On Oct 31, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO, DFSG#2 refers to source code, as is usually defined, that is to
say, as in the GNU GPL v2.
No, it does not. As usual, you are just inventing new requirements which
are not specified by the DFSG.
Deliberately obfuscated code is
On 10/31/06, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Person C creates a driver knowing with properly names defines and
comments explaining why he does what and where to easily readable
structures of the register mappings of the hardware. Person C then
goes and obfuscates the code into
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 01:20:43 +0100 Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 12:55:45AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:59:18 +0100 Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
Nope, because you can ship the source code and the object file if
you wanted.
Already now, major
Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, you are probably right if the person use an automated tool to make
this obfuscation. (Not sure though, see below).
However as it is impossible to know if someone use a obfuscation program
or if the person use a text editor to edit this, I can not
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 04:52:13PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
The only thing is #2 above. The question is if someone must release
all it knows when it release open source software (according to DFSG)
or if you can release only enough to make something work. I can also
put it as if you want to
Hi Mathew
(Anyone on debian-legal: please note and maintain the Cc:s)
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 04:26:38PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 05:00:15PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
(Anyone on debian-legal: please note and maintain the Cc:s)
As you say you need the
Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi
First I want to tell to you Kyle and Matthew, that this is not a personal
thing against you, and that I have noted the question mark in the end of the
subject (Contains obfuscated source code, DFSG violation?). I actually want
to thank you for
Hi Goswin
Thanks for your response, and interesting new view (option C)
on this matter.
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 02:20:44PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...CUT...
Let me take two examples:
* Person A create a driver by reverse engineering,
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 05:00:15PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
(Anyone on debian-legal: please note and maintain the Cc:s)
As you say you need the prefered form of _modification_, which means
that if we change things, we are not allowed to obfuscate it. I can not
see anything that enfoce the
Hi Sven
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:32:02PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
...CUT...
Will all reverse engineered drivers with hardcoded values be considered
as closed source? Must you always release everything that you know
when you release somehting as open source?
Must we release the
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:26:38 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 05:00:15PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
(Anyone on debian-legal: please note and maintain the Cc:s)
Including the From: field (that is you) and the To: field (that is Ola
Lundqvist)? Let's assume the answer is
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 09:06:50PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
Hi Sven
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:32:02PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
...CUT...
Will all reverse engineered drivers with hardcoded values be considered
as closed source? Must you always release everything that you know
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:59:18 +0100 Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
Nope, because you can ship the source code and the object file if you
wanted.
Already now, major parts of debian/main are not cleanly buildable out
of the box, due to cyclic bootstraping dependencies.
But those major parts of
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:50:19 +0100 Ola Lundqvist wrote:
Hi Mathew
(Anyone on debian-legal: please note and maintain the Cc:s)
Again assuming that this means you and Matthew want to be Cc:ed as
well...
[...]
That's perfectly acceptable. Upstream can do whatever they want.
However, if
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 12:55:45AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:59:18 +0100 Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
Nope, because you can ship the source code and the object file if you
wanted.
Already now, major parts of debian/main are not cleanly buildable out
of the box,
Hi
First I want to tell to you Kyle and Matthew, that this is not a personal
thing against you, and that I have noted the question mark in the end of the
subject (Contains obfuscated source code, DFSG violation?). I actually want
to thank you for making me think on what my opinion about open
16 matches
Mail list logo
