On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:29:42 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
> Francesco Poli writes:
>
> > When there is no source (== preferred form for making modifications)
> > available, I do not think we should call the work DFSG-free.
>
> I would clarify the ambiguity of “available”: The upstream
> developer, by
Dave Howe wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
So where did the above "PDF and PS are programming languages" argument
come from? References, please!
PDF and PS *are* programming languages, and quite powerful ones.
However, they are entirely interpreted - the output of a pdf "compiler"
would be a static image
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 07:38:39PM +0100, Dave Howe wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > So where did the above "PDF and PS are programming languages" argument
> > come from? References, please!
>
> PDF and PS *are* programming languages, and quite powerful ones.
> However, they are entirely interpreted -
Francesco Poli writes:
> When there is no source (== preferred form for making modifications)
> available, I do not think we should call the work DFSG-free.
I would clarify the ambiguity of “available”: The upstream
developer, by definition, has available a preferred form of the work
for making
MJ Ray wrote:
> So where did the above "PDF and PS are programming languages" argument
> come from? References, please!
PDF and PS *are* programming languages, and quite powerful ones.
However, they are entirely interpreted - the output of a pdf "compiler"
would be a static image, not a pdf docum
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 17:40:06 -0400 Greg Harris wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:52:45 +0200
> Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > As far as I am concerned, I do *not* want to separate documentation
> > and programs from fonts, graphics, sounds, and so forth.
> > I am convinced that *all* these works need
Chow Loong Jin writes:
> Either way, remuco's upstream author has informed me that the WTK
> dependency can be dropped and replaced with MicroEmu, which appears
> to be LGPL. When I have time, I'll work on packaging that, as it
> doesn't seem to be in Debian yet.
Thanks for the update and good n
In message <49d496cc.yviehl9rqvhommxs%...@phonecoop.coop>, MJ Ray
writes
So where did the above "PDF and PS are programming languages" argument
come from? References, please!
No references, sorry, but I certainly got the impression from the books
I had years ago (PostScript reference manuals
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:52:45 +0200
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 23:02:06 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> [...]
> > It's reasonable for you to hold the position that this is "not
> > free". But that's not what the DFSG says; and before someone tries
> > to change the DFSG to say thi
On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 15:37 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> I disagree, seeing PDFs as being like intermediate code rather than
> source code, but both gammu and remuco claim to be under the GPL, so
> require good source for their applets, so let's not have this debate
> here now.
Both gammu and remuco come
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 23:02:06 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
> It's reasonable for you to hold the position that this is "not free". But
> that's not what the DFSG says; and before someone tries to change the DFSG
> to say this, I would recommend someone try to come up with a brighter line
> to
Steve Langasek wrote: [...]
> The argument used to justify the claim that the DFSG requires source for PDF
> and PS files is that PDF and PS are programming languages. [...]
I asked that we not have this argument here and now, because this case
involves applets under the GPL, so the PDF-source p
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 10:33:38AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Steve Langasek [090328 23:46]:
> > And this has all been discussed before.
> Obviously not often enough for you.
Oh, I'd much rather be doing something other than discussing this, but as
long as people are going to misrepresen
reopen 521448 !
retitle gammu: gnapplet.sis requires packages which are not in our archive
stop
Justification: Policy 2.2
This email is to reopen bug 521448. As I understand the close
message, while gammu's source does contain source code for
gnapplet.sis, it requires "packages which are not in
* Anthony W. Youngman [090329 12:03]:
> >I concur the problem is less severe with documentation than with
> >programs, as translating to text and reformating is often not that big
> >a loss for documentation. But I think in most cases only a .pdf is still to
> >hard to change to call it free.
>
>
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:33:59 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > It seems to me that bug #521448 is an attempt to report this [...]
> > I am not sure whether the bug should be reopened or maybe another bug
> > report should be filed against gammu.
> > What do others think?
>
>
Steve Langasek wrote: [...]
> A recent (Dec 2008) addition with no grounding in the DFSG. If I see PDFs
> being rejected with this rationale when it's not a question of license
> compliance (PDFs distributed under the GPL certainly have to have source
> with them, but that's not a DFSG matter), I
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:57:49 + MJ Ray wrote:
> [...]
> > I found gnapplet with sources in the contrib bit of the gammu tree.
> > https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=gammu;ver=1.23.1-2;arch=i386;stamp=1236036416
> > doesn't seem to mention it being rebuilt.
> > Can i
On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 11:02 +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <20090329083338.ga28...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de>,
> Bernhard R. Link writes
> >> - only that they output the same documentation.
> >
> >I concur the problem is less severe with documentation than with
> >progra
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 11:02:07 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
[...]
> imho, the difference between plain text and a plain pdf is minimal. If,
> however, the pdf has loads of embedded links etc ...
Please reconsider your claim after thinking about typesetting,
formatting, mathematical formulas, p
In message <20090329083338.ga28...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de>,
Bernhard R. Link writes
- only that they output the same documentation.
I concur the problem is less severe with documentation than with
programs, as translating to text and reformating is often not that big
a loss for do
"Bernhard R. Link" writes:
> * Steve Langasek [090328 23:46]:
> > A PDF as a program is its own source. You're talking about the
> > preferred format for modification of *documentation*, not a
> > program. There's no reason to expect that two different versions
> > of mumble2pdf are going to out
* Steve Langasek [090328 23:46]:
> And this has all been discussed before.
Obviously not often enough for you.
> > Also, a PDF is a program for a certain type of interpreter.
>
> A PDF as a program is its own source. You're talking about the preferred
> format for modification of *documentation
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 08:55:27AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:51:46AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > The PDF needs to come with sources to build the corresponding PDF
> > > *using only free software in Debian*, or it's not acceptable for
> > > Debia
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:57:49 + MJ Ray wrote:
[...]
> I found gnapplet with sources in the contrib bit of the gammu tree.
> https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=gammu;ver=1.23.1-2;arch=i386;stamp=1236036416
> doesn't seem to mention it being rebuilt.
> Can it not be rebuilt from those source
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:51:46AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > The PDF needs to come with sources to build the corresponding PDF
> > *using only free software in Debian*, or it's not acceptable for
> > Debian.
>
> > The same needs to be true of any binary in Debian, AIUI.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:51:46AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Chow Loong Jin writes:
> > On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 13:57 +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > >[...] I'm not sure that it matters what you call the mobile
> > >component, if that "data file" is really some sort of program that
> > >has sources which
Chow Loong Jin writes:
> On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 13:57 +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >[...] I'm not sure that it matters what you call the mobile
> >component, if that "data file" is really some sort of program that
> >has sources which aren't usable. How is that jar different from a
> >PDF in this way?
>
On Fri Mar 27 14:57, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 13:57 +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >[...]
> > I'm not sure that it matters what you call the mobile component, if
> > that "data file" is really some sort of program that has sources which
> > aren't usable. How is that jar different fro
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 13:57 +, MJ Ray wrote:
>[...]
> I'm not sure that it matters what you call the mobile component, if
> that "data file" is really some sort of program that has sources which
> aren't usable. How is that jar different from a PDF in this way?
Unless I'm mistaken, a PDF witho
Chow Loong Jin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 11:24 +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Chow Loong Jin wrote: [...]
> > > For the Python part, the sources are completely distributed, and no
> > > binaries are in the tarball. However, for the Java part, only the .jar
> > > is distributed in the tarball. I
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 11:24 +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Chow Loong Jin wrote: [...]
> > For the Python part, the sources are completely distributed, and no
> > binaries are in the tarball. However, for the Java part, only the .jar
> > is distributed in the tarball. I have contacted the upstream develop
Chow Loong Jin wrote: [...]
> For the Python part, the sources are completely distributed, and no
> binaries are in the tarball. However, for the Java part, only the .jar
> is distributed in the tarball. I have contacted the upstream developer
> about this issue, and he will be releasing another t
Hi all,
I've recently encountered an issue while packaging remuco (Bug #416379).
Remuco is a duplex remote control application (mobile phones <=> media
players). The mobile phone portion is written in Java, whereas the
portion that runs on the media player computer is written in Python.
For the P
34 matches
Mail list logo
