I got an auto-reply with a ticket number from the FSF, but no answer yet.
I was aware of and unimpressed by Debian's rationalisations on the matter.
Still, this isn't as clear-cut as (say) the Realtek drivers, so IMO we can
afford to wait as long as is needed.
Kind regards,
T G-R
Sent on the
On 24-08-2022 22:24, zimoun wrote:
My understanding of the Debian argument is:
1. the licence is BSD-like respecting the Debian Free Software Guidelines
2. point #3 of DFSG [2] says «The license must allow modifications and
derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the
On 24-08-2022 22:24, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
Is it Functional Data:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
"For example, some game engines released under the GNU GPL have
accompanying game information—a fictional world map, game graphics,
and so
On 2022-08-24, zimoun wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 at 15:22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>
>> But, because there is no way to silence a particular inappropriate
>> suggestion from guix lint, it becomes noise, and each person evaluating
>> the results of the package in the future then needs to take
On 24-08-2022 10:08, zimoun wrote:
Hi Vagrant,
On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 at 15:22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
But, because there is no way to silence a particular inappropriate
suggestion from guix lint, it becomes noise, and each person evaluating
the results of the package in the future then
Hi Liliana,
(I have no opinion about this topic.)
Your quote is:
>> The data included in the source package represents the preferred form
>> for modifications.
>> If they were licensed under the G P L it would fail the "preferred
>> form of modification" requirement
but from the mentioned
Hi Vagrant,
On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 at 15:22, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> But, because there is no way to silence a particular inappropriate
> suggestion from guix lint, it becomes noise, and each person evaluating
> the results of the package in the future then needs to take time to
> figure out if
On 2022-08-24, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, dem 24.08.2022 um 14:53 +0200 schrieb Nicolas Goaziou:
>> Liliana Marie Prikler writes:
>>
>> > The packages
>> > - drascula,
>> > - lure,
>> > - queen, and
>> > - sky
>> > all share issues that make me question whether they should be in
Am Mittwoch, dem 24.08.2022 um 14:53 +0200 schrieb Nicolas Goaziou:
> Hello,
>
> Liliana Marie Prikler writes:
>
> > The packages
> > - drascula,
> > - lure,
> > - queen, and
> > - sky
> > all share issues that make me question whether they should be in
> > Guix.
> >
> > 1. Their license
On 24-08-2022 05:07, Philip McGrath wrote:
I could imagine a process like this:
1. Build the binary that needs to be signed.
2. Outside of the Guix build environment, create a detached signature
for the binary using your secret key.
3. Add the detached signature to the Guix store,
Hello,
Liliana Marie Prikler writes:
> The packages
> - drascula,
> - lure,
> - queen, and
> - sky
> all share issues that make me question whether they should be in Guix.
>
> 1. Their license explicitly prohibits selling of the games themselves
> and may thus be qualified as non-free.
> 2. The
11 matches
Mail list logo
