On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 08:59:19AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050304 08:50]:
They do not have anything to add to the discussion. Particularly since
it's not even a discussion at present, but merely those of us who've
been thinking about this stuff for
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 06:10:21PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What on earth would be the point of that? It won't magically become
free just because the wider community doesn't want to make it
free. If you are seriously suggesting that we would
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Henning Makholm wrote:
In which way do you think the code is pirated, and which evidence do
you have for that assertion?
This was discussed recently with FSF. In short form: The project was
developed at University during worktime. Therefore the copyright does
not belong to the
Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On the other hand, we must adopt a source code definition that allows it
to change form: see my Fortran-C example.
No, I specifically reject your claim that the source code of the
existing work magically changes from being C to Fortran simply because
On 04 Mar 2005 10:07:20 -0500 Michael Poole wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
[...]
Why does it depend on what the upstream author is using as source?
How does that affect the recipient's ability to modify the work?
One of the underpinnings of the Free Software movement is that users
of
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:13:06 -0500 Luke Schierer wrote:
assuming there is a meaningful definitionof source for that package.
I claim there is at least one: the one found in GPLv2.
But as this thread has amply shown, it is entirely possible to come up
with things that have no meaningful
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 00:21:39 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
Do you think that figuring out the LaTeX markup by looking at the
resulting PDF is easy?
As a practical example of this, Python ships HTML documentation. This
is in a pre-built tarball in the Debian source package, because the
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 10:51:11 + Henning Makholm wrote:
[please send replies to the list, as I'm a subscriber and didn't asked
to get replies twice; thank you]
Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On the other hand, we must adopt a source code definition that
allows it to change
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050305 11:50]:
You need to go talk to DWN and the anti-freedom advocates, who are the
Whom of your fellow co-developers do you consider as anti-freedeom
advocates?
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C
Nous vous informons du retour de votre colis (le paquet
Eurorest) nos locaux le 2005-03-05. La commande a t
effectu sur notre site web.
Nous vous rappelons les informations concernant votre commande
Votre ID de Participant de l'Action: HW2B2-YDSR6
Forme d'expdition: par courrier
Colis: Eurorest
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 01:17:50AM +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: tinywm
Version : 1.2.0
Upstream Author : Nick Welch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://incise.org/
*
Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 10:51:11 + Henning Makholm wrote:
According to my statement, *if* we do get the special tool and all of
the intermediate forms, then the work is free. My statement does not
tell anything about the freedom if we don't - then
12 matches
Mail list logo
