On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:33:08PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> If you can't release your modifications under the same terms as the
> original, then it isn't DFSG-Free.
I can think of a couple obvious exceptions to this:
[1] Where a program is offered under optional terms, some of which
are prop
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 02:31:45PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> No, it talks about *any* copies at all, and then excepts mere
> aggregation. If there's code written by Debian, no matter how brief,
> to run them together, then it's not merely aggregation.
You've asserted this many times.
> > Indeed it does. So what's your basis for saying that "Eclipse 3.0 and
> > Kaffe" is "a work"? Is it a "work based on the Program"? If it is,
> > then which of the following is it:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:46:36AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> The Debian OS is a work containing a co
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 09:53:16AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> If you use Eclipse with a JVM, then to the extent that a combined work
> is created, it is created by the user or by the JVM.
For the record, I disagree with this line of reasoning. I think
it's misleading, and I see no need for it.
> > Same difference, legally.
> > [...] "a mere waiver of the right to sue" [...]
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:51:19AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> So you are saying that, when I copy and distribute a GPL'd program, I am
> violating the law and staying unpunished.
No, you're not violating the la
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 02:31:13PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Again, this isn't about the copyright holder's right to control
> >> production of derived works. This is about the copyright
On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 02:31:13PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Again, this isn't about the copyright holder's right to control
> production of derived works. This is about the copyright holder's
> right to control copying and distribution of copies. Reading GPL 2b,
> I cannot see permiss
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 04:44:39PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> But you can see that it's not mere aggregation, because they invoke
> each other when run.
Evidence is not proof.
--
Raul
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 04:44:39PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> But you can see that it's not mere aggregation, because they invoke
> each other when run.
Evidence is not proof.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EM
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 01:39:09PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> But what ends up on the user's Debian system when he types "apt-get
> install eclipse; eclipse" is a program incorporating a JVM and many
> libraries. Debian's not just distributing Eclipse or just
> distributing Kaffe -- the
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 05:57:54PM +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Now, before you go off ranting about Kaffe's native libraries, please
> take a moment to let the fact sink in that while these native libraries
> are the result of Kaffe developers being a somewhat clever bunch at
> developing soft
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 01:39:09PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> But what ends up on the user's Debian system when he types "apt-get
> install eclipse; eclipse" is a program incorporating a JVM and many
> libraries. Debian's not just distributing Eclipse or just
> distributing Kaffe -- the
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 05:57:54PM +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Now, before you go off ranting about Kaffe's native libraries, please
> take a moment to let the fact sink in that while these native libraries
> are the result of Kaffe developers being a somewhat clever bunch at
> developing soft
> > Is this relevant to Eclipse? I was under the impression that Eclipse
> > was pure java -- that it did not use JNI at all.
> >
> > If Eclipse does use JNI, would still a question about whether or not
> > Kaffe's JNI implementation constitute some kind of extension designed
> > to work around t
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:29:13PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> copyrightable. To get at the cases the FSF is shooting for, they
> would have to use terms of art instead of "derivative or collective
> works", and would have to insert far more draconian provisions to
> create an action for br
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:35:50PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> > But was Kaffe _extended_ to provide such bindings for Eclipse 3.0?
>
> This FAQ entry discusses 2 cases. One is when we have an interpreter,
> that basically goes over the pseudo-code and purely "interprets" it
> (an old B
> > Is this relevant to Eclipse? I was under the impression that Eclipse
> > was pure java -- that it did not use JNI at all.
> >
> > If Eclipse does use JNI, would still a question about whether or not
> > Kaffe's JNI implementation constitute some kind of extension designed
> > to work around t
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:29:13PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> copyrightable. To get at the cases the FSF is shooting for, they
> would have to use terms of art instead of "derivative or collective
> works", and would have to insert far more draconian provisions to
> create an action for br
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:18:21PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> To make what I fear explicit, here is a fleshed-out scenario:
> 1. A writes a program and releases it under the current CPL.
> 2. B takes A's program, hacks on it, distributes his Contributions
> on a website under the curr
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:19:36PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
>
> "However, when the interpreter is extended to provide "bindings" to
> other facilities (often, but not necessarily, libraries), the
...
> Do you understand tha
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:35:50PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> > But was Kaffe _extended_ to provide such bindings for Eclipse 3.0?
>
> This FAQ entry discusses 2 cases. One is when we have an interpreter,
> that basically goes over the pseudo-code and purely "interprets" it
> (an old B
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:18:21PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> To make what I fear explicit, here is a fleshed-out scenario:
> 1. A writes a program and releases it under the current CPL.
> 2. B takes A's program, hacks on it, distributes his Contributions
> on a website under the curr
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:19:36PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
>
> "However, when the interpreter is extended to provide "bindings" to
> other facilities (often, but not necessarily, libraries), the
...
> Do you understand tha
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 07:08:23PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> It is also legal to sell all the ingredients for a bomb, along with
> instructions needed to build one. However, building and using the
> bomb is most likely illegal.
As a general rule, bombs are not copyrighted works.
--
Raul
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 07:08:23PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> It is also legal to sell all the ingredients for a bomb, along with
> instructions needed to build one. However, building and using the
> bomb is most likely illegal.
As a general rule, bombs are not copyrighted works.
--
Raul
-
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:58:38PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Right. But whether it will run isn't a copyright criterion, any more
> than whether a work of criticism will make any sense if not read
> side-by-side with the work it critiques.
Sure, and evidence isn't proof.
If it can be sh
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:37:28 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's laws and precedents -- particularly those grouped under the principle
> > which is termed "contributory infringement" which makes it true.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:13:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:58:38PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Right. But whether it will run isn't a copyright criterion, any more
> than whether a work of criticism will make any sense if not read
> side-by-side with the work it critiques.
Sure, and evidence isn't proof.
If it can be sh
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:37:28 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's laws and precedents -- particularly those grouped under the principle
> > which is termed "contributory infringement" which makes it true.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:13:
[Note: I don't know enough about Eclipse and Kaffe to make any comments
on that specific issue. Instead, I'm responding to some of the things
Michael has written.]
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:41:08PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> You know, just because the FSF has claimed for many years that
[Note: I don't know enough about Eclipse and Kaffe to make any comments
on that specific issue. Instead, I'm responding to some of the things
Michael has written.]
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:41:08PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> You know, just because the FSF has claimed for many years that
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:38:34PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> I dare you to package the golden arches as clipart.
> Or Mr. Peanut.
What good would that accomplish?
[I'm hoping you can give me a meaningful answer.]
Also, is there some reason to represent a "Mr. Peanut" instead of just
a regu
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:38:34PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> I dare you to package the golden arches as clipart.
> Or Mr. Peanut.
What good would that accomplish?
[I'm hoping you can give me a meaningful answer.]
Also, is there some reason to represent a "Mr. Peanut" instead of just
a regu
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 09:08:09PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> It clearly states that some elements of an illustration are
> "protectable." A young boy with dark hair and eyeglasses is
> not protectable, but a young boy with eyeglasses, similar facial
> featurs, style and color of hair *clearl
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 09:08:09PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> It clearly states that some elements of an illustration are
> "protectable." A young boy with dark hair and eyeglasses is
> not protectable, but a young boy with eyeglasses, similar facial
> featurs, style and color of hair *clearl
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 04:21:32PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> But in the case of the GPL, he's not bound. It's just that he's
> already issued the license -- or are you talking about some case other
> than an author releasing his own works under the GPL?
I don't think he's claiming that
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 02:22:33PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> have the "right" to do something without a license (although we might;
> it may not be patented), just as we might not have the right to copy a
Or there might be prior art, which means that the patent is without merit.
Typically, r
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 10:46:09PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > Actually, that's not entirely true. To the extent that a chunk of
> > published code is purely functional and lacking in "creative
> > expression", or meets either the "de minimis" or the "fair use"
> > standard of affirmati
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > If the firmware we have packaged in non-free comes standard on the
> > device, then the driver does not need a copy of the firmware, so it does
> > not have a dependency on it.
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:21:52PM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> Hm? The d
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 05:19:04PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> The only form in which the GPL can be read as requiring any conduct
> from licensees (such as the provision of copies of source code on
> demand and the extension of the GPL to the licensee's copyright in
> derived works) is as a
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 10:03:44PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Note that this email message is subject to copyright, and can't legally
> be reprinted without permission (except for fair use, such as quotation
> rights). Under pre-1986 US law, it would be public domain, because I
> didn't affi
On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 10:41:08AM -0500, Dave Harding wrote:
> Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sat, 01 Jan 2005 10:06:17 -0500
> said:
>
> So we have to therefore say "beyond a certain level of change,
> please remove our trademarks".
>
> What purpose is served by Mozilla
On Sat, Jan 01, 2005 at 07:49:15PM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Again, a fair point. Although the impact of this event is arguably less
> than the same issue with a code licence. After all, if the code licensor
> (e.g. UWash) goes bad on you, that's the end of the package.
Only for non-free l
On Sat, Jan 01, 2005 at 11:33:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Please suggest any case which you don't think this criteria adequately
> covers.
The bios.
Unless, we decide that the bios we put in non-free isn't the bios we
need to boot the machine.
--
Raul
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 05:02:15PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> The social contract says "...but we will never make the system depend on
> an item of non-free software." not "but we will never make the system
> depend on an item of non-free software /which we must distribute/."
We don't ma
I wrote:
> > However, non-free is not part of Debian (as per the social contract)
> > so it would be OK to put GPL'd programs that depend on OpenSSL into
> > non-free?
On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 04:47:06PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Unfortunatly, it is not clear that openssl is normally distribute
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 02:21:24AM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> However, non-free is not part of Debian (as per the social
> contract) so it would be OK to put GPL'd programs that
> depend on OpenSSL into non-free?
The GPL special exception doesn't care about "part of" vs. "not part of".
What mat
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >The relevant distinction is whether whether or not we consider there to
> >be an adequate abstraction barrier between the two pieces of code.
> >Other distinctions don't really matter.
> Then why you keep talking about where firmware is stored?
Huh?
On Wed, Dec 29,
[let's see if I can keep from screwing up the formatting on this one.]
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 04:26:59PM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> I think the scenario "They moved the firmware from a chip to a CD, so we
> can't distribute a driver any more" is ridiculous. Any attempt to modify
> the rules to
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 11:46:19PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > It
may be helpful to think of your hard drive as a computer. At that >
point, the firmware is clearly software for the hard drive - it's a
> string of bytes that is executed. The rest of the hard drive is >
hardware. If something is
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 04:58:52PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> to support this. The obvious thing to do here is not to attempt to find
> a way that we can interpret the SC that makes sense - the obvious thing
> to do here is to decide what we want the SC to say and then change it so
Fundamenta
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 04:26:26PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Yet the ICQ client is not useful without a component which is not in
> Debian and in fact is not freely available.
Same thing applies to hardware drivers. And, for that matter, all of
the kernel.
--
Raul
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 11:29:47PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> And this is probably the reason we have thousands of (probably
> invalid) software patents instead.
Copyright law is only a minor part of that issue.
--
Raul
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 03:45:40PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> This is probably hotly debated, but how do math-algorthm copyrights
> work?
Articles about mathematics, and specific expressions of algorithms,
are copyrightable, but the concepts aren't.
In the U.S. 17 USC 102 states:
In no cas
> > > No: it's reporting that the card did activate correctly, but it's not
> > > the driver's fault. The driver is complete and does not lack anything
> > > needed to operate the device.
> On Dec 19, Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ...except the firmware?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 10:33:41AM -0500, I clumsily wrote:
> I was talking about the API the firmware uses -- the one that the program
> contained in the API was designed to work with.
That should have read:
I was talking about the API the firmware uses -- the one that the program
contained in t
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > The API that is programmed by the firmware -- which you shouldn't confuse
> > with the API used by the driver that downloads the firmware -- is not
> > known to us.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 03:51:22PM +0100, Peter Van Eynde wrote:
> I don&#x
> > I don't really understand this. I suspect I'm not thinking what you're
> > thinking "real sourced code" means.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 09:18:37AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> A METAFONT program, for example.
Ok, but in that context it's pretty clear that the font is not the
program. In th
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > Fundamentally, the DFSG is aimed at making sure that we can provide the
> > software that we can support. Restrictions that leave us writing an
> > opaque blob of bits which drives an unknown API very much put us into
> > a context where we can&
[just some minor additions.]
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 09:20:14PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > No, I argue that because you've pried chips off the board, the
> > hardware is broken.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 09:39:59PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Er, no. Flash can be overwritten with i
> > Why would subsetting be a problem?
> >
> > I don't see anything in the GPL which requires source for things
> > which have been left out of the program being required.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 04:53:02PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> The subsetted font is not the preferred form of doing modifi
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 11:20:06AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Without special exceptions, the GPL is not a suitable license for
> > fonts because it is common practice to embed fonts (or subsets of
> > fonts) into PDF documents (and other document formats). In this
> > scenario, the GPL wo
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 11:20:06AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I've been asked for advice regarding copyleft ("GPL-like") font
> licensing.
>
> Without special exceptions, the GPL is not a suitable license for
> fonts because it is common practice to embed fonts (or subsets of
> fonts) into PDF
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 01:09:25AM +0100, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> The case is different here, as with most games, the 3d models are
> created by a artists who then sends the rendered images over to some
> programmer/maintainer who integrates them into the game, the
> programmer/maintainer almost never
> >> a) declare that the images as they are are 'enough' to be considered
> >>'prefered form of modification' and leave it as it is
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If the 3d models were available, I imagine they'd be the
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 09:47:07PM +0100, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> Well, lets make it practical. netPanzer is in both Debian testing and
> unstable, it is full of sprites which are based on 3d models, the 3d
> models files itself however are not distributed with it and most likly
> never will be since
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 05:14:56AM +0100, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> Well, its a practical problem that some people are facing and that
> applies to a whole bunch of free software. Its not necesarry the
> unwillingness of the author, might also be that the images simply got
> lost over time, that texture
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 12:15:57PM -0500, Christopher Priest wrote:
> Is this helpful
> http://web.archive.org/web/2711071330/sanjose.alteon.com/license-agree.shtml
This license doesn't let us distribute the software.
This is pretty clearly stated in the first two sentences of the first
two n
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 02:04:12AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > If you create a model, and render a PNG with that model, the source for
> > the PNG is the model. Okay, that's easy; we all probably agree here.
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 08:17:17AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 02:04:12AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> If you create a model, and render a PNG with that model, the source for
> the PNG is the model. Okay, that's easy; we all probably agree here.
This assumes that artists can't use software, or equipment, which are
primarily designed
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 04:00:03PM -0500, Christopher Priest wrote:
> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html I'd see any action going the
> way of discussions first and then correction. If it actually went to court,
> I'd expect a claim for statutory damages as there are no real damages.
Si
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
> > If I ship some product in three parts, such that the combination of those
> > three parts is consistently assembled and used, then I'm distributing
> > that product.
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 02:36:42PM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 01:45:33PM -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> I don't think it's feasible for us to create separate non-at, non-cn,
> non-za, etc. package repositories. It'd just be ridiculous for users in
> one country to assemble a sources.list from lists of packages that may
> or may not be
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
> > If there is -- if Wontshare in some way tries to enforce the use of
> > readline, then this non-distributable product is being distributed
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 07:31:06AM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> Why? Distributing X, which
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 10:01:04PM +, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> Hopefully that then makes them query what is going on, and they won't be
> keen to do business with Mr Wontshare.
More likely, they'll just use editline. Since that's what Wontshare's
software is built against and distributed
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 11:07:02AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> If it isn't creative, it isn't a work under copyright law. See, e.g.,
> Fesit v. Rural Telephone Service, holdings (a) and (b).
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=499&invol=340
A problem
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 09:52:19AM +0200, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote:
> Is this free software license according to DFSG:
>
> http://www.lcdf.org/xshostakovich/
> http://www.lcdf.org/xshostakovich/COPYING
>
> P.S: I do not subscribe to this lists, so please Cc: to me. I try
> remember to check maili
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 07:11:33PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> How do you define what is part of our system, and from what you derive
> this definition?
Fundamentally, everything we put in Main is a part of our system. I get
that definition from looking at debian cds, installing debian on machin
> >> >On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 01:51:56AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >> >> So you say that non-free software is OK with you as long as you can
> >> >> pretend it's not there? Which part of the policy or SC justifies this
> >> >> theory?
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >If I ignore something as a par
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 09:53:21PM +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> What I am concerned about is the following scenario:
>
> Mr. John Wontshare writes a streaming multicast client.
> To deal with packet loss, he uses my error-correcting library.
> Without my library, Mr. Wontshare's client can't
> >> >You're asking why I think "can be flashed, but works just fine without
> >> >being flashed" is different from "won't work without being loaded"?
> >> >
> >> >Fundamentally, the latter case forces us to not ignore it. The equipment
> >> >won't work if we ignore the issue.
> >On Mon, Nov 01,
> >You're asking why I think "can be flashed, but works just fine without
> >being flashed" is different from "won't work without being loaded"?
> >
> >Fundamentally, the latter case forces us to not ignore it. The equipment
> >won't work if we ignore the issue.
On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 01:51:56AM
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 07:18:10PM -0500, Shawn Robinson wrote:
> My little brother was approached by SCO yesterday regarding licensing his
> linux servers so as to avoid being possibly sued by SCO for copyright
> infringment. I am wondering as to what the Linux comunity thinks regarding
> this L
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I think you're forgetting about more than boot loaders, since this has
> >been explained more than once. However, I'll try to summarize:
> >
> >If we have reason to treat that software as part or a potential part of
> >the debian system, then our system has a dependency
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 10:55:57AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > We ignore that bios dependency because it's trivial to write the software
> > which serves that role, but in most cases practically impossible to
> > change the hardware to use the resulting software.
> >
> > In other words, it's a
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 08:38:21AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> So not only is there a runtime dependency from the boot loader to the
> BIOS, but there is a Build-Depends-like dependency as well. I still
> see no conflict with the SC or Policy.
I'm not sure if this is because you just plain can'
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 11:11:23AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Then let's forget for a minute boot loaders. What about all drivers
> which interact with non-free software stored in computers and their
> peripherals?
I think you're forgetting about more than boot loaders, since this has
been expla
> Raul Miller a écrit :
> > Those boot loaders are not in main.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 08:21:53AM +0200, Benoit PAPILLAULT wrote:
> Which bootloaders are you talking about?
> So far, lilo/grub/yaboot are in main.
I was talking about the prior bootloader stage in rom (typica
M and Microsoft Exchange servers are works and software
> > > (and a component, but not clearly a component of the Debian system).
> > > Packages in Debian clearly require those to function. Why not move
> > > those dependent packages into contrib?
> Raul Miller write
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 08:27:47PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Regardless of whether "works" and "components" mean the same as
> "software," a computer's BIOS is a work, component and software.
> Commercial IM and Microsoft Exchange servers are works and software
> (and a component, but not clear
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 07:43:05PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> The details[1] of the proposal that passed are pretty clear: It
> removes the word "software" from a number of places, replacing it with
> "works," although it replaces "software" with "components" in the
> first section.
There's mor
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 01:29:25PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Operations over an asynchronous medium -- like TCP or PCI -- are quite
> different. The GPL, for example, is very specific about its reach.
> We should only use broader definitions than the license(s) with good
> reason.
Please don'
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Software which we don't and can't ship, which is a part of the platform
> > we're running on, which is not application code, and which basically is
> > outside the scope of the project is software we ignore.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 10:41:07AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> "We do it that way because it's not practical to do it the other way"?
> Except for GR 2004-004, when has that been good enough to ignore the
> SC?
If I were ignoring the social contract your question might have some
relevance.
What
> > We have traditionally ignored boot loaders because they're outside
> > our scope. The reason they're outside our scope is not because we don't
> > treat them as software but that we can't take control of a system without
> > using a boot loader.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 04:33:39PM +0200, Andre
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sure it does. The Debian Free Software Guidelines only apply to
> > software. Hardware is hard, not soft.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 12:40:02PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> That's an unfortunate circumstance of naming. Anything that we could
> > Note that we do treat dependencies on software we do not distribute as
> > real dependencies.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 01:20:12AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> In the goal of seeking consistency, I think this requires mass bug
> filing against packages with unmet dependencies, including:
We ha
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
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 i
> > 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
401 - 500 of 1451 matches
Mail list logo
