On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 23:06:25 +0100
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:13:52 +1100 Riley Baird wrote:
>
> [...]
> > But even if the person who wrote a program wrote it in such a way that
> > it was unreasonably difficult to understand (something which is very
> > unlikely), then we mu
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:13:52 +1100 Riley Baird wrote:
[...]
> But even if the person who wrote a program wrote it in such a way that
> it was unreasonably difficult to understand (something which is very
> unlikely), then we must say that that, even though no better form of
> modification ever exi
> > Being insecure shouldn't be a reason for a program to be declared
> > non-free, but being unreasonably difficult to understand should be.
>
> Not if the program is difficult to understand even for its
> maintainers...
A program will never be *unreasonably* difficult to understand for its
main
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:17:31 +1100 Riley Baird wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 22:43:59 +0200
> Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:00:19 +1100 Riley Baird wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > We can declare that the source did exist, but it doesn't anymore.
> >
> > I don't think so.
>
> Wh
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 22:43:59 +0200
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:00:19 +1100 Riley Baird wrote:
>
> [...]
> > We can declare that the source did exist, but it doesn't anymore.
>
> I don't think so.
Why not? "The preferred form of modification among those that have
existed" is
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:00:19 +1100 Riley Baird wrote:
[...]
> We can declare that the source did exist, but it doesn't anymore.
I don't think so.
>
> People use open-source software for a variety of reasons. Some people
> use it for security reasons. Auditing a program where all copies of the
>
> > > One completely different thing is when nobody has some form of
> > > the work any longer. That form cannot be preferred for making
> > > modifications, since it no longer exists. In this case, the actual
> > > source is the preferred form for making modifications, among the
> > > existing one
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:57:47 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:47:02PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> >
> > I am personally convinced that nowadays the definition of source should
> > *no longer* be regarded as an open question: I think that the most
> > commonly used an
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:12:21 +0200 Ole Streicher wrote:
[...]
> Yes, this is a nice summary. Thank you very much;
You're welcome!
> would it be possible
> to add it somewhere to Debian (Wiki or so?)
I tend to avoid the Debian Wiki, because it is a licensing mess: almost
nobody cares about addin
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:02:08 +0200 Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 15 octobre 2015 10:26 +1100, Ben Finney :
[...]
> > There are many cases that are clarified by that
> > definition, to the point of clear resolution.
>
> The recent discussions on debian-devel@ shows that not everybody agree
> with th
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:50:06 +1100 Riley Baird wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200
> Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > For further details on what I think about the definition of source,
> > anyone interested may read my essay:
> > http://www.inventati.org/frx/essays/softfrdm/whatissource.h
Charles Plessy writes ("Re: Source files"):
> sorry for drifting that thread further... I can not help adding
> that, the world being in perpetual change, the definition of source
> will one day become an open question again. My favorite guess is
> that at some point, it w
Paul Wise writes:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Ole Streicher wrote:
>
> > https://bugs.debian.org/798900
>
> FYI folks: the outcome of this bug report is that the jQuery
> dataTables plugin has been packaged properly and built from source
> properly using the upstream build system.
Great
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Ole Streicher wrote:
> For one of my packages (python-astropy), I got a Lintian error that it
> would contain a non-source file jquery.dataTables.js. This is mainly
> discussed in a bug report
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/798900
FYI folks: the outcome of this bug
Ángel González writes:
> On 15/10/15 00:50, Riley Baird wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200
>> Francesco Poli wrote:
>>
>>> The alternatives you propose are vague at best.
>>>
>>> For further details on what I think about the definition of source,
>>> anyone interested may read my essay:
❦ 15 octobre 2015 10:26 +1100, Ben Finney :
>> > I am personally convinced that nowadays the definition of source
>> > should *no longer* be regarded as an open question: I think that the
>> > most commonly used and accepted definition of source code is the one
>> > found in the GNU GPL license.
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 16:05:39 +1100
Ben Finney wrote:
> Riley Baird
> writes:
>
> > Okay, I guess that handling problematic cases by consensus works too.
> > We can intuitively state what is and what is not source in practically
> > all cases, even if we can't give a reason for it.
>
> We shoul
Riley Baird
writes:
> Okay, I guess that handling problematic cases by consensus works too.
> We can intuitively state what is and what is not source in practically
> all cases, even if we can't give a reason for it.
We should be able to give good reason for it, we certainly should not
rely on i
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 10:26:47 +1100
Ben Finney wrote:
> Riley Baird
> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200
> > Francesco Poli wrote:
> >
> > > I am personally convinced that nowadays the definition of source
> > > should *no longer* be regarded as an open question: I think that the
Le Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:47:02PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
>
> I am personally convinced that nowadays the definition of source should
> *no longer* be regarded as an open question: I think that the most
> commonly used and accepted definition of source code is the one found
> in the GNU G
On 15/10/15 00:50, Riley Baird wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200
Francesco Poli wrote:
The alternatives you propose are vague at best.
For further details on what I think about the definition of source,
anyone interested may read my essay:
http://www.inventati.org/frx/essays/softfrdm/
Riley Baird
writes:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200
> Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> > I am personally convinced that nowadays the definition of source
> > should *no longer* be regarded as an open question: I think that the
> > most commonly used and accepted definition of source code is the on
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:47:02 +0200
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:43:31 +1100 Riley Baird wrote:
>
> > > What I meant here is that you should explain a bit what you consider a
> > > source and what not
> >
> > This question comes up in so many discussions, we really need to hav
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 20:43:31 +1100 Riley Baird wrote:
> > What I meant here is that you should explain a bit what you consider a
> > source and what not
>
> This question comes up in so many discussions, we really need to have a
> definition that we can all live with, record it somewhere and the
> What I meant here is that you should explain a bit what you consider a
> source and what not
This question comes up in so many discussions, we really need to have a
definition that we can all live with, record it somewhere and then move
on.
I can think of several ideas:
1. Source code must not
On 14.10.2015 10:35, Bastien Roucaries wrote:
Le 14 octobre 2015 08:51:16 GMT+02:00, Ole Streicher a
écrit :
I am not a specialist at all for Javascript, and all I try is just
to keep a Python package (with a very responsive upstream!) in a
good shape. Unfortunately, nobody with Javascript exp
Le 14 octobre 2015 08:51:16 GMT+02:00, Ole Streicher a
écrit :
>
>
>Am 13.10.2015 um 22:23 schrieb Walter Landry:
>> Ole Streicher wrote:
>>> Walter Landry writes:
Ole Streicher wrote:
> What are the general guidelines here? Somewhere in written form?
>The
> DFSG does not contai
Am 13.10.2015 um 22:23 schrieb Walter Landry:
> Ole Streicher wrote:
>> Walter Landry writes:
>>> Ole Streicher wrote:
What are the general guidelines here? Somewhere in written form? The
DFSG does not contain a hint here.
>>> The rule of thumb that I have seen applied is that 'sourc
Ole Streicher wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
>> Ole Streicher wrote:
>>> What are the general guidelines here? Somewhere in written form? The
>>> DFSG does not contain a hint here.
>>
>> The rule of thumb that I have seen applied is that 'source' is the
>> preferred form of modification for the
> Charles Plessy writes:
> >
> > Maybe the long line was machine-generated at the beginning, but it does not
> > matter anymore.
Le Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:12:07AM +0200, Ole Streicher a écrit :
>
> Why not? If I take the GPL definition, the question is not whether it is
> actual (and, BTW, als
Charles Plessy writes:
> Maybe the long line was machine-generated at the beginning, but it does not
> matter anymore.
Why not? If I take the GPL definition, the question is not whether it is
actual (and, BTW, also not whether it is automatically generated) but
what "is preferred" (holy passive)
Ben Finney writes:
> Ole Streicher writes:
>> However, it contains one line
>> /*globals $, jQuery,define,_fnExternApiFunc,[...]
>> which is ~1400 characters long and may be automatically inserted.
>
> I would say the test of whether a file is source is whether it can be
> described as “the prefe
Walter Landry writes:
> Ole Streicher wrote:
>> What are the general guidelines here? Somewhere in written form? The
>> DFSG does not contain a hint here.
>
> The rule of thumb that I have seen applied is that 'source' is the
> preferred form of modification for the people making modifications.
>
Le Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:49:03AM +0200, Ole Streicher a écrit :
>
> For one of my packages (python-astropy), I got a Lintian error that it
> would contain a non-source file jquery.dataTables.js. This is mainly
> discussed in a bug report
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/798900
>
> however it seems
Ole Streicher writes:
> However, it contains one line
>
> /*globals $, jQuery,define,_fnExternApiFunc,[...]
>
> which is ~1400 characters long and may be automatically inserted.
If it's automatically inserted into that file, that seems to entail the
resulting file is not the source but is instea
Ole Streicher wrote:
> What are the general guidelines here? Somewhere in written form? The
> DFSG does not contain a hint here.
The rule of thumb that I have seen applied is that 'source' is the
preferred form of modification for the people making modifications.
If a person really prefers editin
36 matches
Mail list logo
