On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 08:13:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
current fact is that the qlaxxx firmware is gpl,
so on has all it's right in main.
It is GPL, except for the binary blob of firmware, as the two constitute
separate work, this is not a violation of the GPL. The exact licence, that
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 06:42:28PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
casually browsing the rc bug list, I noticed that while ploticus has
been removed from testing, ploticus-doc still is in there[1].
Obviously it's not too useful to ship etch with ploticus-doc if the main
package isn't included.
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 11:03:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
In 2004, there was a GR that decided to put everything in main under the
DFSG. We had some discussions, but in the end, the result was that all
the non-free firmware bits have to be removed from main before we can
release etch.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 02:52:07AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
b) we move the affected modules to non-free. Well those that have their
licencing solved, the others will simply no more be distributed, or
distributed form an unofficial source.
Probably overkill, and causes
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 02:18:43PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
sparc will be removed from consideration until we no longer have to
worry about OpenOffice builds (or other intensive package builds)
crashing the buildd machines.
I have a few Ultra5 machines available, as well as sufficient
3) an effort seems to be happening inside the upstream kernel to use the
request_firmware infrastructure which allows to load firmware code from
userland through an hotplug mechanism. There seem to be more and more
drivers going this way, since there aare more in current git than
* Kyle McMartin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060110 16:20]:
I would argue it's the former. I can see the argument when it's a part of
the source code, but not when it's a completely seperate entity.
Sorry, but there is no difference regarding DFSG: If the binary blob is
actually seperated from the
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 01:45:11AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
You may redistribute the hardware specific firmware binary file
under the following terms:
1. Redistribution of source code (only if applicable),
must retain the above copyright notice, this list of
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 11:38:21AM -0600, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 01:45:11AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
You may redistribute the hardware specific firmware binary file
under the following terms:
1. Redistribution of source code (only if applicable),
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 11:42:14PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
That'd be DSA's call; but given that it probably wouldn't be sufficient, it
also seems unnecessary, so I guess it would be a low priority. You could
always make a standing offer of individual accounts to DDs (or non-DDs, as
we
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 10:00:53AM -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote:
3) an effort seems to be happening inside the upstream kernel to use the
request_firmware infrastructure which allows to load firmware code from
userland through an hotplug mechanism. There seem to be more and more
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 05:19:47PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Kyle McMartin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060110 16:20]:
I would argue it's the former. I can see the argument when it's a part of
the source code, but not when it's a completely seperate entity.
Sorry, but there is no difference
yadda yadda yadda
(really must stop making that udeb)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 01:38:51PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
yadda yadda yadda
Hint yadded.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
14 matches
Mail list logo
