On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 01:28:50 +0100 Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 31 décembre 2008 à 09:15 -0800, Ken Arromdee a écrit :
> > > Indeed, but we are not talking of a program but of pictures here.
> >
> > The same applies if you don't provide the source code for the picture.
>
> No. If you’re
Le mercredi 31 décembre 2008 à 09:15 -0800, Ken Arromdee a écrit :
> > Indeed, but we are not talking of a program but of pictures here.
>
> The same applies if you don't provide the source code for the picture.
No. If you’re the copyright owner, you get to decide what is the
preferred form of mo
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > More precisely: if you are the copyright owner, you can publish it in
> > > whatever format you like, and if under a free license (e.g. the GPL), it
> > > will be acceptable for Debian.
> > Say what?
> > If you GPL a program and don't provide sourc
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:09:53 +0100 Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 31 décembre 2008 à 15:50 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> > > Indeed, but we are not talking of a program but of pictures here.
> >
> > I am convinced that this distinction is (almost) irrelevant from the
> > GPL point of v
Le mercredi 31 décembre 2008 à 15:50 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> > Indeed, but we are not talking of a program but of pictures here.
>
> I am convinced that this distinction is (almost) irrelevant from the
> GPL point of view.
The relevance comes from the fact that pictures can be their own
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:33:48 +0100 Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 29 décembre 2008 à 10:44 -0800, Ken Arromdee a écrit :
[...]
> > If you GPL a program and don't provide source code
>
> Indeed, but we are not talking of a program but of pictures here.
I am convinced that this distinction is
Le lundi 29 décembre 2008 à 10:44 -0800, Ken Arromdee a écrit :
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > More precisely: if you are the copyright owner, you can publish it in
> > whatever format you like, and if under a free license (e.g. the GPL), it
> > will be acceptable for Debian.
>
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 02:17:51 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
[...]
> I can easily imagine a photograph where the
> preferred form for modification is the depicted scene itself, rather
> than its depiction.
I am convinced that the depicted scene could possibly be the preferred
thing for *re-creating* t
Don Armstrong wrote:
> 1: I should note that belittling remarks like "Your argument, if it
> can be called that" aren't particularly conducive to polite
> conversation or indeed any further consideration of this subthread by
> me.
I should note that pontificating about belittling remarks made in
Måns Rullgård writes:
> Don Armstrong writes:
>
> > Under GPL v3, when we convey a work in a non-source form, we must
> > satisfy all of 6d. That requires making the Corresponding Source
> > available, which we cannot.
> >
> > Under GPL v2, we distribute under 3(a), and that also requires
> > d
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
> > If we don't have the corresponding source, we can't satisfy the
> > GPL, so we cannot distribute (GPLv2 §4, GPLv3 §8).
>
> Your argument, if it can be called that, assumes that the
> requirements of the GPL, or any license, ex
Don Armstrong writes:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Don Armstrong writes:
>> > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> >> More precisely, Debian has the right to distribute such a work, but
>> >> chooses not to do so.
>> >
>> > If a work is GPLed and we do not have the com
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
> > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> More precisely, Debian has the right to distribute such a work, but
> >> chooses not to do so.
> >
> > If a work is GPLed and we do not have the complete source for the
> > work, w
Don Armstrong writes:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> More precisely, Debian has the right to distribute such a work, but
>> chooses not to do so.
>
> If a work is GPLed and we do not have the complete source for the
> work, we cannot distribute it under the GPL.
If the work as di
Josselin Mouette writes:
> More precisely: if you are the copyright owner, you can publish it
> in whatever format you like, and if under a free license (e.g. the
> GPL), it will be acceptable for Debian.
Even more precisely: The work is only redistributable under the GPL if
you also make availa
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> More precisely, Debian has the right to distribute such a work, but
> chooses not to do so.
If a work is GPLed and we do not have the complete source for the
work, we cannot distribute it under the GPL. [For non-copyleft works,
however, your statement is
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:20:02 +0100 Thomas Harding wrote:
[...]
> * To upload a "background source package", is it mandatory to use
>an uncompressed format, such as tiff, for photographies, or a
>high-res jpeg format, which is now commonly used by digital
>cameras and well-handled by
Ken Arromdee writes:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> More precisely: if you are the copyright owner, you can publish it in
>> whatever format you like, and if under a free license (e.g. the GPL), it
>> will be acceptable for Debian.
>
> Say what?
>
> If you GPL a program and don
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> More precisely: if you are the copyright owner, you can publish it in
> whatever format you like, and if under a free license (e.g. the GPL), it
> will be acceptable for Debian.
Say what?
If you GPL a program and don't provide source code, Debian doe
Le lundi 29 décembre 2008 à 13:52 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> > * To upload a "background source package", is it mandatory to use
> > an uncompressed format, such as tiff, for photographies, or a
> E.g. this is bullshit.
More precisely: if you are the copyright owner, you can publish it in
t...@thomas-harding.name wrote:
>Anyway, as the content have slightly changed, you'll find the thread in
>debian-legal:
You should not trust everything you read on debian-legal.
> * To upload a "background source package", is it mandatory to use
> an uncompressed format, such as tiff, for phot
This whole topic is very debatable (I suggest not doing that though,
Debian produces enough long threads).
I would suggest doing what you think is best and getting that uploaded
to Debian. If the ftp-masters reject that, you can improve it and
re-upload until they accept it.
--
bye,
pabs
http:/
On 24/Dec - 11:16, Paul Wise wrote:
> Firstly, -curiosa is the wrong list for your post, see the description here:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-curiosa/
Ooops... I expected "unexpected things", not funny ones, sorry!
I suppose a better place had been "debian-desktop".
Anyway, as the conten
23 matches
Mail list logo
