Re: Patent clauses in licenses
On 2004-09-23 11:46:35 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I suspect there's consensus among the project that "freedom to abuse patent law" is not a freedom worth protecting. [...] Again, you reword not combining independent issues into some sort of protection. You seem to be avoiding my point. By comparison, how does debian protect the freedom to vote against software patent supporters in our legislatures? That's clearly an issue affecting free software, but we don't take specific action to protect it. I'm tending to think the implementation problems do exist, though. Oh well, that's something. Finally, there seems little need to combine them, so what's the incentive driving authors who do? I think you understand the desire of free software authors to protect their work against patents in any reasonable way possible. This all hinges on whether we consider using copyright law against other law "reasonable" then? If I take your work, enhance it, give out binaries and refuse to give out source, it's not the law restricting the work; it's my withholding of source. [...] OK, I misunderstood the situation you were constructing. I thought we were forbidden from decompilation/reverse engineering the binary too. -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ LinuxExpo.org.uk village 6+7 Oct http://www.affs.org.uk
Re: Debian Sarge does not have either version of apt-proxy
On Mon 11 Oct, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Chris Bell: > > > The earlier 1.3.x version may not be perfect, but it does work for > > me, and I have not found any other software that does the same job. > > AFAIK, apt-proxy 1.9 is only required if you have apt 0.6 somewhere on > your site. apt-proxy 1.3 is fine with apt 0.5, but much too often, it > returns inconsistent Release/Release.gpg/Packages combinations. > > Thanks for the email. The main reason for using apt-proxy to provide a local partial mirror is that I can configure a list of parent mirror sites that it can try in sequence, rather than having to specify a single source. I can then ask apt-proxy to check mirrors provided by my ISP and local universitites before adding to the load on the Debian servers. This appears to work when upgrading several local machines, or using jigdo to build CD ISO images, although I have not yet succeeded in using apt-proxy during an initial network installation to a new box. I would be happy to try any more suitable system that may be available. -- Chris Bell
Re: Patent clauses in licenses
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 02:12:16PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > By comparison, how does debian protect the freedom to vote against > software patent supporters in our legislatures? That's clearly an > issue affecting free software, but we don't take specific action to > protect it. We don't have to: nothing Debian is doing or refusing to do is affecting it. Debian's distribution or lack of distribution will have a direct impact on the success of these clauses. Debian has no choice but to take specific action: either it allows them, or it rejects them, and either is an action with a direct effect on this. Accepting them is "prosecuting", rejecting is "protecting", if you want. "We don't have a position on this, so we're going to refuse to distribute it and remain neutral" won't work. > This all hinges on whether we consider using copyright law against > other law "reasonable" then? The critical question seems to be whether restricting patent enforcement is free. I still don't see how it matters which set of laws is used to apply a restriction, as far as DFSG-freeness goes; it's the restriction itself that matters. (Of course, it may be unenforcable, but that's a separate issue.) -- Glenn Maynard
Reiser4 filesystem
Is Debian planning on using this filesystem for it's next stable release? ___ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
Re: Reiser4 filesystem
* Aldous Huxley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-10-12 14:46]: > Is Debian planning on using this filesystem for it's > next stable release? We will ship a kernel-patch-2.6-reiser4 package with which you can easily build a kernel with reiser4 support. However, we won't provide reiser4 support in our standard kernel until the code has been accepted upstream by the kernel developers (and it seems this won't happen soon). -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/
