Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 14:56:54 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > You're right. The license is intended to be a common-law
> > contract. Hence the phrases about assent. So the idea is that the
> > licensee has agreed to everything in the license.
>
> Being a common-law-contra
"John H. Robinson, IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This package is buildable by tools in main. It meets the letter of the
> law. The spirit seems a bit ambiguous. Good case in point, the m68k
> cross-compiled stuff, where the cross-compiler used was non-free. (I
> have not verified the accuracy
I am not subscribed to debian-legal.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
> Consider a major, practical reason we require that packages be buildable
> with free tools: so people--both Debian and users--can make fixes to the
> software in the future.
I agree with this. This is also not the point. You keep talk
Loïc Minier wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Mon, Oct 18, 2004:
>>No sourcecode bits:
>>http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/thread/20021106.222149.24f92b22.en.html
>
> Quite interesting, although related to code running on the host, most
> of the thread is interesting.
Note that wher
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 10:01:05PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> I agree with this. This is also not the point. You keep talking about
> pracakge that can only be built with a non-free compiler. The one in
> question can be built with a free or non-free compiler.
No, that's not what I said.
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041019 00:40]:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:51:00PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le lundi 18 octobre 2004 à 19:22 +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra a écrit :
> > > So, when it comes time to release this and include it in a .deb, I ask
> > > myself: what would ha
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 08:25:48PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 01:47:34AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > The first section of the SC says that Debian will remain 100% Free
> > Software.
>
> That is the title of that section.
>
> If you bother to read it, you'll see "We
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 09:13:24AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041019 00:40]:
> > Wesley's software can be built using software in main. It will not be as
> > fast, but it will still do its job, flawlessly, without loss of
> > features, with the ability to m
I know this thread has progressed beyond the actual situation
I asked about, but I wanted to just throw in my opinion too.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 09:13:24AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> A program is IMHO not only specified by the fact that it does certain
> transformations from input to output,
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 10:24:44PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:28:01PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > Note the exact words (I am assuming that Glenn copied them verbatim):
> > the package in main must be buildable with tools in main
>
> Exact words are:
>
>
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
Loïc, I suggest you read the whole debian-legal thread named "non-free
firmware: driver in main or contrib?", because it answers many of the
points you raised.
I will summarize the points relevant to the eagle-usb-* packages:
- distribution of firmwares w
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 08:25:48PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 01:47:34AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> > The first section of the SC says that Debian will remain 100% Free
>> > Software.
>>
>> That is the title of that sec
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:11:50PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 10:24:44PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Exact words are:
> >
> > In addition, the packages in _main_
> > * must not require a package outside of _main_ for compilation or
> > executi
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 05:47:26PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 02:04:42AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > A difference in optimization is not relevant to a package's freedom.
>
> If compiling the program with a non-free compiler gains you users who would
> not find the
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:28:01PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
[...]
> This package is buildable by tools in main. It meets the letter of the
> law. The spirit seems a bit ambiguous. Good case in point, the m68k
> cross-compiled stuff, where the cross-compiler used was non-free. (I
> have no
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> Loïc, I suggest you read the whole debian-legal thread named "non-free
> firmware: driver in main or contrib?", because it answers many of the
> points you raised.
> I will summarize the points relevant to the eagle-usb-* packages:
thanks Marco, as
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 10:39:45AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> No, it is not. What you advocate is essentially that a later compilation
> must result in the exact same binary, disregarding the fact that our
> toolchain will change..
Please review this post:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-l
I am not subscribed to debian-legal
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 10:01:05PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
>
> I'm saying that a package built with ecc (or icc or whatever) is not
> the same package that you'll get if you build the same sources with
> gcc; it's significantly
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 09:16:17AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> The only difference is in *performance*. If there are other differences,
> then there is a bug in one of the two compilers. If you are equating
> performance with functionality, then we are going to have a very hard
> time comm
"John H. Robinson, IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The only difference is in *performance*. If there are other differences,
> then there is a bug in one of the two compilers. If you are equating
> performance with functionality, then we are going to have a very hard
> time communicating.
This i
Skulle gjerne bestille en pakketur for 9 personer
den 5.nov -7.nov. Båt Sfj.-Strømstad, buss Strømstad-Gøteborg, tur kode
9050. Hvis jeg ikke kan bestille her kan dere vennligst gi meg telf. nr
hvor jeg kan bestille turen.
Med vennlig hilsen
Liv Bakka
Vestre Braarudgt. 26
3181 Horten
Mob. 91
Sorry if this is not quite the right place, but I'm somewhat fuming ...
There's a really nice piece of software, called QM (it's a database)
that has allegedly been released under the GPL by its owner, one Martin
Philips, of a company called Ladybridge, in England.
He was talked into doing th
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 11:23:33PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> I strongly suggest that you read the following two web pages:
> http://easyco.com/initiative/openqm/opensource/index.htm
> and the accompanying faq:
> http://easyco.com/initiative/openqm/opensource/faq.htm
Is there
[I'm taking the liberty of Cc:'ing you against Debian list
policy. Please set MFT in the future if you wish people to respond to
you personally.]
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> Sorry if this is not quite the right place, but I'm somewhat fuming ...
>
> There's a really nice pie
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 07:36:08PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> [4] "GPL" means "GNU Public license" and all sources are readily
> available under the GPL. In this case, the author of those pages is
> probably not competent.
Actually, the pages at those urls look fine -- it's either myself or
the
Note: I've left Anthony Youngman's email address in the headers,
but I seem to have a local problem where email to Anthony bounces.
[I can work around that, using telnet, but it's a pain.]
> >
> > I strongly suggest that you read the following two web pages:
> > http://easyco.com/initiative/
Lewis Jardine wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> If you still insist, consider this: If I would know i386 assembler
>> (which I don't), I could theoretically hand-optimize software before I
>> upload it. Since I did hand-optimization, the resulting binary would no
>> longer be built using only Free
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:55:30PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>>>On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:51:00PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Main must be built with only packages from main.
>>On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 12:37:45AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> As a side note, I thin
Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> Since there's one GPL question left, I am still posting to debian-legal.
> The legal question is marked ** for those who want to skip the rest.
>
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 11:49:56AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Whether your university owns a license or not doe
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 07:36:08PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Is there any reason to believe that by "GPL" they mean the "GNU Public
> License"?
The G in "GPL" is "General", not "GNU". (I'm sure you know this, but
you said "GNU Public License" several times in this mail.)
> I can think of seve
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
> > >
> > > I strongly suggest that you read the following two web pages:
> > > http://easyco.com/initiative/openqm/opensource/index.htm
> > > and the accompanying faq:
> > > http://easyco.com/initiative/openqm/opensource/faq.htm
> > >
>
> On Tue
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
>>On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 10:01:05PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
>>I'm saying that a package built with ecc (or icc or whatever) is not
>>the same package that you'll get if you build the same sources with
>>gcc; it's significantly functiona
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 07:46:07PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 07:36:08PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Is there any reason to believe that by "GPL" they mean the "GNU Public
> > License"?
>
> The G in "GPL" is "General", not "GNU". (I'm sure you know this, but
> you sai
Raul Miller wrote:
> Is there any reason to believe that by "GPL" they mean the "GNU Public
> License"?
Just a note: s/GNU Public License/General Public License/g. "GPL" is
"General Public License", and "GNU GPL" is "GNU General Public License";
there is no such thing as the "GNU Public License",
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> - notwithstanding the disagreement of a few people here, even if
> post-sarge eagle-usb-data will have to be moved to non-free, there is
> nothing in our policy which prevents to downgrade the hard dependency
> to a suggestion, to be able to keep shipping the free driver
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:25:07PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > "You cannot install, or ask your customer to install a GPL version of
> > OpenQM and then install your own product unless that product is also
> > delivered to the user under GPL or an approved variant."
>
> This would be accurate fo
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:25:07PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>>>"You cannot install, or ask your customer to install a GPL version of
>>>OpenQM and then install your own product unless that product is also
>>>delivered to the user under GPL or an approved variant."
>>
>>This
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 08:44:46PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> It's misleading.
Yes.
There are lawyers who will express things in a misleading fashion if
they think that's in the best interests of their clients, and if they
think they will not get in legal trouble for doing so.
--
Raul
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 05:46:07PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> This is clearly not appropriate; it is not "perfectly reasonable" to
> install a driver package without the firmware, any more than it is
> reasonable to install a dynamically-linked binary without its shared
> library dependencies.
39 matches
Mail list logo
