Mike Hommey glandium.org> writes:
> I'm saying you can't derive any knowledge from that debian-legal post
> about screenshot of games.
Mhm. AIUI the messages, the base for the reasoning is that the
imagery is the product of the game code, which is not the fact
here.
//mirabilos
--
To UNSUBSC
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 12:36:15PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Bas Wijnen:
>
> > I have some experience with safe browsing, but indeed I have not
> > looked up how it works. I do know that it continuously sends data
> > to Google, and I have quite a bit of confidence in their capability
> >
[Resending to the list, sorry.]
On 2015-07-17 16:03, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Ian Jackson chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
The problem is simply that the icons are non-DFSG-free.
You could make a screenshot from where the original icons are shown,
then re-encode those tiny 16x16px thingies int
Philipp Kern writes:
> But the copyright license doesn't matter much for this, unless it
> contains a trademark grant. Which isn't what we historically required.
> The reason we avoid the Firefox image for Mozilla's Firefox is their
> trademark policy, not its copyright license.
>
> So I'm hard pr
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 02:59:15PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> If someone wants to have a DFSG compatible system, then he should be
> able to get it -- which means that he should be allowed to change
> whatever he wants (and to publish it). Then he does not get the original
> icons.
>
> This who
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On ഞായര് 19 ജൂലൈ 2015 06:06 വൈകു, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Some trademark owners might be very annoyed if their name appears
> next to an icon that does not belong to their brand.
Shouldn't this situation be used as a chance to convince the logo
owner
Philipp Kern writes:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 01:20:19PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> >> The use of non-free icons if IMO a perfect use case for non-free.
>> > ... and also yet another case when to make their life comfortable one
>> > should enable non-free.
> [...]
>> The main idea of non-free
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 01:20:19PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> >> The use of non-free icons if IMO a perfect use case for non-free.
> > ... and also yet another case when to make their life comfortable one
> > should enable non-free.
[...]
> The main idea of non-free is to have such a pragmatic a
On Jul 19, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Thanks, I think that's an acceptable interim solution until we can
> obtain permission to ship the actual logos under terms we like.
I think it's a crappy solution that makes Debian worse and solves no
problem except DFSG-fetishism.
--
ciao,
Marco
pgpuJ9qXp
* Don Armstrong:
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2015, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> This is why I said "if they're necessary, then they're necessary".
>
> Here's a set of default icons which can trivially be expanded to avoid
> shipping those icons and downloading them:
>
> for icon in ebay google wikipedia bing; do
* Nikolaus Rath:
> On Jul 15 2015, Bas Wijnen wrote:
>> As Jakub was saying: just starting it up without even visiting a site yet
>> will
>> do a POST and a *few dozen* GET requests. Shouldn't it be waiting with its
>> checks until it actually knows what to check? What is it sending them at
>>
* Bas Wijnen:
> I have some experience with safe browsing, but indeed I have not
> looked up how it works. I do know that it continuously sends data
> to Google, and I have quite a bit of confidence in their capability
> and willingness to use that data for tracking. From your
> description it s
* Paul Wise:
[Safe Browsing]
> Why doesn't it just download the full list and do checks client-side?
The contents of this list is proprietary. Google might not even own
it (or parts of it). There may also be a need for operational secrecy
for such technology.
Publishing the list would also in
* Bas Wijnen:
> I disagree that the safebrowsing part is not serious, especially
> considering that it continues to send a message there on every new
> page you visit.
That's not what should happen. Google can essentially make Iceweasel
do that by serving appropriate static data instructing the
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 10:52:33AM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> > Distributing them to Debian recipients makes the implicit promise that
>> > they are free by the DFSG, or that they should be removed from Debian if
>> > that's discovered to be untrue.
>>
>> Can't we
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 01:09:37PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 6:26 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
>
> > Screenshots of games during play are not the same as logos.
>
> Are you saying that screenshots of logos aren't derivative works of those
> logos?
I'm saying you can't derive a
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 10:52:33AM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> > Distributing them to Debian recipients makes the implicit promise that
> > they are free by the DFSG, or that they should be removed from Debian if
> > that's discovered to be untrue.
>
> Can't we just put non-free logos to non-fre
Ben Finney writes:
> Distributing them to Debian recipients makes the implicit promise that
> they are free by the DFSG, or that they should be removed from Debian if
> that's discovered to be untrue.
Can't we just put non-free logos to non-free? In main they could be
replaced by either a simple
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 3:22 AM, Philip Hands wrote:
> Have you considered that by removing the logos there are almost
> certainly people who will be less able to recognise which search engine
> they have selected? (be that because of poor sight, poor reading
> ability or perhaps because they onl
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 6:26 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Screenshots of games during play are not the same as logos.
Are you saying that screenshots of logos aren't derivative works of those logos?
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@l
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 12:57:41AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
> > You could make a screenshot from where the original icons are shown,
> > then re-encode those tiny 16x16px thingies into new *.ico files with
> > GIMP. This is sorta like taki
On Jul 18 2015, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 08:00:52AM -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>> On Jul 15 2015, Bas Wijnen wrote:
>> > As Jakub was saying: just starting it up without even visiting a site yet
>> > will
>> > do a POST and a *few dozen* GET requests. Shouldn't it be wa
Paul Wise writes:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
>
>> They're certainly necessary. W/o the icons there would be no indication
>> which search engine is currently selected in the Iceweasel search box.
>
> The Tor Browser has the name of the search engine in the search
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 08:00:52AM -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> On Jul 15 2015, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > As Jakub was saying: just starting it up without even visiting a site yet
> > will
> > do a POST and a *few dozen* GET requests. Shouldn't it be waiting with its
> > checks until it actually kn
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> You could make a screenshot from where the original icons are shown,
> then re-encode those tiny 16x16px thingies into new *.ico files with
> GIMP. This is sorta like taking a photograph (if in doubt, take an
> actual photo), or a bitmap fo
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> They're certainly necessary. W/o the icons there would be no indication
> which search engine is currently selected in the Iceweasel search box.
The Tor Browser has the name of the search engine in the search box in
grey when no text has
On Jul 17 2015, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 02:38:12PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
>>
>> > I, myself, find our DFSG-freeness pickiness going too far, and I'm sick
>> > of this icon thing. So, here's what I'm going to do: unless I
On 07/16/2015 01:00 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
Bas Wijnen writes:
The "problem" that nobody mentioned it may be caused by the fact that
nobody really considers those icons non-free,
The copyright holder of those icons does not, AFAIK, grant restricted
license for recipients to modify and redistri
On Fri, 2015-07-17 at 19:57 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Would you dare say this is useful?
> http://i.imgur.com/duKHZKF.png
I agree that isn't very useful. I don't actually use the search bar as
you can't[1] have multiple instances of it so I hadn't seen current
versions of it but I did see that
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015, Don Armstrong wrote:
> This is why I said "if they're necessary, then they're necessary".
Here's a set of default icons which can trivially be expanded to avoid
shipping those icons and downloading them:
for icon in ebay google wikipedia bing; do
convert -size 16x16 xc:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015, Adrien CLERC wrote:
> Maybe you should try the "I am an advanced user" of uBlock (or uBlock
> Origin, it's up to you). It replaces AdblockPlus and RequestPolicy in a
> much more efficient UI for me. More complex also…
Hm, but, tbh, I’m not. I absolutely hate Firef*x but there
Le 17/07/2015 15:09, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
> OK, wrong place to complain about RequestPolicy, admittedly.
> It’s just that it’s the only actually effective ad blocker,
> for use by me when lynx, my default webbrowser, isn’t enough.
>
>
Maybe you should try the "I am an advanced user" of uBlock
Adam Borowski angband.pl> writes:
> Note that while requestpolicycontinued is capable to do everything original
> requestpolicy did, in its default mode it's just a poor ad blocker,
The new xul-ext-requestpolicy is a severe regression from the old one:
• it defaults to all permitted
• it fails
Ian Jackson chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> The problem is simply that the icons are non-DFSG-free.
You could make a screenshot from where the original icons are shown,
then re-encode those tiny 16x16px thingies into new *.ico files with
GIMP. This is sorta like taking a photograph (if in doub
Ian Jackson chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>For example, in this case, it would be technically possible for
>(say) Google (or someone masquerading as Google) to change the icon
>offered to Debian's Iceweasel to one which looks very like
>Wikipedia's icon.
FWIW, there are DuckDuc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/17/2015 12:57 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 02:38:12PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
>>
>>> I, myself, find our DFSG-freeness pickiness going too far, and
>>> I'm sick of th
Le 17/07/2015 12:57, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 02:38:12PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
>>
>>> I, myself, find our DFSG-freeness pickiness going too far, and I'm sick
>>> of this icon thing. So, here's what I'm going to do: unle
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 02:38:12PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
>
> > I, myself, find our DFSG-freeness pickiness going too far, and I'm sick
> > of this icon thing. So, here's what I'm going to do: unless I hear
> > non-IANAL objection until the ne
Paul Wise schrieb:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
>
>> I, myself, find our DFSG-freeness pickiness going too far, and I'm sick
>> of this icon thing. So, here's what I'm going to do: unless I hear
>> non-IANAL objection until the next upstream release due on august 11
>> (an
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I have also made the point that we make an exception for licence
> texts. Obviously the situations aren't entirely parallel, but this
> demonstrates that the absolutist position you are arguing for is both
> contrary to our existing practice,
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> I, myself, find our DFSG-freeness pickiness going too far, and I'm sick
> of this icon thing. So, here's what I'm going to do: unless I hear
> non-IANAL objection until the next upstream release due on august 11
> (and I'm BCCing the DPL in cas
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015, "IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)" wrote:
> On 07/16/2015 08:29 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Jul 2015, Simon Richter wrote:
> >> > The problem is that the icons are displayed in the search field
> >> > dropdown, which should be fully functional before visiting the fir
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 22:20:35 +0200
"IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)" wrote:
> On 07/16/2015 08:29 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Jul 2015, Simon Richter wrote:
> >> > The problem is that the icons are displayed in the search field
> >> > dropdown, which should be fully functional before
On 07/16/2015 08:29 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2015, Simon Richter wrote:
>> > The problem is that the icons are displayed in the search field
>> > dropdown, which should be fully functional before visiting the first
>> > site.
> I was hoping that it could be semi-functional, with pl
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015, Simon Richter wrote:
> The problem is that the icons are displayed in the search field
> dropdown, which should be fully functional before visiting the first
> site.
I was hoping that it could be semi-functional, with placeholder icons
until the site in question is actually vi
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 07:17:03AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> I, myself, find our DFSG-freeness pickiness going too far, and I'm sick
> of this icon thing. So, here's what I'm going to do: unless I hear
> non-IANAL objection until the next upstream release due on august 11
> (and I'm BCCing the DP
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 06:00:17PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> Am 16.07.2015 um 16:57 schrieb Don Armstrong:
> > How easy would it be to modify the code so that it only gets the
> > favorite icons when the site is actually visited? [Does it already try
> > to update the icons when it visits
Hi,
Am 16.07.2015 um 16:57 schrieb Don Armstrong:
> How easy would it be to modify the code so that it only gets the
> favorite icons when the site is actually visited? [Does it already try
> to update the icons when it visits one of the configured sites?]
The problem is that the icons are displ
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:56:29PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I was surprised that it would download the icons from the installed
> > search providers. There is no need for it to do that. And that means
> > that the mere presence of an unused but configu
Ben Finney writes ("Re: The Spirit of Free Software, or The Reality"):
> So the above seems to argue either that search engine icons are
> sufficiently important that we can violate the Social Contract, or I've
> misunderstood. I'd like to know exactly where that
On Jul 16, Mike Hommey wrote:
> I, myself, find our DFSG-freeness pickiness going too far, and I'm sick
> of this icon thing. So, here's what I'm going to do: unless I hear
> non-IANAL objection until the next upstream release due on august 11
> (and I'm BCCing the DPL in case he wants to have th
Bas Wijnen writes:
> The "problem" that nobody mentioned it may be caused by the fact that
> nobody really considers those icons non-free,
The copyright holder of those icons does not, AFAIK, grant restricted
license for recipients to modify and redistribute the work.
That makes those works non
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 07:56:42PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Right. I find it disappointing to discover that in Debian we have
> deliberately modified Iceweasl to make this problem worse, even if
> only in a modest way.
...
> And one thing we could easily do (well, easily from a technical point
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 01:07:00PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > BTW, that's something that would need to be resolved once and for all by
> > an SPI lawyer, because a) Mozilla's lawyers consider those icons kocher
> > as MPL-licensed icons and b) that's a problem broader than just
> > iceweasel, as
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:56:29PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Nikolaus Rath writes ("Re: The Spirit of Free Software, or The Reality"):
> > On Jul 15 2015, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > > So I made this experiment with Iceweasel. These are the requests it
> > > m
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 02:18:08PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 01:26:16PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 03:51:42AM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 01:06:28AM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > > > POST
> > > > https://safebrowsing.goo
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 03:50:18PM +, Christoph Riehl wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 03:51:42AM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 01:06:28AM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > > > POST
> https://safebrowsing.google.com/safebrowsing/downloads?client=Iceweasel&appver=38.1.0
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: The Spirit of Free Software, or The Reality"):
> Right. I find it disappointing to discover that in Debian we have
> deliberately modified Iceweasl to make this problem worse, even if
^
Also, why do I keep doing that ?
e
Nikolaus Rath writes ("Re: The Spirit of Free Software, or The Reality"):
> On Jul 15 2015, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > If I use Iceweasl to visit the EFF's web pages, over TLS, I see no
> > reason why I should be exposed to any privacy violations (other than
> >
Nikolaus Rath writes ("Re: The Spirit of Free Software, or The Reality"):
> On Jul 15 2015, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > As Jakub was saying: just starting it up without even visiting a
> > site yet will do a POST and a *few dozen* GET requests. Shouldn't
> > it
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 03:51:42AM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 01:06:28AM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > > POST
https://safebrowsing.google.com/safebrowsing/downloads?client=Iceweasel&appver=38.1.0&pver=2.2&key=no-google-api-key
> > > + a few dozens of GET requests to
On Jul 15 2015, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> As Jakub was saying: just starting it up without even visiting a site yet will
> do a POST and a *few dozen* GET requests. Shouldn't it be waiting with its
> checks until it actually knows what to check? What is it sending them at
> browser startup?
Why don't
On Jul 15 2015, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Nikolaus Rath writes ("Re: The Spirit of Free Software, or The Reality"):
>> On Jul 15 2015, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>> > So I made this experiment with Iceweasel. These are the requests it
>> > makes with a fresh
On 07/15/2015 at 08:18 AM, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> As Jakub was saying: just starting it up without even visiting a site
> yet will do a POST and a *few dozen* GET requests. Shouldn't it be
> waiting with its checks until it actually knows what to check? What
> is it sending them at browser startup?
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:16:36PM +0200, Marcus Rohrmoser wrote:
> https://requestpolicycontinued.github.io/ comes to a rescue.
Note that while requestpolicycontinued is capable to do everything original
requestpolicy did, in its default mode it's just a poor ad blocker, strictly
weaker than Adbl
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 01:26:16PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 03:51:42AM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 01:06:28AM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > > POST
> > > https://safebrowsing.google.com/safebrowsing/downloads?client=Iceweasel&appver=38.1.0&pver=2.2
Marc Haber writes ("Re: The Spirit of Free Software, or The Reality"):
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:56:28 +1000, Ben Finney
> wrote:
> >Whatever my position ends up being on that, I do have a firm position on
> >another aspect: I greatly appreciate that you're
Mike Hommey writes ("Re: The Spirit of Free Software, or The Reality"):
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 01:06:28AM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > GET http://www.ebay.com/favicon.ico
> > GET http://en.wikipedia.org/favicon.ico
> > GET http://www.yahoo.com/favicon.ic
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:56:28 +1000, Ben Finney
wrote:
>Whatever my position ends up being on that, I do have a firm position on
>another aspect: I greatly appreciate that you're grappling with these
>issues in Mozilla products, and working to keep Debian high-quality and
>free.
>
>Thank you, Mike.
Dear Nikolaus,
I have to disagree.
> I'm not sure if that's really as serious as you make it sound. Let me
> ask you this:
>
> 1. Were you surprised by this?
Yes.
> I was certainly not, this is about what I
>would have guessed.
Why?
> If a program does what I expect it to do, I'm not
>
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 02:34:41PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 01:09:47PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >
> > > FUD is easy. How about documenting yourself on how Safe browsing
> > > actually works? Hint: urls are _never_
> > FWIW, those [requests to search engines to retrieve their icons] are a
> > consequence of removing supposedly non-free icons from the source
> > package. But maybe you'd prefer no icons at all for the list of search
> > engines.
>
> That's a tough one. I haven't yet got a firm position on what
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 01:09:47PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
>
> > FUD is easy. How about documenting yourself on how Safe browsing
> > actually works? Hint: urls are _never_ sent to Google. The worst thing
> > that Google can know is that the _
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> FUD is easy. How about documenting yourself on how Safe browsing
> actually works? Hint: urls are _never_ sent to Google. The worst thing
> that Google can know is that the _hash_ of /some/ url you went to, has the
> first n bits matching the
Mike Hommey writes:
> FWIW, those [requests to search engines to retrieve their icons] are a
> consequence of removing supposedly non-free icons from the source
> package. But maybe you'd prefer no icons at all for the list of search
> engines.
That's a tough one. I haven't yet got a firm positi
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 01:06:28AM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> GET http://www.ebay.com/favicon.ico
> GET http://en.wikipedia.org/favicon.ico
> GET http://www.yahoo.com/favicon.ico
> GET http://www.google.com/favicon.ico
> GET http://www.amazon.com/favicon.ico
> GET http://www.yahoo.com/favicon.ico
>
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 03:51:42AM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 01:06:28AM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > POST
> > https://safebrowsing.google.com/safebrowsing/downloads?client=Iceweasel&appver=38.1.0&pver=2.2&key=no-google-api-key
> > + a few dozens of GET requests to https://
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>If not, then what about all the tracking pages that Firefox is going
>to load because they're referenced in the page you asked for?
>Shouldn't you be much more worried about those?
Allowing third-party requests was one of the big
On Jul 15 2015, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> So I made this experiment with Iceweasel. These are the requests it
> makes with a fresh profile, before you even type an URL:
>
> POST https://location.services.mozilla.com/v1/country?key=no-mozilla-api-key
> GET http://www.ebay.com/favicon.ico
> GET http://en
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 5:18 AM, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 04:21:07PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 02:10:08PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>> > Perhaps we could run everything in $PATH in virtual machines and log
>> > all network beyond localhost.
>>
>> I lo
Bas Wijnen writes:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 01:06:28AM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > POST
> > https://safebrowsing.google.com/safebrowsing/downloads?client=Iceweasel&appver=38.1.0&pver=2.2&key=no-google-api-key
> > + a few dozens of GET requests to https://safebrowsing.google.com/
> >
> > So no
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 01:06:28AM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> POST
> https://safebrowsing.google.com/safebrowsing/downloads?client=Iceweasel&appver=38.1.0&pver=2.2&key=no-google-api-key
> + a few dozens of GET requests to https://safebrowsing.google.com/
>
> So nothing serious here. It's just cas
* Paul Wise , 2015-07-06, 14:10:
#786909 was absolutely not acceptable, and was treated as such. Social
contract #1 remains in effect and will continue to do so in spite of
day to day bugs that violate its spirit.
It might be interesting to think about ways we can automatically
discover such
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 04:21:07PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 02:10:08PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > Perhaps we could run everything in $PATH in virtual machines and log
> > all network beyond localhost.
>
> I look forward to not reading your emails anymore ;-P
>
> (o
On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 02:10:08PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Perhaps we could run everything in $PATH in virtual machines and log
> all network beyond localhost.
I look forward to not reading your emails anymore ;-P
(or did I misunderstand something?)
--
It is easy to love a country that is fam
On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 07:40:28PM +0200, Jan Gloser wrote:
> It would be really nice if we didn't have to care about money at all. Let's
> say
> you would make software and give it for free. If you needed a house, you would
> go to someone who specializes in that and he would build the house for
Octavio Alvarez has written:
> That could be the reason behind your analogy with communism, which turns
out to be out of bounds. The Free Software community is > not against
trade or capitalism at all. Maybe some individuals do, but that's another
story. In fact, Free Software is legally based on
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 7:35 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> #786909 was absolutely not acceptable, and was treated as such.
> Social contract #1 remains in effect and will continue to do so in
> spite of day to day bugs that violate its spirit.
It might be interesting to think about ways we can auto
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/06/2015 01:35 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
.
.
.
> Social contract #1 remains in effect and will continue to do so in
> spite of day to day bugs that violate its spirit.
^ best answer ever!
> Best wishes, Mike
>
>
Cheers,
zlatan
- --
I
On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 12:29 AM, lumin wrote:
> For example, the Chromium:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=786909
> What if we constantly keep feeling free to use non-free blobs,
> and get compromised with those suspicious weird binary blobs,
> and those odd software behaviours
On 07/04/2015 10:40 AM, Jan Gloser wrote:
I am not an active member of the debian community, just a listener on
this thread, but you got my attention. I also admire free software
makers although I think one must always keep in mind the reality of the
world and the rules of the game called 'trade'
Hi all
Free software stands for a high qualitative product. It isn't at least of
the collaborative model it uses, everybody can contribute as much as he
want. And it won't be a last technological progress that will free man kind
from its responsibilities. Anything other than openness isn't accepta
lumin writes:
> Besides, some Free Software Licenses don't prevent people from selling
> them for profit, and so does Debian GNU/linux itself.
Indeed, if a license restricts charging a fee when redistributing the
work, it is by definition (FSF and DFSG) not a free license.
The work is only free
On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 07:40:28PM +0200, Jan Gloser wrote:
> So from my perspective - feel free to use non-free software, but remember
> to pay for it, at least if the price is reasonable ;-).
What to do with non-free software that doesn't require payment?
It's the matter the original message was
Hi Jan Gloser and debian-devel,
First I'd like to repeat a point on my view:
* Free Software != Software can be legally used without charge
Besides, some Free Software Licenses don't prevent people from
selling them for profit, and so does Debian GNU/linux itself.
The key of freesoftware is n
> In the same way, I'm pretty sure is perfectly possible to make money
> developing free software. You just don't charge for selling copies or
> licenses, but instead you charge for developing new custom features or
> offering support and consultancy around the software.
True, but you would make m
On 04/07/15 19:40, Jan Gloser wrote:
> computers people somehow started to think that everything in this domain
> should be free. Well, I don't really think so. If you go to the market and
> want to get some apples, it's only fair that you pay for the apples. It's
> your way to say to the apple-sel
Michael Ole Olsen has written:
>Keep the profit at work, but I certainly wouldn't charge in my sparetime
>If you code on something you are hired to do, then its fine you charge,
because you can't say what you want to code on, your employeer >decides so
I partly agree but what would you do if you w
On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 07:48:26PM +0200, Michael Ole Olsen wrote:
> non-free, only the developer wins, and those that have enough money to buy
>
> free software lets poor countries use pcs.
You are making a grave mistake here (and below). Should I point it to you?
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
D
>I'm afraid you are terribly wrong with that comparison. You sound like an
US citizen that, by historical means, brings everything that >does not
completely value capitalism close to communism. Really strange for the rest
of the world.
Maybe I am wrong with the comparison, maybe not. But I am not
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
