Jason Self wrote:
Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be wrote ..
I think so. If you put Firefox with branding on a Trisquel CD then you
(or anyone else) can't sell that CD, as I understand it.
Not being able to charge money for unmodified binaries does seem to conflict
with that with what the
On Friday 22 July 2011 10:00:00 Diego Saravia wrote:
2011/7/22 Leo l...@kde.org.ar:
On Thursday 21 July 2011 18:34:33 Diego Saravia wrote:
we need new, independient projects, a new free kernel, a new free
browser, with free true sources, and a comunity involved in free
software
On Friday 22 July 2011 14:37:03 Diego Saravia wrote:
source of linux libre is linux, and is not free
source of icecat is firefox and we are seeing that is not free
Source of Linux-libre is Linux-libre, completely free:
http://www.fsfla.org/svnwiki/selibre/linux-
What? Is is absolutely source code.
In a way, they are forks from upstream. They address the problematic areas of
the upstream software that concern the free software community that upstream
doesn't want to address. GNU Icecat, for example, can be used without ever
thinking about Mozilla's
2011/7/22 Jason Self ja...@bluehome.net
What? Is is absolutely source code.
Source is the point of origin of something
Its not the same as upstream. cd .. takes you upstream. cd / takes you to
the root.
its not the same as compilable code
In software, is what PEOPLE create by its minds.
you can't fix it and distribute your fix which is where the real
problem lies
No, the problem I'd like to discuss is the fact that if you don't
modify the package first (removing the trademark), you can't
distribute it in all the ways the software license allows you to.
