On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:32:36 + Henning Makholm wrote:
> However, lsmod tells me that something called
> "nvidia_agp" is loaded; is that the one?
I don't think so.
My guess is that this module is:
CONFIG_AGP_NVIDIA
This option gives you AGP support for the GLX component of the
XFree86 4.
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 06:17:56AM -0800, Ben Johnson wrote:
>> After a quick search to try and find if the FSF ever
>> voiced an opinion on nv, I unfortunately only dug out
>> the well-known case against NVidia's binary kernel
>> module.
> Will any of t
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 06:17:56AM -0800, Ben Johnson wrote:
> After a quick search to try and find if the FSF ever
> voiced an opinion on nv, I unfortunately only dug out
> the well-known case against NVidia's binary kernel
> module.
Will any of the X nVidia support work without that binary kerne
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 08:45:21PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Actually, a simple email from the upstream author has been considered in
> the past to be sufficient authorization for a license change. If
> upstream were to send an email saying something to the effect of "I
> hereby relicense all
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On 06 Mar 2005 14:41:23 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
>>Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Perhaps a (wishlist?) bug should be file against the latex2html
>>>package. What do you think?
>>
>>Such a good idea that Roland Stigge already did it:
>>http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/b
On 06 Mar 2005 14:41:23 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Perhaps a (wishlist?) bug should be file against the latex2html
> > package. What do you think?
>
> Such a good idea that Roland Stigge already did it:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=2217
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps a (wishlist?) bug should be file against the latex2html package.
> What do you think?
Such a good idea that Roland Stigge already did it:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=221703
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wit
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 00:09:56 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote:
> * latex2html is released under the GPL and moved to main.
>
> The author has already said he would do this with the next version,
> but that next version may be a long time off; the best solution would
> be a permission statement.
Wow! :-
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 00:21:39 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>>Do you think that figuring out the LaTeX markup by looking at the
>>>resulting PDF is easy?
>>
>>As a practical example of this, Python ships HTML documentation. This
>>is in a pre-built tarball in the Debian source
Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 10:51:11 + Henning Makholm wrote:
>> According to my statement, *if* we do get the special tool and all of
>> the intermediate forms, then the work is free. My statement does not
>> tell anything about the freedom if we don't -
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050305 11:50]:
> You need to go talk to DWN and the anti-freedom advocates, who are the
Whom of your fellow co-developers do you consider as "anti-freedeom
advocates"?
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 10:51:11 + Henning Makholm wrote:
[please send replies to the list, as I'm a subscriber and didn't asked
to get replies twice; thank you]
> Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > On the other hand, we must adopt a source code definition that
> > allows it to ch
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 00:21:39 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > > Do you think that figuring out the LaTeX markup by looking at the
> > > resulting PDF is easy?
> >
> > As a practical example of this, Python ships HTML documentation. This
> > is in a pre
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 02:01:35 +0100 Måns Rullgård wrote:
> 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
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 00:21:39 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Do you think that figuring out the LaTeX markup by looking at the
> > resulting PDF is easy?
>
> As a practical example of this, Python ships HTML documentation. This
> is in a pre-built tarball in the Debian source package, because the
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:13:06 -0500 Luke Schierer wrote:
> assuming there is a meaningful definitionof source for that package.
I claim there is at least one: the one found in GPLv2.
> But as this thread has amply shown, it is entirely possible to come up
> with things that have no meaningful sour
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 15:47:36 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
> The DFSG says that for
> programs, we must have access to the source. It does not say that we
> have to have access to the source for things that are not programs.
I'm still surprised to hear that.
Once it was clear that DFSG are consider
On 04 Mar 2005 10:07:20 -0500 Michael Poole wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
[...]
> > Why does it depend on what the upstream author is using as source?
> > How does that affect the recipient's ability to modify the work?
>
> One of the underpinnings of the Free Software movement is that users
Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On the other hand, we must adopt a source code definition that allows it
> to change form: see my Fortran<->C example.
No, I specifically reject your claim that the "source code" of the
existing work magically changes from being C to Fortran simply be
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 06:10:21PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 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
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 08:59:19AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * 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 stu
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 01:42:58 + Henning Makholm wrote:
> 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 anot
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 06:52:07PM +, Brett Parker wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > > I rephrase: how can you argue that a hand-crafted binary is not
> > > sufficiently modifiable to offer the freedom to study and adapt?
> >
> > How you can argue that a binary outp
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 06:59:44PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> 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.
>
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> But how do you argue that a hand-crafted binary is sufficiently
>>> modifiable without also admitting the possibility that the output
>>> of a C compiler may be suffici
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> As a practical example of this, Python ships HTML
>>> documentation. This is in a pre-built tarball in the Debian source
>>> package, because the original docs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I rephrase: how can you argue that a hand-crafted binary is not
> > sufficiently modifiable to offer the freedom to study and adapt?
>
> How you can argue that a binary output by a compiler is not suffi
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 05:36:39PM +0100, A Mennucc wrote:
> Luke Schierer wrote:
>
> Your interpretation of "free software" is plain wrong:
> you are confusing "ability to modify" with "legal right to modify".
Whether or not there is a difference between the two depends rather
heavily on the e
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How does that affect the recipient's ability to modify the work?
>
> That's a different question: if a recipient is incapable of
> modifying the work, does it mean that they do not have the
> freedom to modify it? I
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> But how do you argue that a hand-crafted binary is sufficiently
> >> modifiable without also admitting the possibility that the output
> >> of a C compiler may be suffi
Luke Schierer wrote:
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:20:31PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Why does it depend on what the upstream author is using as source? How
does that affect the recipient's ability to modify the work?
because the recipient has the same ability to modify the source that
th
Matthew Garrett writes:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> But how do you argue that a hand-crafted binary is sufficiently
> >> modifiable without also admitting the possibility that the output
> >> of a C compiler may be sufficiently modifiable
Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:47:32PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:25:48PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Obfuscated code does not satisfy DFSG#2. I hope nobody seriously
disagrees with this.
Let's not be so fast with this. I haven't taken a
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:20:31PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> Why does it depend on what the upstream author is using as source? How
> does that affect the recipient's ability to modify the work?
because the recipient has the same ability to modify the source that
the author does, subjec
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 is the only one that will ever
exist. (jpeg-compressed
Andrew Suffield wrote:
Intermediate cases require the exercise of judgement, as always. A
photograph of the Eiffel Tower is probably the best we're going to
get; there's only one of them and it won't fit in the archive. A
photograph of a PCB layout, constructed by a secret program, is not a
reasona
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But how do you argue that a hand-crafted binary is sufficiently
>> modifiable without also admitting the possibility that the output
>> of a C compiler may be sufficiently modifiable?
>
> I think it depends what the
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> As a practical example of this, Python ships HTML documentation. This
>> is in a pre-built tarball in the Debian source package, because the
>> original docs are in latex and require latex2html to turn the
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] free but hard to hack. I don't really see how
> > you can blanket-ban them from main. As pointed out elsewhere,
> > practical concerns usually keeps us away from these edge cases
> > and the other few we'll arg
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As a practical example of this, Python ships HTML documentation. This
> is in a pre-built tarball in the Debian source package, because the
> original docs are in latex and require latex2html to turn them into
> HTML. latex2html is non-free, so can't b
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the hand-crafted binary example, it would be *possible* to
> do both of those. Notice that the freedom doesn't require it
> to be easy. It's near the border, about where the nv driver was
> accused of being: free but hard to hack. I don't really see how
> you
* 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
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
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
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]> 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 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
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
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
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
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
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I don't think /my/ preferred form of modification is more special
> than the author's, but if nobody but the author is in a reasonable
> position to alter the code then I don't think that's free.
If this is because the author is withholding information
Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> In fact, starting by filing release critical bugs is likely to
>>> ensure that the opposition is entirely entrenched to begin with.
>> Why are you so deter
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(snip)
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. Having gone back and
reread it, I still interpret that way. If that
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> If we apply this to a photograph of a circuit board, we find that
>> the photograph is the source.
>
> Quite possibly not, actually. Consider a > 2 layer PCB, FE.
Oh, sorry - I meant to go somewhere with tha
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> In fact, starting by filing release critical bugs is likely to
>> ensure that the opposition is entirely entrenched to begin with.
>
> Why are you so determined to keep fighting strawmen?
Where's the s
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we have very, very different ideas about the goals of free
> software. In my world, we ask for source code because the ability to
> modify code is fundamental to free software. I'm not quite sure how that
> works for you.
I hope that you are nev
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> If we apply this to a photograph of a circuit board, we find that
> the photograph is the source.
Quite possibly not, actually. Consider a > 2 layer PCB, FE.
> A 20 megabyte binary-only application is non-free, even if the
> author wrote and maintains
Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In fact, starting by filing release critical bugs is likely to
> ensure that the opposition is entirely entrenched to begin with.
Why are you so determined to keep fighting strawmen?
> We should work with them to change their minds, not start tellin
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:04:36 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> That's, uh, entirely insane.
>
> Maybe it's insane, but could please explain why?
It's not something that's been well discussed within the project, and I
don't think it's an argument you're
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 preferred form for modification"
> -- generally the form preferred by the auth
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> How does the mechanism used to generate the text on the picture alter
>>> how modifiable the end result is?
>>
>> But we're not worried about how modifiable t
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:05:38PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Well, I'm a bit surprised, here.
> You were the proposal A proposer in GR 2004-004 and the rationale seems
> to state that your understanding of both versions of the Social Contract
> (the one previous GR 2004-003 and the new one as
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:16:44 +0100, Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>> No, for a photograph the source is the actual physical object you've
>> made a picture of, so a photograph can never be free. Either this, or
>> a photograph
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:11:38 -0800 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> It's good to encourage people to use sophisticated workflow when
> creating images, as when creating software. But we don't call
> software non-free when it isn't developed using Extreme Programming
> methodology or UML modeling, not l
MJ Ray wrote:
>I still feel that [nv] falls into a "free but not
very good" category, but I think I would be convinced
by an FSF position on this.
Here is the answer to my mail to the FSF, if you still
care:
>I think that debian-legal is asking the right
quesiton here: is this really what the NV
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:40:52 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 11:15:20PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:16:46 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
[...]
> > I think that these issues are sarge-ignore because of GR2004-004,
> > but will be release-critical bugs
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:04:36 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
> That's, uh, entirely insane.
Maybe it's insane, but could please explain why?
[...]
> No. Autogenerated C is not the preferred form for modification, but
> nor is it a practical form for modification (in most cases - this is
> not always
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 14:50:20 +0100 Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Suppose I hired an artist to create some artwork for my programs
> (logos, icons, etc.), and I was only given PNG files with the
> completed images. Would this make the entire package non-free? Of
> course I could as the artist for whatev
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:09:38 + Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > How about:
> >
> > If the author could change something but you can't, he probably
> > hasn't given you the source?
>
> That is a very good rule of thumb, and really should be everybody's
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:28:44 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Whether a PNG should be considered source or not depends on the
> > content. If I made a PNG consisting of a white background with a
> > black rectangle, I probably wouldn't bother to save a
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:16:44 +0100 Måns Rullgård wrote:
> No, for a photograph the source is the actual physical object you've
> made a picture of, so a photograph can never be free.
No, it's not. The actual physical object is not the preferred form for
making modifications to the work (i.e. the
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:16:44 +0100, Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> No, for a photograph the source is the actual physical object you've
> made a picture of, so a photograph can never be free. Either this, or
> a photograph should be considered as source.
I really, really hope t
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> How does the mechanism used to generate the text on the picture alter
>> how modifiable the end result is?
>
> But we're not worried about how modifiable the end result is.
I think we have very, very d
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How does the mechanism used to generate the text on the picture alter
> how modifiable the end result is?
But we're not worried about how modifiable the end result is. We're
worried about how the author would prefer to make modifications. Thus
how i
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 photograph of a lightning bolt
> isn't directly source, but it's the best t
1 - 100 of 192 matches
Mail list logo
