Re: Visualboy Advance question.

Josh Triplett wrote: Evan Prodromou wrote: On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 19:02, Josh Triplett wrote: While I agree that it is not necessarily required that a Free package Depend on some piece of Free data for it to operate on, I do believe that if there is _no_ Free data for the package to run with,

Re: Visualboy Advance question.

Evan Prodromou wrote: > On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 19:02, Josh Triplett wrote: >>While I agree that it is not necessarily required that a Free package >>Depend on some piece of Free data for it to operate on, I do believe >>that if there is _no_ Free data for the package to run with, and that >>data is

Re: dpANSI

On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 03:56, Camm Maguire wrote: > It would be nice for those in the know/responsible for Debian's legal > understanding to put forth a consensus on this. Others have suggested > the possible usefulness of contacting others on the committee. I have > a call into one such person.

Re: Visualboy Advance question.

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004, Dan Korostelev wrote: > Please, could someone explain me why visualboyadvance package is in > 'contrib' section of Debian? It's free itself, it depends on free > libs, looks like it doesn't require any non-free stuff at > all. There's also free (as in freedom) roms for GBA in t

Re: Visualboy Advance question.

On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 19:02, Josh Triplett wrote: > While I agree that it is not necessarily required that a Free package > Depend on some piece of Free data for it to operate on, I do believe > that if there is _no_ Free data for the package to run with, and that > data is required in order to op

Re: Visualboy Advance question.

Evan Prodromou wrote: > In closing: I think it's a mistake to leave out Free Software just > because there's not Free Data for that software to work with. While I agree that it is not necessarily required that a Free package Depend on some piece of Free data for it to operate on, I do believe that

Re: Visualboy Advance question.

On Mon, 2004-06-21 at 19:55, Matthew Palmer wrote: > To re-quote policy, "The Depends field should be used if > the depended-on package is required for the depending package to provide a > significant amount of functionality." Usefulness is a function of > functionality. No functionality, no uti

Re: Visualboy Advance question.

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:55:25 +1000 Matthew Palmer wrote: > > Well, I thought that useless software is maybe not worth to > > distribute at all. You seem to imply that a free, but useless > > package must be placed in contrib rather than in main... > > I implied nothing of the sort. I'm sorry if

Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:09:52 -0400 Raul Miller wrote: > I will agree that you are not creating creative elements. > > I see no reason to agree that you are not adding creative elements. > You might very well be adding someone else's creative elements > (depending on how your system is configured)

Re: dpANSI

On 22 Jun 2004 11:56:33 -0400 Camm Maguire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I am personally prepared to rely upon the Common Lisp community > > understanding that they are public domain documents. > > > > Whether the Debian project is similarly prepared

Re: dpANSI

On 2004-06-22 16:56:33 +0100 Camm Maguire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am personally prepared to rely upon the Common Lisp community understanding that they are public domain documents. [...] It would be nice for tho

Re: dpANSI

Greetings, and thanks for this! Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 07:50, Camm Maguire wrote: > > Greetings! Can anyone comment on the DFSG status of the material at: > > > > ftp://parcftp.xerox.com/pub/cl > > > > ? Please cc: me directly. > > Hi Camm. This is an