On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 08:52:35AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> That's been brought up on -legal, and any package in main including
> that logo has a bug.
For anyone interested, this is fixed: http://bugs.debian.org/246784
--
Glenn Maynard
Lewis Jardine wrote:
> There are, however, standards that are backed by patents and/or
> trademarks, and not freely implementable (postscript, mp3, pdf, etc.),
^^
No, trademarks are different. Trademarks are always DFSG-free and don't
cause problems except when certain companies get lit
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 08:52:35AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >Debian significantly restricts use (not just modification or
> >redistribution) of what is in that file. There is no question that
> >the rules for the official use logo fail the DFSG. The only way I can
> >see for Debian to f
On May 1, 2004, at 05:40, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
Ah that's an interesting point. TCP/IP is a standard, so it's non
free...
No, that's not true. The idea of TCP/IP is free --- an idea can't be
covered by copyright, and there is AFAIK no patent being actively
enforced on it. A partic
On Apr 30, 2004, at 23:06, Michael Poole wrote:
To adapt an analogy that someone used earlier, when you go to a store,
you might find fonts, images, or other data in a box in the software
section. However, you are not likely to find a specification for
TCP/IP in the software section,
Depends
Francesco Paolo Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ah that's an interesting point. TCP/IP is a standard, so it's non free...
> Maybe all implementation of that should go in contrib so, because
> they 'depend' on a piece of 'something' which is not free. So, we
> have to move the whole kernel
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To adapt an analogy that someone used earlier, when you go to a store,
> you might find fonts, images, or other data in a box in the software
> section. However, you are not likely to find a specification for
> TCP/IP in the software section, and you ar
On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 10:24:59AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> I can understand some gift not meeting your standards, but it goes
> much too far to characterize the giver of disappointing gift as
> 'reprehensible'.
I find it extremely difficult to classify the GFDL as a "gift".
> The trade-off th
Francesco Paolo Lovergine dijo [Sat, May 01, 2004 at 11:40:08AM +0200]:
> > To adapt an analogy that someone used earlier, when you go to a store,
> > you might find fonts, images, or other data in a box in the software
> > section. However, you are not likely to find a specification for
> > TCP/I
On 2004-05-01 04:06:35 +0100 Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To adapt an analogy that someone used earlier, when you go to a store,
you might find fonts, images, or other data in a box in the software
section. However, you are not likely to find a specification for
TCP/IP in the softwa
Francesco Paolo Lovergine writes:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 11:06:35PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> To adapt an analogy that someone used earlier, when you go to a store,
>> you might find fonts, images, or other data in a box in the software
>> section. However, you are not likely to find a sp
Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
Ah that's an interesting point. TCP/IP is a standard, so it's non free...
Maybe all implementation of that should go in contrib so, because
they 'depend' on a piece of 'something' which is not free. So, we
have to move the whole kernel there, and oh sure, libc to
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 11:06:35PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Glenn Maynard writes:
>
> >> That does not mean that software freedom should be the only freedom
> >> that Debian pursues, but it does not help to pretend that Free
> >> Software is the same thing as Free License Texts or Free Refere
Glenn Maynard writes:
>> That does not mean that software freedom should be the only freedom
>> that Debian pursues, but it does not help to pretend that Free
>> Software is the same thing as Free License Texts or Free Reference
>> Documentation or Free Speech.
>
> It does not help to pretend that
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:09:18PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> I want to distinguish between software and other data because I prefer
> to use English in a precise way, and because I think that is
> consistent with the broader usage[1].
> [1]- See, for example, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-
Stephen Frost writes:
> Of course it could. Writing an assembler would probably take some
> serious effort too without knowing that information. To some extent
> that's my point- are we going to require hardware specifications for
> anything that uses firmware? Personally I don't think we need t
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's not like there's a whole lot of difference between the assembly and
> the binary in this case. Write a Q&D disassembler and extract the
> assembly if you want.
Even if we were talking about x86 assembly, there would still be a lot
of diffe
* D. Starner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It's not like there's a whole lot of difference between the assembly and
> > the binary in this case. Write a Q&D disassembler and extract the
> > assembly if you want.
>
> Even if we were talking about x
* D. Starner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> But almost no one, if given a choice of the binary or the assembly language
> to edit, would choose the binary. At the very least, the assembly would be
> invaluable to deciphering the details of the firmware, and I suspect many
> programmers would write
> People have argued that since there exists open source tools for
> editing fonts, font files should be considered their own source, even
> if Font Foundries have their own preferred source formats and use
> propietary tools to create font files via a compilation process.
But the TrueType fi
20 matches
Mail list logo
