* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050304 08:50]:
> They do not have anything to add to the discussion. Particularly since
> it's not even a discussion at present, but merely those of us who've
> been thinking about this stuff for a long time shooting down the FUD
> of those who haven't thought
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> > The odds are that we always have something that it is possible
> > to modify *somehow* by necessity of packaging, so why do you
> > think we need to worry about that and ignore upstream?
> Because taking upstre
Get your downloads at our great site!
Download any programs you want from our site below:
here
Another rule implemented was that the student was allowed to spend as much or as little time at the computer as he/she wished. There would be no more, 'We aren't finished, yet.' The student would
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 17:15:41 -0700, Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Actually, we aim to throw out 100% of closed-source software. But I'm
> assuming you were just being careless with trying to make a point.
> Unfortunately, the point you're trying to make also misses.
Well, I was a
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > * 3. provide your name and address as the primary contact for
>>> > *the support of your modified version, and
> The intent was probably something more like "make sure upstream isn't
> bothered with support questions for your modified versio
Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But in the case of the photographer Laura, if she thinks (in good faith)
> that she has the JPEG only, then JPEG is her preferred form for
> modification. When she finds out that another format existed, she may or
> may not change her mind about what i
Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > * 3. provide your name and address as the primary contact for
>> > *the support of your modified version, and
> Identifying yourself seems to be a necessary condition for
> distributing modified binaries...
> Does this pass the Dissident
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Interestingly enough, you also cited Java -> bytecode compilation: I've
> been told that Java decompilers can recover even variable identifiers
> from bytecode (but I don't know if this is actually true).
It's quite true, also for futile attempts at li
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:36:02 + Henning Makholm wrote:
>
>> Scripsit "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...]
>> > * 3. provide your name and address as the primary contact for
>> > *the support of your modified version, and
> [...]
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > * 3. provide your name and address as the primary contact for
>> > *the support of your modified version, and
> The above quoted clause worries me a bit, though.
> Identifying yourself seems to be a necessary condition for distributing
> mo
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why can upstream fix the typo the easy way, while I cannot (without
> rewriting all the LaTeX markup by reverse engineering)?
>
> Do you think that figuring out the LaTeX markup by looking at the
> resulting PDF is easy?
As a practical example of this,
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As you may remember, the context was whether something is the
> source code. When considering whether it is source, is it more
> important what a debian user can reasonably modify, or should
> more weight be given to what has already been used to modify it?
Tha
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:11:38PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:16:44 +0100, Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In your case, your best bet would probably be to provide the
> > photograph without the text, or (even better) provide the image in a
> > more advan
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 11:59:18PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:15:33 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Are you implying that a 2-clause-BSD licensed manual can be
> > > distributed in main in PDF format, if the LaTeX source (preferred by
> > > upstream for making modificat
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 18:16:43 + Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:43:58PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
[...]
> > My camera saves a JPEG of a lightning bolt. I distribute that in the
> > belief that it's the only version of the picture in existence, and
> > nobody argues over w
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:36:02 + Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
> > * 3. provide your name and address as the primary contact for
> > *the support of your modified version, and
[...]
> No, because the quoted license explicitly allows th
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:15:33 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Are you implying that a 2-clause-BSD licensed manual can be
> > distributed in main in PDF format, if the LaTeX source (preferred by
> > upstream for making modifications to it) is kept secret and not
> > available?
>
> I think it's suck
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 03:11:47PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> I think with these examples you're getting away from the "preferred
>> form for making modifications" definition of source.
>
> Yes, I'm accepting "or as close as is physically possible
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 18:23:21 +, Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've found several patches to procmail written by people who aren't the
> original authors. This suggests that it's practically modifiable. But
> you still haven't answered my question - what use is freedom to modify
>
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > [...] *You* specialised the subthread, so you shouldn't
> > start playing people offside by regeneralising it.
>
> Jeremy said "We're not worried about how modifiable the end result is.
> We're worried about how the author would prefer
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe Jeremy could have sprinkled a "just" or some
> "reasonably"s into it to help you, but it looks fairly
> clear from the original context what narrow aspect he was
> looking at. Remember, your previous intervention Message-id:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> only consi
Scripsit "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> OK. I think understand. qmail and pine are non-free because they
> disallow binary distribution, period. gnuplot can go into main since
> the Debian project distributes sources as a .orig.tar.gz and a .diff.gz
> (except for native Debian packa
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:49:18PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> There's a difference between "most other people" and "no other people".
>> What use is the freedom to modify if nobody can make practical use of
>> that freedom?
>
> Sounds to me like y
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Strictly yes, being mistaken is not an excuse. Just like if you
> discover that old versions of the package contained i386 binaries
> without source, the old versions are non-free. Also note that in both
> cases, they were *always* non-free (I really sh
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:41:43PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:16:44PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Andre
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What on earth would be the point of that? It won't magically become
> free just because the "wider community" doesn't want to make it
> free. If you are seriously suggesting that we would compromise our
> principles because the "wider community" doesn't
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:49:18PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > By this definition, procmail is non-free because it does not have any
> > forms that allow a reasonable person to modify it in reasonable ways.
>
> The existence of two authors in t
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First of all (and most telling, to my view) there's are a lot of
> "reasonably" in this definition. I think you're using these to paper
> over a lot of difficult cases. It doesn't work very well for our
> purposes because different people will always h
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:43:58PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > That example was carefully selected. You don't *get* another chance to
> > take a picture of a lightning bolt. They only last a second or two,
> > and every one is unique. That photo
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:51:47PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:55:53AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > > Andrew Suffield writes:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:36:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > > > Requiring layered fo
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By this definition, procmail is non-free because it does not have any
> forms that allow a reasonable person to modify it in reasonable ways.
The existence of two authors in the copyright statements suggests that
that's not true.
> It is not the defin
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 18:43 +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > Also, VCG 1.30 (the obfuscated source) contains code which is Copyright
> > Bob Corbett and Richard Stallman and which is licensed under the GPL
> > version 1 or later[2]. Because the code is (at least with the defau
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 03:41:49PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> Also, using the term "pirated code" is not likely to win you many
> friends here. A pirate is defined as the following:
>
> 1. A robber on the high seas; one who by open violence takes
> the property of another on the
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That example was carefully selected. You don't *get* another chance to
> take a picture of a lightning bolt. They only last a second or two,
> and every one is unique. That photo is the only one that will ever
> exist. (jpeg-compressed is no good when a
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:24:21AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> If we're going to have this debate,
> then it ought to start by engaging in discussion with the wider
> community rather than being another "Debian takes on the world" PR
> disaster.
What on earth would be the point of that? It won
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:55:53AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Andrew Suffield writes:
> >
> > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:36:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > > Requiring layered formats for
> > > > source is also going to result in PNGs being non-free in ma
Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Also, VCG 1.30 (the obfuscated source) contains code which is Copyright
Bob Corbett and Richard Stallman and which is licensed under the GPL
version 1 or later[2]. Because the code is (at least with the default
makefile) copied into the executable, you must distribute *the e
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:13:50AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So yes, I agree that the ability to modify works is key to their
> > freedom. But, as has already been discussed, the best definition of
> > "good enough" that we know of is "the pre
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 03:11:47PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "This is a photograph" is not sufficient information to determine
> > whether something might be source. Extreme examples: a photograph of
> > the text of a C file is not source. A p
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:41:43PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:16:44PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed,
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:55:53AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:36:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > Requiring layered formats for
> > > source is also going to result in PNGs being non-free in many cases.
> >
> > This sort of mindl
Michael Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This project was recently shut down by FSF, since he used pirated
> code for his project. He will soon restart the GNUVcg project with
> a proper code base. Therefore I'm asking you to remove the illegal
> package from your servers.
If mike's message a
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 09:29 +0100, Michael Schmidt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to inform you, that the current source of your VCG
> package is based on illegal code. James Michael DuPont started
> a GNUVcg project on the GNU Savannah Server:
>
>http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/vcgdotgnu
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I read Jeremy's message as suggesting that whether something was the
> preferred form of modification for the author was more important than
> whether or not it was modifiable by anyone else.
Maybe Jeremy could have sprinkled a "just" or some
"reasonabl
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Source code is any form of a work that allows any user who might be
> reasonably expected to modify the work to perform any modifications
> that they might be reasonably expected to perform. Occasionally a work
> may have several forms that meet this c
Scripsit "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * Permission to modify the software is granted, but not the right to
> * distribute the complete modified source code. Modifications are to
> * be distributed as patches to the released version. Permission to
> * distribute binaries pro
Scripsit Michael Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To be precise: your package VCG 1.30debian-1 (currently contained
> in testing and unstable) should be removed since its upstream
> package "vcg_130debian.orig.tar.gz" is pirated code. The upstream
> source package should also deleted on your servers.
Henning Makholm wrote:
No, because the quoted license explicitly allows the distribution of
binaries built from modified sources. That kind of patch-clause
licenses is specifically blessed by DFSG #4.
OK. I think understand. qmail and pine are non-free because they
disallow binary distribution, p
Hi,
I would like to inform you, that the current source of your VCG
package is based on illegal code. James Michael DuPont started
a GNUVcg project on the GNU Savannah Server:
http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/vcgdotgnu/
This project was recently shut down by FSF, since he used pirated
code for
49 matches
Mail list logo
