Moin,
According to a Reuters story, Microsoft's Sender-ID standard has been
revised and will be resubmitted to the IETF.
I wonder what people are thinking about this revision.
Do we have a common stance on it?
Here are URLs on it:
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&sto
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 12:33:38AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> That would require certain parts of d-i (and hence certain parts of
> main) to rely upon the contents of contrib. We can't do that.
No, I believe that would create a Suggests-style relationship, not
a Depends, since d-i would still
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 05:36:36PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> I don't see how adding support for handling contrib udebs would actually
> create a dependency; it just makes it possible to install them if
> desired.
It doesn't create the dependency -- it just forces us to recognize their
contents
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>
>>>We could do that, but it couldn't reasonably form part of the standard
>>>debian-installer. A forked d-i doesn't do anyone any favours.
>>
>>I don't see why we couldn't put support for using contrib
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It seems clear to me that the distinction here is whether we
> > treat the firmware in question as software or hardware.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 12:32:22AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> The firmware that we are talking about is, in every case I've actua
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> We could do that, but it couldn't reasonably form part of the standard
>> debian-installer. A forked d-i doesn't do anyone any favours.
>
> I don't see why we couldn't put support for using contrib udebs for
> things such as driv
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems clear to me that the distinction here is whether we
> treat the firmware in question as software or hardware.
The firmware that we are talking about is, in every case I've actually
investigated, a set of instructions that are carried out by someth
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:45:29AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Even granting that, it does not establish a very clear dependency
> chain from the firmware to the driver. Is the driver case different
> from the various network clients (AIM, Exchange, etc.) in Debian with
> no server implementatio
[No need to CC me; I'm subscribed.]
Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Next question: Blockade contains a lot of game levels generated
> by a lot of people. I have to assume that the included list
> of contributors is complete.
That's generally a reasonable assumption, unless there is evidence to
the contrar
> > Another premise which would work better is that firmware is somewhere
> > between hardware and software and that there are circumstances where it
> > makes sense to treat firmware as hardware and other circumstances where
> > it makes sense to treat firmware as software. I feel that this premi
Raul Miller writes:
> Another premise which would work better is that firmware is somewhere
> between hardware and software and that there are circumstances where it
> makes sense to treat firmware as hardware and other circumstances where
> it makes sense to treat firmware as software. I feel th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Josh Triplett wrote:
| Harald Dunkel wrote:
|
|>This did work. Mouse told me that Blockade is "public domain",
|>which I would translate to BSD license. AFAIK this license
|>allows me to do whatever I like with the sources.
|
|
| "Public domain" has a
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 10:56:58AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> (I'm obviously happy to see you resorting to ad hominems as it probably
> means you have no more arguments.)
You're the one trying to convince people of a new position (that non-free
dependencies in main are acceptable), so you're the
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 11:43:56PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> But the functionality of the driver is a function of the functionality
>> of the device.
>
> Why do you keep replying without quoting? It's even more annoying than
> top-posting.
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>
>>>It is certainly the case that I would like our users to be able to use
>>>their computers regardless of the mechanism that the vendor uses to ship
>>>firmware, yes. Remember that we don't ship contrib a
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> It is certainly the case that I would like our users to be able to use
>> their computers regardless of the mechanism that the vendor uses to ship
>> firmware, yes. Remember that we don't ship contrib as part of the
>> installer,
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > This is the wrong mailing list for that sort of proposal.
>
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 08:32:47PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> That's why I'm not actively proposing it here. Brian asked me a
>> question, and I answered it.
>
> In that case, perhaps y
Harald Dunkel wrote:
> This did work. Mouse told me that Blockade is "public domain",
> which I would translate to BSD license. AFAIK this license
> allows me to do whatever I like with the sources.
"Public domain" has a specific legal meaning, and it isn't "under the
BSD license". "Public domain
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 10:56:58AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> I explained my principles at the beginning of the discussion, and I do
>> not feel the need to state them again because they are not relevant here:
>
>How about something that is relevant, then?
>
>If that's
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> And the CPU is hardware, so not covered by the DFSoftwareG.
> >
> > Is the device you mentioned not hardware?
>
> The device is hardware. The software uploaded to control it, from a
> file on disk, is software.
Eve
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 08:05:34AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> They are useful only for people who agree with you about certain
> premises.
This sentence is true of all communication.
The premises typically being the definitions of the words used.
> Examples: the firmware is software rather th
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> And the CPU is hardware, so not covered by the DFSoftwareG.
>
> Is the device you mentioned not hardware?
The device is hardware. The software uploaded to control it, from a
file on disk, is software.
>> > These are not a useful observations.
>>
>>
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 10:56:58AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I explained my principles at the beginning of the discussion, and I do
> not feel the need to state them again because they are not relevant here:
How about something that is relevant, then?
If that's not possible, maybe you don't wa
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> >
> >> But the functionality of the driver is a function of the functionality
> >> of the device.
> >
> > The functionality of a program is a function of the functionality of
> > the comp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Argh. Yes, but the firmware in these eeproms is something that we're
>entirely logically capable of shipping. Claiming that firmware is
>sometimes software (when it's on a compact flash card, say) and
>sometimes hardware (when it's on an eeprom, say) is the sort of argume
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 12:27:09PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> >In cases where firmware is basically indistinguishable from hardware,
>> >we treat it as hardware, and not as software.
>> Really? Which part of policy states this?
>It's very interesting how quickly people
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> No, this is again wrong: a program and the libraries it use are a single
>> entity (why do you think it's called linking?) while drivers and devices
>> are different entities.
>> They interact the same way IM clients and servers interact.
>From the point of view of user
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This did work. Mouse told me that Blockade is "public domain",
which I would translate to BSD license. AFAIK this license
allows me to do whatever I like with the sources.
Question: Am I allowed to copy-n-paste some BSD license header
into his source
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> It is certainly the case that I would like our users to be able to use
> their computers regardless of the mechanism that the vendor uses to ship
> firmware, yes. Remember that we don't ship contrib as part of the
> installer, either.
Thanks to the excellent work of the in
29 matches
Mail list logo
