On Tue, 2007-30-01 at 11:54 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> This refrain keeps getting repeated, but still no one has explained
> how distributing a form of the work which is _not_ the prefered form
> for modification satisfies section 3 of the GPL:
So, I think we all readily admit that _some_ tran
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [If the argument is that figuring out whether or not the people is
> lying is difficult and requires judgement, then I agree. I've been
> trying to ignore that facet completely because it's not particularly
> interesting to me. Please play along and igno
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 13:48, Don Armstrong wrote:
> The upstream maintainer. Whatever form(s) of the work the upstream
> maintainer actually uses to modify the work is the prefered form for
> modification.
You keep saying this over and over, but it's just your opinion, not the way
the licens
> Le mardi 30 janvier 2007 à 09:49 -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko a écrit
> > Thanks everyone for help -- I've got the point now ;-) Well -- I
> > postpone this ITP and will wait for source code release
> This is your choice, but most people here agreed that you don't need
> to.
I just don't want to rel
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On 31/01/2007, at 9:48 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> >The upstream maintainer. Whatever form(s) of the work the upstream
> >maintainer actually uses to modify the work is the prefered form
> >for modification.
>
> Perhaps you could add a "wheee" every t
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 January 2007 12:48:15 pm Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > > The bright line is actually pretty straight forward: Do you modify the
> > > > file with syntactic whitespace or the fi
Le mardi 30 janvier 2007 à 09:49 -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko a écrit :
> Thanks everyone for help -- I've got the point now ;-)
>
> Well -- I postpone this ITP and will wait for source code release
This is your choice, but most people here agreed that you don't need to.
--
.''`.
: :' : We ar
On 31/01/2007, at 9:48 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
The bright line is actually pretty straight forward: Do you
modify the
file with syntactic whitespace or the file without? Is it preferable
to modify the file without the keyword expans
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 12:48:15 pm Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > The bright line is actually pretty straight forward: Do you modify the
> > > file with syntactic whitespace or the file without? Is it preferable
> > > to modify the fi
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> > The bright line is actually pretty straight forward: Do you modify the
> > file with syntactic whitespace or the file without? Is it preferable
> > to modify the file without the keyword expansion or with?
>
> Preferable by whom?
T
Don Armstrong wrote:
> The bright line is actually pretty straight forward: Do you modify the
> file with syntactic whitespace or the file without? Is it preferable
> to modify the file without the keyword expansion or with?
Preferable by whom? That is a matter of personal preference and taste,
wh
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Stephen Gran wrote:
> Just pointing out that it doesn't break our ability to
> redistribute under the GPL.
This refrain keeps getting repeated, but still no one has explained
how distributing a form of the work which is _not_ the prefered form
for modification satisfies sectio
This one time, at band camp, Don Armstrong said:
>
> However, even removing the white space from a program can make it
> signficantly more difficult to debug and comprehend, even though it
> can be reversed with tools that are readily available.
I don't think anyone is arguing that this sort of t
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-30-01 at 03:30 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > The bright line is actually pretty straight forward: Do you modify the
> > file with syntactic whitespace or the file without? Is it preferable
> > to modify the file without the keyword expans
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Consider also a text editor that automatically calculates and
> displays whitespace, while not bothering to save it to the output
> files. That is a plausable explanation for the behavior of the
> upstream author in the head of this thread.
For the record, a
Thanks everyone for help -- I've got the point now ;-)
Well -- I postpone this ITP and will wait for source code release
> It's been mentioned "are you complying with the GPL if you distribute
> obfuscated source?". I'd say "yes",
> because you're distributing it unmodified as per what the orig
On Tue, 2007-30-01 at 03:30 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> The bright line is actually pretty straight forward: Do you modify the
> file with syntactic whitespace or the file without? Is it preferable
> to modify the file without the keyword expansion or with?
That's not a very good line at all. I
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Yaroslav
Halchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
I've ran into a problem: given firefox extension released under
GPL as shipped (.xpi files) has obscured .js files -- all
formatting was removed.
I've asked the upstream to provide proper source code, but so far he
eff
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Obviously we should try to figure out if the author was lying or
> > making fun of -legal first, but if it was actually true and
> > debhelper was GPLed, then we can't do anything else.
>
> Why?
Because it wouldn't be the prefered f
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm repeating this since it was buried in a footnote in a probably
> pointless subthread. There's no particular reason why a development
> environment for java or a similar language would need to include
> whitespace in the source files it saves. The whitespac
Yaroslav Halchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> If I understood GPL license correctly, upstream author simply can't
> release anything under GPL if he doesn't provide sources. Whenever I've
> asked on mozilla's addons IRC I've got reply as
> \"afaik he codes himself, and so if he writes on hi
Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> I've asked the upstream to provide proper source code, but so far he
> effectively refused to do that, although it seems to be a very simple
> operation to perform.
I'm repeating this since it was buried in a footnote in a probably
pointless subthread. There's no partic
Don Armstrong wrote:
> Obviously we should try to figure out if the author was lying or
> making fun of -legal first, but if it was actually true and debhelper
> was GPLed, then we can't do anything else.
Why? debhelper is also developed in vim[1], I don't have to ship vim with
it, why would I nee
23 matches
Mail list logo
