On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:58:36 +0100 Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Yes, I think it's time to propose a GR to do a s/program/work/ in
> > the DFSG. Since IANADD, I cannot propose GRs, but I hope that some
> > DDs will help.
>
> It's not quite that simple; you can't just change that bit alone. I'm
> w
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 11:47:58PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:00:29 +0100 Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> > Florian Weimer wrote:
> [...]
> > >The GR did not change the wording of the DFSG at all. However, it's
> > >clear that a significant shift took place in SC interpretati
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 20:08 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 12:44:26AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 15:15 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
[argument of program vs. software]
> > If you are only looking at the DFSG, you are missing the point. The
> > p
On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 12:44:26AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 15:15 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > I'm arguing with your interpretation of "program" to mean anything you
> > want - in this case potentially any random string of bytes. That most
> > certainly _is_ new, a
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 15:15 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I'm arguing with your interpretation of "program" to mean anything you
> want - in this case potentially any random string of bytes. That most
> certainly _is_ new, and is completely bogus. As I said, propose a GR
> to change the wording s/
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:00:29 +0100 Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
[...]
> >The GR did not change the wording of the DFSG at all. However, it's
> >clear that a significant shift took place in SC interpretation, from
> >a foggy definition of "program" to a more dogmatic "everything w
O Xoves, 28 de Xullo de 2005 ás 16:19:02 +0200, Florian Weimer escribía:
> > I'm arguing with your interpretation of "program" to mean anything you
> > want - in this case potentially any random string of bytes.
> Why do you think this would change anything? Isn't this the
> assumption under whic
On 7/28/05, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050727 18:45]:
> > On 7/27/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd prefer to approach this issue from a different direction.
> >
> > The point behind the DFSG is that we need to be able to solve
* Steve McIntyre:
>>Why do you think this would change anything? Isn't this the
>>assumption under which debian-legal operates in general? With a few
>>practical exceptions, of course (license texts, public key
>>certificates, etc.), but the general rule seems to be followed.
>
> What?
>
> I'm a
* Andreas Barth:
>> > I'm arguing with your interpretation of "program" to mean anything you
>> > want - in this case potentially any random string of bytes.
>
>> Why do you think this would change anything? Isn't this the
>> assumption under which debian-legal operates in general?
>
> Actually
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 04:19:02PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>* Steve McIntyre:
>
>>>The interpretation I outlined is certainly not new. It reflects the
>>>current practice, and I think we're in a pretty good position as far
>>>as compliance is concerned. Even the notorious GNU FDL issue is no
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050728 16:19]:
> * Steve McIntyre:
> >>The interpretation I outlined is certainly not new. It reflects the
> >>current practice, and I think we're in a pretty good position as far
> >>as compliance is concerned. Even the notorious GNU FDL issue is not a
> >>
* Steve McIntyre:
>>The interpretation I outlined is certainly not new. It reflects the
>>current practice, and I think we're in a pretty good position as far
>>as compliance is concerned. Even the notorious GNU FDL issue is not a
>>real problem here (beyond the invariant section business) -- th
Florian Weimer wrote:
>* Andreas Barth:
>
>>> It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to
>>> be interpreted as "software".
>>
>> I disagree with that. As there were "editorial changes" that had as
>> declared goal to replace any such places with the "real meaning", and
>
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 04:08:09PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>* Steve McIntyre:
>
>> Please, no. We've already had long, tedious discussions about what
>> "software" means. Don't go trying to change the meaning of "program"
>> too. If you think that the places where we currently talk about
>> "p
* Steve McIntyre:
> Please, no. We've already had long, tedious discussions about what
> "software" means. Don't go trying to change the meaning of "program"
> too. If you think that the places where we currently talk about
> "program" are unclear and should say "software", then propose a GR to
>
* Andreas Barth:
>> It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to
>> be interpreted as "software".
>
> I disagree with that. As there were "editorial changes" that had as
> declared goal to replace any such places with the "real meaning", and
> this was not touched, it has
* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050727 18:45]:
> On 7/27/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Uh, I don't? I said that the other guidelines are *applicable* to
> > non-program works, and *should be applied* to non-program works -- not that,
> > as presently written, we are obliged
On 7/27/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Uh, I don't? I said that the other guidelines are *applicable* to
> non-program works, and *should be applied* to non-program works -- not that,
> as presently written, we are obliged to apply them to non-program works.
I'd prefer to approac
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 12:28:23AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 05:17:35 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I think that clauses 6, 7, and 8 are applicable to documentation and
> > data as well as to programs, and I think that they're rules that
> > Debian should follow for ever
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:28:23 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
[some hopefully useful contributions to the discussion, but with *wrong*
Mail-Followup-To:]
Please, ignore the wrong Mail-Followup-To: set in the my previous
message.
I forgot to disable it! :-(
I really really apologize.
Sylpheed authors
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 05:17:35 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> I think that clauses 6, 7, and 8 are applicable to documentation and
> data as well as to programs, and I think that they're rules that
> Debian should follow for everything we distribute.
>
> I think that clause 2 is *not* clearly applic
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 01:01:07AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Steve Langasek:
> >> It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to
> >> be interpreted as "software".
> > No, it isn't. Considering we went through all the effort of a GR to amend
> > the DFSG and this s
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:17:59 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> My gut instinct is "no, it's fine, put it in main," because the
> compiler is not "required" by the system, since the system functions
> fine without recompiling the graphics (and will continue to). I may
> be wrong, though!
Huh?
Are
Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Obviously e.g. fonts are no programms, even if they are in main.
Read TrueType "instructions" and say that again! Some fonts are most
certainly programs.
PDFs are arguably executables designed for a PDF interpreter.
But let's not get into that again right now.
--
To
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> However, when I found that (some of) the graphics had a source from which
they
> could be compiled, I concluded two things:
> - To satisfy the GPL, the source for those graphics needs to be distributed
as
> well, so it must be in the source package.
Probably correct.
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 09:50:56AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, David Nusinow wrote:
> > This is true, but not because the driver isn't commented. It's because the
> > specs for the card have not been released, and as such we don't know what
> > the magic numbers mean. The hard
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 10:40:36AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Machine generated assembly is, in general, significantly less modifiable
> than hand-written assembly.
And code in which information that the original coder inserted has been
removed is less modifiable than code written without th
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, David Nusinow wrote:
> This is true, but not because the driver isn't commented. It's because the
> specs for the card have not been released, and as such we don't know what
> the magic numbers mean. The hardware specs are entirely external to the
> source code for the driver i
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:28:54PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 7/22/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In other words, we'll take something as source that we know isn't,
> > because we like nVidia. ...
>
> Hey, I didn't say I liked the idea myself. I'm just calling it lik
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:09:56 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:47:09PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
[...]
> > I think it's not acceptable to yse pregenerated files to prevent
> > software from entering contrib. (Look at all the Java programs, for
> > instance.) If there's a
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:29:19 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> You seem to be arguing that "preferred form for modification" is a
> poor definition of "source" based on the fact that it doesn't permit
> passing off obfuscated code (such as, perhaps, nVidia's) as "source",
> and that seems to me to be o
>> If upstreams sues you, the freedoms granted by the license texts don't
>> matter much. A court case is a great inconvenience, even if the
>> defendant wins in the end.
>
> Are you missing the point deliberately?
>
> The question was: if we have two examples of source code; one stripped
> of com
23.07.2005 pisze Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > What difference does upstream intent make to the freedoms that our users
> > receive?
> If upstreams sues you, the freedoms granted by the license texts don't
> matter much. A court case is a great inconvenience, even if the
> defendant w
* Matthew Garrett:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 12:47:03PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Matthew Garrett:
>> > How is one of these free and the other non-free?
>>
>> In the end, you have to take upstream intent into account. We already
>> do this when interpreting licenses (at least in one dire
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 01:01:07 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Steve Langasek:
>
> >> It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has
> >> to be interpreted as "software".
> >
> > No, it isn't. Considering we went through all the effort of a GR to
> > amend the DFSG and this st
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 21:15:12 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I think it would be massive negligence for the project to accept as
> source something which it knows has been obfuscated. If that's the
> case, I'm rather disgusted. It's hard to take a project seriously
> which claims to require source,
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 10:44:36AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One provided source, the other did not, and Debian considers having source
> > fundamental to having a free program.
>
> "Because it is, damnit"?
No, because one provided source, and th
On 20050723T013237+0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> So if I write C with comments and then remove them that's not DFSG free,
> but if I fail to add them in the first place then it's fine for main?
This is not a universally applicable rule, but:
When a good programmer writes uncommented code, it's u
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 12:22:34AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Matthew Garrett:
> >
> >> There's two main issues here.
> >>
> >> 1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of
> >> modification?
> >>
> >> I don't believe so,
>
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 11:24:12AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050723 11:15]:
> > (CC's trimmed.)
> > On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 09:21:04AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to
> > > > be inter
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 03:47:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:56:01PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Andreas Barth:
> >
> > > Actually, the DFSG says:
> > > | 2. Source Code
> > > |
> > > | The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
> >
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 12:47:03PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett:
> > How is one of these free and the other non-free?
>
> In the end, you have to take upstream intent into account. We already
> do this when interpreting licenses (at least in one direction), so I
> don't think
* Matthew Garrett:
> So say we have two drivers for a piece of hardware. One is written
> without comments. One was originally commented, but the comments have
> been removed. Both provide the same amount of information about how they
> work. Both are released under the same license. Both provide
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> So say we have two drivers for a piece of hardware. One is written
>> without comments. One was originally commented, but the comments have
>> been removed. Both provide the same amount of
Jeff King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> So say we have two drivers for a piece of hardware. One is written
>> without comments. One was originally commented, but the comments have
>> been removed. Both provide the same amount of
* Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050723 11:15]:
> (CC's trimmed.)
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 09:21:04AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to
> > > be interpreted as "software".
> >
> > I disagree with that. As there were "edito
(CC's trimmed.)
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 09:21:04AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to
> > be interpreted as "software".
>
> I disagree with that. As there were "editorial changes" that had as
> declared goal to replace any such p
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050722 23:56]:
> * Andreas Barth:
>
> > Actually, the DFSG says:
> > | 2. Source Code
> > |
> > | The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
> > | source code as well as compiled form.
> >
> > Obviously e.g. fonts are no programms, ev
On 7/22/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In other words, we'll take something as source that we know isn't,
> because we like nVidia. ...
Hey, I didn't say I liked the idea myself. I'm just calling it like I
see it. I would say that the core functionality of the nv driver is
not m
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 10:48:43PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> We know perfectly well that the NVidia driver is in the condition it's
> in partly because its development is funded by a profit-seeking entity
> that has no wish to destabilize its market position, either by making
> it easier f
On 7/22/05, Jeff King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's say I write a program in C code and compile it to assembly
> language, which I distribute. Somebody else writes an equivalent program
> directly in assembly language and distributes it. The distributed
> products contain the same amount of in
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> So say we have two drivers for a piece of hardware. One is written
> without comments. One was originally commented, but the comments have
> been removed. Both provide the same amount of information about how they
> work. Both are r
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> So say we have two drivers for a piece of hardware. One is written
> without comments. One was originally commented, but the comments have
> been removed. Both provide the same amount of information about how they
> work. Both are
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 01:32:37AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> So if I write C with comments and then remove them that's not DFSG free,
>> but if I fail to add them in the first place then it's fine for main?
>
> Yes; as noble a goal as is writing go
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 01:32:37AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Uncommented source is not the same as source with comments stripped to make
> > it harder to understand.
> >
> > The former is merely potentially bad source code, but clearly source.
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> So if I write C with comments and then remove them that's not DFSG
> free, but if I fail to add them in the first place then it's fine
> for main?
I've no idea if it's fine for main,[1] but it's clearly DFSG Free.
Whether a work is DFSG Free is a sepa
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Uncommented source is not the same as source with comments stripped to make
> it harder to understand.
>
> The former is merely potentially bad source code, but clearly source. The
> latter is obfuscation, and is not source at all. Assuming what Floria
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 12:40:00AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>From a technical point of view, Java bytecode is as good as
> > uncommented source code. The Java-to-bytecode compilers are not very
> > sophisticated.
>
> We're happy to accept uncomm
On 7/22/05, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It makes it very hard to fix bugs in the pregenerated files.
> Look at the gsfonts mess, it's pretty instructive.
That's an argument from maintainability, not from freeness. The two
are, in my view anyway, distinct though related judgments.
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett:
>> Yes, but *WHY* do you think that?
>
> It makes it very hard to fix bugs in the pregenerated files.
> Look at the gsfonts mess, it's pretty instructive.
Not all pregenerated files are difficult to modify.
>> If there existed reason
* Matthew Garrett:
>> I think it's not acceptable to yse pregenerated files to prevent
>> software from entering contrib. (Look at all the Java programs, for
>> instance.) If there's a povray dependency, the software cannot be
>> included in main.
>
> Yes, but *WHY* do you think that?
It makes
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett:
>
>> There's two main issues here.
>>
>> 1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of
>> modification?
>>
>> I don't believe so,
>
> We had a GR that is usually interpreted in a manner which disagrees
> with you.
* Steve Langasek:
>> It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to
>> be interpreted as "software".
>
> No, it isn't. Considering we went through all the effort of a GR to amend
> the DFSG and this still says "program", not "software", I don't see how you
> can claim it *
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:56:01PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andreas Barth:
>
> > Actually, the DFSG says:
> > | 2. Source Code
> > |
> > | The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
> > | source code as well as compiled form.
> >
> > Obviously e.g. fonts are no pr
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:56:01PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andreas Barth:
>
> > Actually, the DFSG says:
> > | 2. Source Code
> > |
> > | The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
> > | source code as well as compiled form.
> >
> > Obviously e.g. fonts are no pr
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:47:09PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > 2) Does a GPLed work have to include the preferred form of modification?
> >
> > Probably, and this may include the source code for the graphics.
> > However, this may also be affected by the copyright holder's
> > interpretation o
* Andreas Barth:
> Actually, the DFSG says:
> | 2. Source Code
> |
> | The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
> | source code as well as compiled form.
>
> Obviously e.g. fonts are no programms, even if they are in main.
It's clear from the context (and previous disc
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050722 23:47]:
> * Matthew Garrett:
> > There's two main issues here.
> >
> > 1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of
> > modification?
> >
> > I don't believe so,
>
> We had a GR that is usually interpreted in a manner which disagre
* Matthew Garrett:
> There's two main issues here.
>
> 1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of
> modification?
>
> I don't believe so,
We had a GR that is usually interpreted in a manner which disagrees
with you.
Certainly we require that the DFSG apply to documentation
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 02:04:24AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I'm asking you to be willing to accept the consequences of the opinion
> you hold, which (in this case) is inevitably going to be some large
> amount of irritation from other members of the project.
I think it would be massive negl
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That depends. I can see two scenarios: either they removed these constants
> from their own codebase, and that's how they now maintain it; or they pass
> the code through a filter to remove these constants before distributing it
> to the world.
It's the
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 12:07:05AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Could you back up a bit, first, and explain to me why that is not the
> > preferred form for modification? It certainly looks like it to me.
>
> The preferred form for modification has all of the hex constants
> replaced with pr
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Could you back up a bit, first, and explain to me why that is not the
> preferred form for modification? It certainly looks like it to me.
The preferred form for modification has all of the hex constants
replaced with preprocessor defines that give yo
[Please trim your responses so that they only contain the minimal
verbiage necessary to present your point; otherwise we'll leave them
unread.]
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 7/21/05, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > To me, the FOSS movement is about giving everyon
On 7/21/05, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip stuff where I agree with Don 100%]
> ITYM Freedom 1 (the second) or possibly Freedom 3 (the last). In
> either case, in this situation, you've got everything that the
> original author has to be able to modify the work. You're not being
> r
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 11:24:15AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Sometimes source just isn't enough to figure out how a program (or hardware)
> > works, lacking eg. hardware documentation; that's annoying, but it's still
> > source. If I create a program with a hex editor, it's source, even if
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > "Anything that allows a form of practical modification
> > > consistent with the functionality of the resulting work",
> >
> > What does that mean?
> >
> >
** Matthew Garrett ::
> If you define source as "the preferred form for modification",
> then
> http://cvs.freedesktop.org/xorg/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86
> /drivers/nv/nv_hw.c?rev=1.7&view=markup is not source. I, on the
> other hand, believe that it is an acceptable (though borderline)
> fo
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sometimes source just isn't enough to figure out how a program (or hardware)
> works, lacking eg. hardware documentation; that's annoying, but it's still
> source. If I create a program with a hex editor, it's source, even if it
> doesn't serve Free Soft
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Practicalities aren't a primary issue. If it's not a practical form for
> > modification, it's probably not preferred by anyone, either--but if I really
> > do prefer an "unpractical"
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Practicalities aren't a primary issue. If it's not a practical form for
> modification, it's probably not preferred by anyone, either--but if I really
> do prefer an "unpractical" form to modify a program, then it's still my
> source, and your definition
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > As of yet, no one has put forward a better definition of source code.
>>
>> "Anything that allows a form of practical modification consistent
>> with the function
On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 07:01:51PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> "Anything that allows a form of practical modification consistent with
> the functionality of the resulting work", or something along those
> lines. Yes, it's horribly fuzzy, but it's a horribly fuzzy area.
> "Preferred form of modi
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> I'm not convinced that it's a widely accepted definition of "source
> >> code".
> >
> > As of yet, no one has put forward a better definition of source code.
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I'm not convinced that it's a widely accepted definition of "source
>> code".
>
> As of yet, no one has put forward a better definition of source code.
> Until that time, the "prefered form for modification"
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > IMHO, yes, as this is the widely accepted definition of "source
> > code" (it is found in the GPL text, as you know) and DFSG#2
> > mandates the inclusion of source code.
>
> I'm not convinced that it's a w
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 04:52:23PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> First of all, GFingerPoken is released under the GPL.
>
> GFingerPoken uses xpms for the graphics. Those files are included in the
> distribution as .h files, and included directly into the source. Some of
> them, however, were genera
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:13:43 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> 1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of
>> modification?
>
> IMHO, yes, as this is the widely accepted definition of "source code"
> (it is found in the GPL text, as yo
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:52:23 +0200 Bas Wijnen wrote:
> Hello,
Hi! :)
[...]
> Some background about all this:
> First of all, GFingerPoken is released under the GPL.
[...]
> However, when I found that (some of) the graphics had a source from
> which they could be compiled, I concluded two things
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:13:43 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> There's two main issues here.
>
> 1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of
> modification?
IMHO, yes, as this is the widely accepted definition of "source code"
(it is found in the GPL text, as you know) and DFSG
On 7/19/05, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[an assessment with which I agree almost 100%]
The game "GFingerPoken" (which I have played and really quite enjoy)
is definitely a "derivative work" of its artwork. It's a complex work
that integrally incorporates substantial portions of a p
There's two main issues here.
1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of
modification?
I don't believe so, and it's trivial to demonstrate that this isn't the
current situation (see the nv driver in the X.org source tree, for
instance). The DFSG require the availability of s
Hello,
I am the new maintainer of GFingerPoken, and have had a discussion with the
upstream author. I would like to have your opinion about this.
Some background about all this:
First of all, GFingerPoken is released under the GPL.
GFingerPoken uses xpms for the graphics. Those files are inclu
94 matches
Mail list logo
