On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 08:50:59PM +0300, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> But otherwise let us talk about guidelines rather that about
> definitions.
You seem to be unaware of past discussions on this subject. Could I
trouble you to catch up with the debian-legal archives since (at least)
March of this y
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is it not obvious that the preferred form is .xcf?
>
> It is preferred, but does that make the other formats non-free?
I'm not sure. The talk about "preferred form" first comes up in the
requirement of the GPL to provide source. I don't know whe
Hello
I have finished technical work for my first package and I take a care
about legal stuff. I have looked into files provided by upstream and I feel
confused. Support welcomed.
I. Background.
PHP module is a shared library wrotten in C. Source files include headers
from php4-dev. Upstream aut
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 10:41:24PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 05:15:14PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > Why? What real-world problem does this solve? Have we actually run
> > > into situations where it was not
On Monday, Jun 16, 2003, at 10:10 US/Eastern, Thomas Hood wrote:
In general if you possess both a non-indent(1)ed version of the
program you are distributing and version of the program that you
have run through indent(1), then I want the non-indent(1) ed version.
Generally, one doesn't run in
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 13:57:11 -0400
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That was one question. The other, and more important, question was:
>
> "Do you happen to have any idea as to how much time will be given for
> community review?"
>
> Please remember that this is not a c
Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I know of one thorny problem in this area: many graphics are distributed
> >> as .png or .jpg files, even though their creator probably used a richer
> >> format like .xcf.
> Thomas Bushnell wrote:
> > Is
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please remember that this is not a cross examination; you are free
> to ask questions, but how and whether I respond to them is my decision.
Of course, but please also remember that if you completely ignore a
question, people will need to try and gue
That was one question. The other, and more important, question was:
"Do you happen to have any idea as to how much time will be given for
community review?"
Please remember that this is not a cross examination; you are free
to ask questions, but how and whether I respond to them is m
On 13.VI.2003 at 13:06 Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 03:29:03PM +0300, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > I'd like to mention here that FSF talks about free software and free
> > documentation and not about free works.
>
> Well, they're the Free *Software* Foundation.
> Presumably, they
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 04:10:16PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> >J.D. Hood wrote:
> >> On the other hand, if there is a set of different forms
> >> each of which is convertible into the others by means of
> >> freely available tools then any member of the set is as
> >> good as any other.
> Andrew S
Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The focus on human preferences tends to end up either in subjective
> assessments or in speculation about what other people prefer.
> Should these questions be settled by conducting surveys?
There's nothing wrong with subjectivity -- note that the debian-
Thomas Hood said:
> "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Finally, there is a very lossy conversion which must be Free,
>> and that is linguistic translation.
>
> Nope. If you are distributing the binary with English UI then
> I don't want the source with the UI translated lossily into
> Roman
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 04:10:16PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell wrote:
> > No. It is *human*, and focused on actual, real, genuine, human
> > preferences. This is far better than trying to find a specific
> > technical definition of those preferences: much better instead to use
>
Scripsit Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> A guideline of privacy could be read as a positive obligation that
> DFSG-free software licences protect against information disclosure.
How about, instead of "information disclosure", to speak about "forced
communication" or something like that? As I se
(I apologize for the fact that this won't thread.)
>J.D. Hood wrote:
>> On the other hand, if there is a set of different forms
>> each of which is convertible into the others by means of
>> freely available tools then any member of the set is as
>> good as any other.
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTE
J.D. Hood said:
> I suggest that the definition of 'preferred form for
> making modifications' be information-theoretical.
>
> When source code is compiled into binary code there is a
> loss of information, as indicated by the fact that you
> cannot get the original source back, given only the bina
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 05:15:14PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > Why? What real-world problem does this solve? Have we actually run
> > into situations where it was not obvious in a particular instance what
> > the preferred form for modifications w
"J.D. Hood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suggest that the definition of 'preferred form for
> making modifications' be information-theoretical.
No. It is *human*, and focused on actual, real, genuine, human
preferences. This is far better than trying to find a specific
technical definition o
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> GPL 3 is not at the stage to ask for public comments.
That was one question. The other, and more important, question was:
"Do you happen to have any idea as to how much time will be given for
community review?"
Thomas
20 matches
Mail list logo
