* David Schmitt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050228 23:55]:
> On Monday 28 February 2005 02:43, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > "acceptable form for modification" will get you in even worse trouble
> > than "(author's) preferred form for modification". The former is a
> > subjective criteria, and could raise iss
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050227 19:05]:
> > On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Justin Pryzby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050225 22:35]:
> > > > Well put. I think it is arguably not "source code", however,
> > > > if the source we are
* Josh Triplett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050228 02:45]:
> We do need some ability to determine if we have real source code
> available; "preferred form for modification" seems like a
> well-established definition, and far better than the alternatives.
The DFSG doesn't give any specific definition - so
* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050227 19:05]:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Justin Pryzby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050225 22:35]:
> > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 04:23:07PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > > I'll see about taking a closer look at parts to see if it
> > > > actu
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(Mostly cut, because this is the fundamental argument:)
> Yeesh, this is like the documentation thing all over again. Are we
> going to have to go through the litany of months of fruitless debates
> on the issue just to establish that special pleading do
On 01 Mar 2005 03:34:19 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> Basically, if you want to advise copyright holders what licence
> to use, the present DLS documents are not much help.
IMHO, they can be useful as a reference that explains which issues have
been found out in the license.
Of course the summary style can
$B!ZA0!Y!'2OK\>M;R(B
$B!XG/Np!Y!'(B32$B:P(B
$B!X?&6H!Y!'ITF0;:4IM}(B
$B!XG/<}!Y!'(B2.000$BK|1_(B
$B!X$G$9$N$G!"2OK\>M;R$5$s$N>pJs(B($B%W%m%UO"[EMAIL
(BPROTECTED](B)
(B[EMAIL PROTECTED]/@8$$$?$7$^$;$s!#40A4L5NAEPO?$G0B?4$G$9!#(B
$B8eF#7C;R$5$s$X$NL5NAJV?.$O$3$A$i$+$i(B
(Bhttp:/
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 04:08:41PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 10:16:46AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > Yes, it's odd, but it's odd in the opposite direction to the one
> > you're coming at it from. The unexpected thi
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 04:31:40PM +0100, Kilian Krause wrote:
> Now the only problem (if any) is the fact that the asterisk source does
> technically offer linking with OpenH323 (yet another version than is in
> the archive). If a user does do that from a debian source to my
> understanding that i
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Programs exist that allow you to read in JPEGs and produce new pieces of
>> artwork. People use them on a regular basis. No comparable programs
>> exist for ELF binaries. The obvious conclusion is that deri
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Programs exist that allow you to read in JPEGs and produce new pieces of
> artwork. People use them on a regular basis. No comparable programs
> exist for ELF binaries. The obvious conclusion is that derived works can
> (in general) be produced from JP
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know what to make of this statement:
>
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39189475,00.htm
> [quote]
> The main disadvantage of the deal with Google is that native language
> versions of Firefox are not permitted to change the default search
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 10:16:46AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Yes, it's odd, but it's odd in the opposite direction to the one
> you're coming at it from. The unexpected thing is that the binary, or
> jpeg, can *ever* be considered free. Conversely
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't know what to make of this statement:
>
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39189475,00.htm
> [quote]
> The main disadvantage of the deal with Google is that native language
> versions of Firefox are not permitted to change the default search
William Ballard wrote:
I don't know what to make of this statement:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39189475,00.htm
[quote]
The main disadvantage of the deal with Google is that native language
versions of Firefox are not permitted to change the default search
engine to one that is more useful
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:16:46 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> If we actually upheld this standard at present, it would result in us
>> removing a large number of packages from Debian.
>
> I think that these issues are sarge-ignore because of GR2004-004
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If we actually upheld this standard at present, it would result in us
>> removing a large number of packages from Debian.
>
> Which packages? Without specific examples it's difficult to discuss
> this point
As I recall, there was language about "official builds" of Firefox.
So it wouldn't seem to be binding on us.
-- John
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 10:51:04AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> I don't know what to make of this statement:
>
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39189475,00.htm
> [quote]
>
I don't know what to make of this statement:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39189475,00.htm
[quote]
The main disadvantage of the deal with Google is that native language
versions of Firefox are not permitted to change the default search
engine to one that is more useful for searching Web pag
Hi Steve,
Am Freitag, den 25.02.2005, 14:13 -0800 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 04:46:25PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 10:20:28PM +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
> > > > We were recently contacted by MySQL and informed that the MySQL client
>
Scripsit Ben Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What I propose instead is that Debian considered a stricter
> definition of source code such as that in the GPL.
The GPL's defintion of "source" is already the definition we use in
practice when applying DFSG #1 in cases of doubt. This has been the
case
Scripsit Ben Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If the majority of the values is utilized no more than once or
> twice, with only a handful that keep being used, it does not really
> justify giving them human-friendly names, but what if the programmer
> always needs a large number of them at hand ? Cou
Ben Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In my understanding, for now source code in Debian could as well be
> precompiled code or code that can only be compiled on a compiler
> than only can be compiled by itself.
In fact, this is the case. Lots of code can only be compiled with
GCC, and GCC c
Hi,
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I still feel [the nv driver] falls into a "free but
not very good" category, but I think I would be
convinced by an FSF position on this.
After a quick search to try and find if the FSF ever
voiced an opinion on nv, I unfortunately only dug out
the well-know
On Tuesday 01 March 2005 01:47, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > The DFS_Guidelines_ don't need to hold up in court. Therefore they
> > are able to say that source which is unacceptable for modification
> > because of lack of documentation, poor programming
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 04:41:47AM -0800, Ben Johnson wrote:
> but it seems there are now hundreds of registers in a video card.
Current Radeon Register Guides run to around 400 pages.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
>If people could prefer to code in that way back then,
I have no difficulty believing that there are people
today who honestly prefer a similar coding style when
they write device drivers.
Interesting point, yet maybe this coding style was
preferred because of much simpler hardware at the time
(ju
* Raul Miller:
> If you really want to find all files of this flavor, it be worth grepping
> for similar files. Perhaps the regular expression PGRAPH.0x[0-9A0-F]*/4
> would be a good place to start.
Yeah, I agree that it's not self-documenting code. But keep in mind
that even with full docu
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> No, it doesn't. The lone JPEG is only non-free if the lossless
>> version is what the original author would use to make a modification
>> to the JPEG. If, for example, the original author threw out the
>> lo
29 matches
Mail list logo
