John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What does the GPL definition have to do with Debian?
Perhaps you were unaware of it. Many Debian packages contain GPL'd
elements.
Thomas
On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 10:59:27PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> I submit since postscript is turing complete, postscript documents are
> actually already in source form.
"A Turing-complete system is one in which the behaviour of a universal
Turing machine can be completely emulated."
Er. That woul
I am fully aware of the fact that Debian contains GPL'd stuff. But what
does a GPL definition of source have to do with a DFSG 2 determination?
On 17 Mar 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> What does the GPL definition have to do with Debian?
>
>Pe
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am fully aware of the fact that Debian contains GPL'd stuff. But what
> does a GPL definition of source have to do with a DFSG 2 determination?
The context was not asking that question.
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I submit since postscript is turing complete, postscript documents are
> actually already in source form.
If the GPL is in question, it gives a specific definition of "source"
under which most postscript documents are not in source form.
Thomas
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 10:59:27PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>> I submit since postscript is turing complete, postscript documents are
>> actually already in source form.
>
>"A Turing-complete system is one in which the behaviour of a universal
>Turing mac
On 17 Mar 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I am fully aware of the fact that Debian contains GPL'd stuff. But what
>> does a GPL definition of source have to do with a DFSG 2 determination?
>
>The context was not asking that question.
No, in contex
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Okay, provide a definition of source that includes interpretive languages
> such as Perl. I submit that any definition of source so broad as to
> include a perlscript must necessarily include a postscript document.
I think we can just use the same one as
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 12:15:41AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> Okay, provide a definition of source that includes interpretive languages
> such as Perl. I submit that any definition of source so broad as to
> include a perlscript must necessarily include a postscript document.
The form of a {prog
On 17 Mar 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Okay, provide a definition of source that includes interpretive languages
>> such as Perl. I submit that any definition of source so broad as to
>> include a perlscript must necessarily include a postscript
At least in the case of bind, the GPL is not part of the question. Look
at the license for bind...
On 17 Mar 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I submit since postscript is turing complete, postscript documents are
>> actually already in source form.
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 12:15:41AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>> Okay, provide a definition of source that includes interpretive languages
>> such as Perl. I submit that any definition of source so broad as to
>> include a perlscript must necessarily incl
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 01:14:50AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> >The form of a {program,document} that is intended for modification. This
> >includes perl scripts (unless they've been run through an obfuscator),
> >human-editable HTML, and human-editable PDF. It clearly doesn't include
> >most gener
On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 10:24:36AM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> I would also guess that in most cases the availability of source is
> irrelevant, because the academic paper isn't available under a
> DFSG-free licence anyway; most authors of academic papers don't want
> other people distribu
> "John" == John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> On 17 Mar 2002, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>> "C" == C M Connelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
C> Many packages contain preprints or reprints of academic papers
C> as part of their documentation. In many cases, there i
Hi.
would you comment on these two suggestions? are they ok for us?
thanks,
Cord
PS: please Cc me on replies.
- Forwarded message from "D. Hugh Redelmeier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
X-Envelope-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 22:13:10 -0500 (EST)
From: "D. Hugh Redel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Glenn Maynard) wrote:
> And we're back at the fact that "source", like "software", is hard
> to define, and sometimes it's even hard to tell intuitively. (With
> respect to exported HTML I suppose the original Word document is the
> source; but it hardly seems correct to call it
18 matches
Mail list logo
