the problem distributing gtypist.vim
> under the same license as vim (maybe dual licensed) in the past? This
> file is not linked to gtypist and IMO there is/was no need to distribute
> it under GPL only. Or did you made this explicit decision?

No, RMS made the decision. I removed the file from cvs on 2001-11-20,
and since by then, the vim licence was critisized, I conclude that 
this was the problem. But unfortunately we don't have bug-gtypist
archives that go back that far.

>> => so I think we should add it to the package: I just committed it in
>> git as tools/gtypist.vim. What remains to be done is to mention this in
>> the manual, as suggested by Dmitry (I will do this tomorrow or Sunday).
>> If necessary, we can make a 2.9.1 release (@Tim: what do you think?).
>
> Ok. Then I need to check, how to install it on Debian.

Thanks and Best Regards,
-- 
Felix Natter



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]