On 18.11.2012 18:55, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 04:28:01PM +0100, Felix Geyer wrote:
>> Removing the Open Watcom source files would be a GPL violation unless
>> upstream
>> explicitly adds a license to the generated assembler files.
>
> IANAL but wouldn't the general license f
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 04:28:01PM +0100, Felix Geyer wrote:
> Removing the Open Watcom source files would be a GPL violation unless upstream
> explicitly adds a license to the generated assembler files.
IANAL but wouldn't the general license from the package kick in if there is no
license mention
On Friday 16 November 2012 16:28:01 Felix Geyer wrote:
> On 14.11.2012 15:30, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 10:56:50AM +0100, Felix Geyer wrote:
> >> When you want to modify the BIOS you change the code in the files of the
> >> first variant so only that is considered the source
On 14.11.2012 15:30, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 10:56:50AM +0100, Felix Geyer wrote:
>> When you want to modify the BIOS you change the code in the files of the
>> first variant so only that is considered the source code of the BIOS.
>
> Well, you can change the assembler file
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 10:56:50AM +0100, Felix Geyer wrote:
> When you want to modify the BIOS you change the code in the files of the
> first variant so only that is considered the source code of the BIOS.
Well, you can change the assembler file directly. I wonder what happened if we
just remove
Can Debian apply an anti patch ? i.e. the BIOS changeset patch in reverse,
so it will become buildable again with bcc ?
--
-Alexey Eromenko "Technologov"
6 matches
Mail list logo
