On 7/22/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In other words, we'll take something as source that we know isn't,
> because we like nVidia. ...
Hey, I didn't say I liked the idea myself. I'm just calling it like I
see it. I would say that the core functionality of the nv driver is
not m
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 10:48:43PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> We know perfectly well that the NVidia driver is in the condition it's
> in partly because its development is funded by a profit-seeking entity
> that has no wish to destabilize its market position, either by making
> it easier f
On 7/22/05, Jeff King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's say I write a program in C code and compile it to assembly
> language, which I distribute. Somebody else writes an equivalent program
> directly in assembly language and distributes it. The distributed
> products contain the same amount of in
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 02:07:09AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at peff.net.
> I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You s
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> So say we have two drivers for a piece of hardware. One is written
> without comments. One was originally commented, but the comments have
> been removed. Both provide the same amount of information about how they
> work. Both are r
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> So say we have two drivers for a piece of hardware. One is written
> without comments. One was originally commented, but the comments have
> been removed. Both provide the same amount of information about how they
> work. Both are
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 01:32:37AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> So if I write C with comments and then remove them that's not DFSG free,
>> but if I fail to add them in the first place then it's fine for main?
>
> Yes; as noble a goal as is writing go
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 01:32:37AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Uncommented source is not the same as source with comments stripped to make
> > it harder to understand.
> >
> > The former is merely potentially bad source code, but clearly source.
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> So if I write C with comments and then remove them that's not DFSG
> free, but if I fail to add them in the first place then it's fine
> for main?
I've no idea if it's fine for main,[1] but it's clearly DFSG Free.
Whether a work is DFSG Free is a sepa
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Uncommented source is not the same as source with comments stripped to make
> it harder to understand.
>
> The former is merely potentially bad source code, but clearly source. The
> latter is obfuscation, and is not source at all. Assuming what Floria
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 12:40:00AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>From a technical point of view, Java bytecode is as good as
> > uncommented source code. The Java-to-bytecode compilers are not very
> > sophisticated.
>
> We're happy to accept uncomm
On 7/22/05, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It makes it very hard to fix bugs in the pregenerated files.
> Look at the gsfonts mess, it's pretty instructive.
That's an argument from maintainability, not from freeness. The two
are, in my view anyway, distinct though related judgments.
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett:
>> Yes, but *WHY* do you think that?
>
> It makes it very hard to fix bugs in the pregenerated files.
> Look at the gsfonts mess, it's pretty instructive.
Not all pregenerated files are difficult to modify.
>> If there existed reason
Dear Debian legal,
I have a few questions about software developement. One of them is whether
a program written in e.g. Fortran by me or somebody else (who owns the
copyright) is converted to C (not f2c). How is copyright changed and what
about patent issues (maybe not relevant).
Further question
* Matthew Garrett:
>> I think it's not acceptable to yse pregenerated files to prevent
>> software from entering contrib. (Look at all the Java programs, for
>> instance.) If there's a povray dependency, the software cannot be
>> included in main.
>
> Yes, but *WHY* do you think that?
It makes
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett:
>
>> There's two main issues here.
>>
>> 1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of
>> modification?
>>
>> I don't believe so,
>
> We had a GR that is usually interpreted in a manner which disagrees
> with you.
* Steve Langasek:
>> It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to
>> be interpreted as "software".
>
> No, it isn't. Considering we went through all the effort of a GR to amend
> the DFSG and this still says "program", not "software", I don't see how you
> can claim it *
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:56:01PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andreas Barth:
>
> > Actually, the DFSG says:
> > | 2. Source Code
> > |
> > | The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
> > | source code as well as compiled form.
> >
> > Obviously e.g. fonts are no pr
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:56:01PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andreas Barth:
>
> > Actually, the DFSG says:
> > | 2. Source Code
> > |
> > | The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
> > | source code as well as compiled form.
> >
> > Obviously e.g. fonts are no pr
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:47:09PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > 2) Does a GPLed work have to include the preferred form of modification?
> >
> > Probably, and this may include the source code for the graphics.
> > However, this may also be affected by the copyright holder's
> > interpretation o
* Andreas Barth:
> Actually, the DFSG says:
> | 2. Source Code
> |
> | The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
> | source code as well as compiled form.
>
> Obviously e.g. fonts are no programms, even if they are in main.
It's clear from the context (and previous disc
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050722 23:47]:
> * Matthew Garrett:
> > There's two main issues here.
> >
> > 1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of
> > modification?
> >
> > I don't believe so,
>
> We had a GR that is usually interpreted in a manner which disagre
* Matthew Garrett:
> There's two main issues here.
>
> 1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of
> modification?
>
> I don't believe so,
We had a GR that is usually interpreted in a manner which disagrees
with you.
Certainly we require that the DFSG apply to documentation
* Anthony W. Youngman:
> Actually, doesn't the GPL itself contain exactly the same restriction,
> just worded a bit differently?
>
> The GPL forbids charging for the code itself.
Only for the source code which you must make available when you
distribute binaries, you may not charge for anything
* Rich Walker cites the EUPL:
> Distribution and/or Communication: any act of selling, giving, lending,
> renting, distributing, communicating, transmitting, or otherwise making
> available, on-line or off-line, copies of the Work at the disposal of
> any other physical or legal person.
New licen
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 10:05:09PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> The rule, afaict (and I'm not an American), is that copyright *cannot*
> *be* *enforced*, which is not the same thing at all ...
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#piu
--Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTE
In message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian M.
Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
There is no such thing as software that isn't copyrighted. All original
expression that is fixed in a tangible form is immediately copyrighted (at
least, that's the U.S. rule). There is still lots of debate as to wheth
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sean Kellogg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Friday 22 July 2005 03:28 am, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> License 1 contains a limitation on use ("educational, research and
> non-profit purposes, without fee") which is a violation o
> Derivative Works: the works or software that could be created by
> the Licensee, based upon the Original Work or modifications
> thereof. This Licence does not define the extent of modification
> or dependence on the Original Work required in order to classify a
> work as a Derivative Work; this
Ivo Danihelka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 18:35 +0200, Ales Cepek wrote:
>> I would like to ask,
>> if anybody here can say that the EUPL draft would be compatible with
>> the Debian Social Contract.
>
> Good question. The EUPL draft is available at
> http://europa.eu.int/i
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 18:35 +0200, Ales Cepek wrote:
> I would like to ask,
> if anybody here can say that the EUPL draft would be compatible with
> the Debian Social Contract.
Good question. The EUPL draft is available at
http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/2623/5585#eupl
Now is time to propo
Ales Cepek wrote:
I searched archive of the debian-legal list and it seems that the
proposed European Union Public License (EUPL) has not been discussed
here yet.
As this is clearly an important subject (and I am sure that it is
closely related to the software patents agenda), I would like to as
On Friday 22 July 2005 03:28 am, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > License 1 contains a limitation on use ("educational, research and
> > non-profit purposes, without fee") which is a violation of DFSG #6.
> > License 2 is less obvious, but I personally believe t
Greetings,
I searched archive of the debian-legal list and it seems that the
proposed European Union Public License (EUPL) has not been discussed
here yet.
As this is clearly an important subject (and I am sure that it is
closely related to the software patents agenda), I would like to ask,
if an
On 7/21/05, Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you mean:
>
> The story that is circulated now about the tweaking of the S-box is
> that it was to make DES more resistant to differential cryptanalysis,
> which was unknown at the time.
I tend to give Bruce Schneier a certain amo
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> License 1 contains a limitation on use ("educational, research and non-profit
> purposes, without fee") which is a violation of DFSG #6. License 2 is less
> obvious, but I personally believe that a provision that forbids charging a
> fee for distributi
Dear Sirs,
My name is Rob Collyer, and I'm the owner of webforumz.com.
I wanted to let you know that I am interested in exchanging links with
you.
Webforumz.com has a Google Page rank (PR) of 6 and I am sure your site
will benefit from exchanging links with us.
We have just added a new resou
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 08:02:11AM +0100, Free Ekanayaka wrote:
> |--==> Francesco Poli writes:
> FP> I fail to see anything non-free or troublesome in all this.
>
> Yes, I think you're right. I just reported what I thought was the
> issue here... I don't know what Paul Naska (author) wou
|--==> Francesco Poli writes:
FP> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:17:29 +0100 Free Ekanayaka wrote:
FP> [...]
FP> | >>zynaddsubfx is also a must
FP> [...]
FP> | The licence is a bit "strange", I know, but it is still the
FP> | softsynth with the best sounds that come out of the box.
>>
On Thursday 21 July 2005 04:49 pm, Gerasimos Melissaratos wrote:
> X-Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs-MailScanner: Found to be clean
> X-MailScanner-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I'd like to create a package for ng-spice, which seems to be governed by
> two licenses, which I include herein. In fir
40 matches
Mail list logo
