Help with bug #285156 - Non free translation
I have downloaded the latest source from upstream: http://freshmeat.net/redir/display-dhammapada/41408/url_tgz/display-dhammapada-0.23.tar.gz The polish translation now states this: This publication is not copyrighted. One can copy it and use any part of it with mentioning the source. Publishers ask only for information about it. The entire file can be fetched from: http://www.amayita.com/debian/1_sponsored/dd/upstream/display-dhammapada-0.23/dhammapada-polish-transl.txt I have no idea if this solves the issue or if this translation still needs to be removed. Thanks for any hints. -- ยท''`. If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution : :' :-- Emma Goldman `. `' Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux (unstable) `- www.amayita.com www.malapecora.com www.chicasduras.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: main or contrib?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you saying that this is roughly equivlent to something like a firmwae uploading utility for a proprietory PDA? (That sounds like something that could go in main). I am saying that the driver does not depend on the firmware because its functionality does not change if the firmware is uploaded or not to the hardware device. In both situations the driver is the same program, while e.g. a program depending on a non-free library would not. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: font presents in http://www.webpagepublicity.com
Olive wrote: The page mentioned in the subject contains high quality fonts. [...] Digital Font Labs - Copyright (c) , 2000. .. FREEWARE ... Use this font at your own free will. But this seems to beautiful to be true, so does anyone know more about this website? Is the above copyright real or forged? Forged. Whoever did this forgot to remove Monotype and Microsoft from the version string. Apart from the misrepresented authorship, the font is identical to the arial.ttf shipped with Windows. Using a trademark owned by Monotype wouldn't be a good idea anyway. Regards, Clemens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: main or contrib?
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am saying that the driver does not depend on the firmware because its functionality does not change if the firmware is uploaded or not to the hardware device. In both situations the driver is the same program, is the same program != functionality does not change -- \ I was in a bar the other night, hopping from barstool to | `\ barstool, trying to get lucky, but there wasn't any gum under | _o__)any of them. -- Emo Philips | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: main or contrib?
Ben Finney writes: Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am saying that the driver does not depend on the firmware because its functionality does not change if the firmware is uploaded or not to the hardware device. In both situations the driver is the same program, is the same program != functionality does not change cream cheese != wagon wheel In other words: So what? Unlike cases where a program fails to run due to a missing interpreter, library, or whatever else, the program still runs and interfaces to the hardware per spec. If the hardware fails to perform -- because it the firmware was not loaded, because a resistor is burnt out, or whatever -- it would be nice to know why that becomes a policy issue. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: main or contrib?
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ben Finney writes: Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am saying that the driver does not depend on the firmware because its functionality does not change if the firmware is uploaded or not to the hardware device. In both situations the driver is the same program, is the same program != functionality does not change So what? Marco is implying that is the same program logically leads to functionality does not change, and thus if the program is the same program without the firmware then it does not depend on that firmware. (If he's not, I can't see how to interpret what he's written otherwise.) This is trivially not true: A shell program is the same program if the shell is changed, but that change can clearly lead to radically different functionality for the program. It's not true to say that because the shell program remains the same program, that it doesn't depend on a particular shell. Likewise, if a program will behave markedly differently in the absence of a firmware program, to the point that it becomes useless without it, it's still the same program; but it still depends on that firmware program. -- \We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't | `\ believe in tolerance and free speech. -- David Brin | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: main or contrib?
Ben Finney writes: Likewise, if a program will behave markedly differently in the absence of a firmware program, to the point that it becomes useless without it, it's still the same program; but it still depends on that firmware program. Various programs in main behave markedly different in the absence of certain proprietary network server software -- IM client programs come to mind. Do those bits need to be removed from main? Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: main or contrib?
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ben Finney writes: Likewise, if a program will behave markedly differently in the absence of a firmware program, to the point that it becomes useless without it, it's still the same program; but it still depends on that firmware program. Various programs in main behave markedly different in the absence of certain proprietary network server software -- IM client programs come to mind. Do those bits need to be removed from main? That's the debate. I was merely addressing the flawed logic of implying that is the same program gives does not depend on the firmware. -- \ Welchen Teil von 'Gestalt' verstehen Sie nicht? [What part of | `\ 'gestalt' don't you understand?] -- Karsten M. Self | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: main or contrib?
Ben Finney writes: Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ben Finney writes: Likewise, if a program will behave markedly differently in the absence of a firmware program, to the point that it becomes useless without it, it's still the same program; but it still depends on that firmware program. Various programs in main behave markedly different in the absence of certain proprietary network server software -- IM client programs come to mind. Do those bits need to be removed from main? That's the debate. I was merely addressing the flawed logic of implying that is the same program gives does not depend on the firmware. It is also flawed to say it does not behave usefully in the absence of other software X implies depends on that software. Under that test, most (all?) bootloaders belong in contrib. Likewise many printer drivers, libgpod, gsm-utils, flexloader, and probably a huge number of other hardware interface packages. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
