[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>It's a perfectly reasonable means to discriminate. One is *in the
>hardware*. If I buy a widget, I don't care whether it uses firmware
>in an eeprom or a well-trained gerbil. It's a box. Software on my
>CPU is different.
Firmwares do not run on your CPU. Your poing be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Why should debian adopt a different policy if the vendor provides this
>> firmware on a CD instead of on a flash EEPROM chip?
>Because of the reasonable expectation that the user already has the
>EEPROM chip, and it's part of the hardware. It's not something Debian
>co
On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 20:36 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> It's a perfectly reasonable means to discriminate. One is *in the
> hardware*. If I buy a widget, I don't care whether it uses firmware
> in an eeprom or a well-trained gerbil. It's a box. Software on my
> CPU is different.
The f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Anyways, here's the relevant quote:
>
>"Examples of packages which would be included in contrib or
>non-US/contrib are: [...] free packages which require contrib,
>non-free packages or packages which are not in our archive at
>all for comp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>If you want to argue that a package in contrib should be included on CDs
>or in the installer, feel free to argue that. Please do not conflate
>that issue with the entirely non-technical decision of whether a package
>goes in main or contrib; otherwise, you are doing a d
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that requiring a hardware upgrade to support behavior is
> irrelevant to free software. Firmware that's part of the hardware is
> part of the hardware. Firmware that looks like software is software.
> If Debian *could* ship it, it's softw
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Marco, it seems to me that there's a parallel case to non-free
>firmware: dongleware. Perhaps you could explain how this philosophy
>applies to that. If a piece of software is distributed under the GPL,
>can I add functionality by putting it into firmware on a dongle an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I think that requiring a hardware upgrade to support behavior is
>irrelevant to free software. Firmware that's part of the hardware is
>part of the hardware. Firmware that looks like software is software.
>If Debian *could* ship it, it's software.
This distinction is no
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In both cases, the quantity of non-free software used has remained the
>same. The purpose of contrib is to discourage free software with
>non-free dependencies. Deciding whether software falls into it or not
>purely based on another vendor's choice of media seems mad. Eit
NOTE: The packages I am talking about are not debianised (yet) and
contain non-free code. If that disqualifies me from asking that's
too bad but this is as good a place to ask as I could find.
I've been "pestered" by the people who pay for the development of
several of our packages to add a blurb
On 2004-10-12 10:40:38 +0100 Olaf Meeuwissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've been "pestered" by the people who pay for the development of
several of our packages to add a blurb claiming copyright on the
*binary* packages we build and distribute.
What do you mean "blurb"? Including a debian/cop
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 06:40:38PM +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
> I've been "pestered" by the people who pay for the development of
> several of our packages to add a blurb claiming copyright on the
> *binary* packages we build and distribute. Binary packages built
> and distributed by others are
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 20:36 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> It's a perfectly reasonable means to discriminate. One is *in the
>> hardware*. If I buy a widget, I don't care whether it uses firmware
>> in an eeprom or a well-trained gerbil. It's
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The firmware is never executed on your CPU.
>
> The driver is. Look, there are two circumstances here:
>
> * If the firmware's on an eeprom, I could build another device just
> like that one but i
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What extra freedoms does this buy you? How is the cause of free software
> benefited from this distinction? Your entire point here seems to be that
> drivers that depend on non-free code that's in ROM are preferable to
> non-free code that's on disk. T
"Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Anyways, here's the relevant quote:
>>
>>"Examples of packages which would be included in contrib or
>>non-US/contrib are: [...] free packages which require contrib,
>>non-free packages or packages w
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I think that requiring a hardware upgrade to support behavior is
>> irrelevant to free software. Firmware that's part of the hardware is
>> part of the hardware. Firmware that looks like software i
"Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>I think that requiring a hardware upgrade to support behavior is
>>irrelevant to free software. Firmware that's part of the hardware is
>>part of the hardware. Firmware that looks like software is software.
>>If Debian *co
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 06:40:38PM +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
>> I've been "pestered" by the people who pay for the development of
>> several of our packages to add a blurb claiming copyright on the
>> *binary* packages we build and distribute. Bina
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 12:57:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The vendor then produces a second revision of the hardware. It uses the
> > same driver, but this time the firmware is on an eeprom. By your
> > argument, we are then free to mov
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 04:27:48PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> What extra freedoms does this buy you? How is the cause of free software
> benefited from this distinction? Your entire point here seems to be that
> drivers that depend on non-free code that's in ROM are preferable to
> non-free co
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>If you want to argue that a package in contrib should be included on CDs
>>or in the installer, feel free to argue that. Please do not conflate
>>that issue with the entirely non-technical decision of whether a package
>>goes in main or contrib; oth
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 03:51:11PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>I strongly disagree with that, as I do with anything other than a set of
>>words being called a name.
>
> Why should this be an issue?
>
> It's clear that trademarks serve an identification role. We interpret
>
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>I have just packaged a driver for wifi cards. The driver is licensed
>>under GPL, but the cards needs a non-free firmware to be uploaded in
>>order to work.
>
> I will quote from policy 2.2.2:
>
> Examples of packages which would be includ
Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 12:57:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > The vendor then produces a second revision of the hardware. It uses the
>> > same driver, but this time the firmware is on an eeprom.
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Oct 11, Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > I think it's a question of what "dependence" means for contrib. If the
>> > >driver absolutely _depends_ on using the non-free firmware, it should
>> > >be in contrib. If the non-free firmware is optional, it should
"Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Marco, it seems to me that there's a parallel case to non-free
>>firmware: dongleware. Perhaps you could explain how this philosophy
>>applies to that. If a piece of software is distributed under the GPL,
>>can I add funct
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>DFSG-free. On the other hand, requirements such as *acknowledge the
>>origin of the logo*, *do not misrepresent the origins of the logo*, and
>>*do not falsely claim endorsement by or affiliation with Debian* are
>>perfectly
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If the driver does not provide any significant functionality without the
>> firmware, it belongs in contrib.
>>
>> If there are some cards which the driver drives which work without the
>> firmware, it can go in main.
>
>
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
Of course, there's shades of gray, here. If all the driver does is emit
a message CAN'T FIND NON-FREE FIRMWARE, ABORTING without the firmware,
it's hard to say that it doesn't depend on the firmware. But if the
>>> This applies to almos
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 10:43:15AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Anyone who distributes the work, modified or unmodified. I don't think
> we can't regulate "use" and be Free; fortunately, most uses of the logo
> are distributions, such as putting it on a website, or stamping it on a
> CD and distr
Hello,
A few months ago, I was planning on ITP'ing GNOME GTray[1] applet, thing
that I did not because of lack of time to do it. A few weeks ago, I saw
that package RFP'ed[2], and today I saw an ITP for gmailfs[3].
Is it correct to package that kind of software? I mean, one of the
reasons why I d
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> There is an argument that the whole of Debian belongs in 'contrib' rahter
> than 'main' because there is no entirely free (as in speech) machine on
> which it can run.
I think there are free CPU designs around and you could probably
compile a free emulator
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Nowadays very few drivers will work without the presence of non-free
>> software.
>
> (For the sake of argument, I'll treat this as true and go from there.)
>
> How sad that very few drivers belong in independent packages in
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>This package should be removed from Debian before Debian gets sued for
>>copyright infringement.
> Can you cut this bullshit please? You know well that Debian is not going
> to get sued.
Well, the corporations issuing the "firmware" haven't been
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The logo _should_ be usable as a logo by anybody else, as long as they
> fulfill certain requirements.
You say that in a very general way. I'm not imagining all the
specific ca
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raul Miller wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 03:51:11PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>>I strongly disagree with that, as I do with anything other than a set of
>>>words being called a name.
>>
>> Why should this be an issue?
>>
>> It's clear that trad
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 06:22:45PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> The point in a traditional common-law trademark is that we don't want
>> someone to go out and start "Debian Computing, Inc.", use the Debian
>> open-use logo, and proceed to run a competing organization
MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-09-22 23:22:45 +0100 Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> A trademark license *has* to prohibit such things. Prohibiting
>> misrepresenting the origin of the *logo* doesn't suffice. We have to
>> require that the logo, and anything "confusingly similar", is
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 05:03:30PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> account; I agree that it should have. I don't have much experience with
> designing trademark licenses, as you can tell. Having a trademark license
...
> Why don't we simply start with a permissive copyright license,
> and a stat
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> But trademarks don't cover works. Your whole message treats
> trademarks as a funny sort of copyright which sometimes doesn't follow
> chains of derivation. They aren't. They're a completely different
> beast.
>
> For example, your model doesn't deal at all with t
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>The issue is that the top-level name of a project is relatively easy to
>>change, while needing to provide a replacement for possibly dozens or
>>hundreds of images *funtionally used* by the software is a significant
>>barrie
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 10:43:15AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Anyone who distributes the work, modified or unmodified. I don't think
>>we can't regulate "use" and be Free; fortunately, most uses of the logo
>>are distributions, such as putting it on a website, or stamping i
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS a écrit :
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
There is an argument that the whole of Debian belongs in 'contrib' rahter
than 'main' because there is no entirely free (as in speech) machine on
which it can run.
I think there are free CPU designs around and you could pr
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I still do not believe that there is anything non-free about traditional
> trademark rights; that there is nothing which actually constitutes
> traditional trademark infringement which Debian would want to defend the
> right to do.
To the extent that those trademark right
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 01:05:29PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 06:40:38PM +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
> >> I've been "pestered" by the people who pay for the development of
> >> several of our packages to add a blu
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 03:11:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> When did I say I thought it acceptable that you would need to change
> every single occurance of the word "Mozilla" when making a modified
> version? :) I said "top-level name", and I meant exactly that. To the
> extent names have b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luis R. Rodriguez) writes:
>> You are free to distribute the images under the GPL. The XCF image is
>> produced from the Debian "Open Use" logo, also provided here
>>
>> http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/grub-images/
>
> Awesome sp
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>The issue is that the top-level name of a project is relatively easy to
>>>change, while needing to provide a replacement for possibly dozens or
>>>hundreds of images *funtionall
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> *This issue*, meaning leading someone to believe that something
> non-Debian is Debian. That doesn't mean they should be limited to using
> the logo only to refer to Debian, only that when referring to something
> else, they can't say that that somethin
You're almost right. Debian has not agreed to the gmail terms of
service. I, as it happens, have so agreed and so will not use any
tools like that. But there might be lots of people who'd like to play
with tools like gmailfs without so agreeing.
Debian isn't bound not to package some tool just
But these people are paying for the development of *some* packages.
That collection probably is copyrightable.
Further, it wasn't clear to me from Olaf's message what, exactly,
these "people" are claiming copyright to, and whether they think this
denies any other copyright interests.
-Brian
--
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>*This issue*, meaning leading someone to believe that something
>>non-Debian is Debian. That doesn't mean they should be limited to using
>>the logo only to refer to Debian, only that when referring to something
>>else, they
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 03:11:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>When did I say I thought it acceptable that you would need to change
>>every single occurance of the word "Mozilla" when making a modified
>>version? :) I said "top-level name", and I meant exactly that. To the
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>*This issue*, meaning leading someone to believe that something
>>>non-Debian is Debian. That doesn't mean they should be limited to using
>>>the logo only to refer to Debian, o
55 matches
Mail list logo
