ot;programs" (oh well, we'll pass that), and 2. they do not
include preferred form of source. Preferred form just depends on who is
using it in any case, so we need to wait for those people to show up and
tell us what form of source they prefer before we can take any actions
on it. Those actions can include badgering upstream or reaching a
consensus on the list, taking the case law I keep mentioning into
account, in order to speed up future decisions on similar materials.
Removing packages based on some random downstream person's feelings,
who has no idea how the material was generated in the first place, or by
some blanket policy requiring non-lossy source formats for every
lossily-compressed work is what would be rather dumb in my opinion.
It's a great sentiment, but it's never going to work. We can do better.
bye,
--
Ryan Underwood, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
r than the source code, if not the same size. This cannot
be said for lossy compression on media files, which typically shaves
orders of magnitude off the raw source. Again, it's a practicality
thing.
> But your idea, and criteria, are stupid.
Fine, however, your short-tempered and ill-prepared condemnation has
even less merit than any half baked idea I could post here.
--
Ryan Underwood, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
of practicality, and should be up to the package
maintainer, with policy such as described above to decide borderline cases.
If the package maintainer makes a bad/impractical decision regarding the source
format, nobody is going to host his package for download. So it ends up
being a Darwinian filter.
--
Ryan Underwood, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 10:30:14PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Ryan Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't seem to be getting mail from the BTS on this bug. Anyway, it
> > seemed to me that the Creative Commons licenses would be more
> > appro
patches under share-alike license which are distributed
separately from the main patches.
--
Ryan Underwood, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
1.0/
If you go here, you can select a license specifically for audio works
with particular desirable attributes:
http://creativecommons.org/license/
--
Ryan Underwood, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
erform calls to a proprietary ROM.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to document exactly what this code does
that is not utterly trivial. Then we can make a decision whether or not
reimplementing it is worth pursuing or if it will even afford us any extra
protection at all, based on the above histo
redistribution? Aren't the people
porting and improving it just wasting their time?
--
Ryan Underwood, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
and Q2 were released GPL from the start.
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/12/21/2210251.shtml
http://slashdot.org/articles/01/12/22/053211.shtml
However, I don't find any mention of Wolf3D+GPL anywhere.
I attached the original Doom license.
--
Ryan Underwood, , icq=10317253
LIMITED USE SOFTWARE LI
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 11:12:17PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>
> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 12:21:48AM -0500, Ryan Underwood wrote:
> > > I am trying to get my improved fork of the icculus Wolf3d ready for
> &
ritten violating the license terms?
Thanks,
--
Ryan Underwood, , icq=10317253
license.doc
Description: MS-Word document
NOTES:
--
This version will compile under BORLAND C++ 3.0/3.1 and compiled perfectly
before it was uploaded.
Please do not send your questions to id Software.
We are
11 matches
Mail list logo
