* Raul Miller:
>> Anyway, this isn't the case I'm really interested in. And if there's
>> real source code, it should be reasonably clear that the GPL is
>> impractical.
>
> I don't really understand this. I suspect I'm not thinking what you're
> thinking "real sourced code" means.
A METAFONT p
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Peter Van Eynde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
And now you consider it software just because the method of storage is
different? How can the nature of the bytes change because they are
stored on a disk?
The nature of the bytes do not change. But my name, distributed i
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 09:53:51AM +0100, Peter Van Eynde wrote:
> I'm stunned. So anything in a Debian package is software. With alien I can
> convert a tar.gz into a debian package, so all tar files are software. With
> tar I can create a tar.gz from any file, so all electronic data is software
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Some firmware is part of the hardware. Some isn't. It's easy to tell
-- either it's in the hardware or it isn't. Of course, the name
"firmware" should make it clear that this is an often ambiguous line.
But this does seem to be a good practical place: can anybody wi
Raul Miller wrote:
Fundamentally, the DFSG is aimed at making sure that we can provide the
software that we can support. Restrictions that leave us writing an
opaque blob of bits which drives an unknown API very much put us into
a context where we can't know that we're doing the right thing.
T
Matthew Palmer wrote:
Should I go on?
No, I think you've adequately demonstrated that you don't have the foggiest
idea what you're talking about.
Ok. I'm game. Why? Where is the error my in applying your rules?
Groetjes, Peter
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 10:45:07AM +0100, Peter Van Eynde wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
> >>Should I go on?
> >
> >
> >No, I think you've adequately demonstrated that you don't have the foggiest
> >idea what you're talking about.
>
> Ok. I'm game. Why? Where is the error my in applying your rules
Peter Van Eynde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Some firmware is part of the hardware. Some isn't. It's easy to tell
>> -- either it's in the hardware or it isn't. Of course, the name
>> "firmware" should make it clear that this is an often ambiguous line.
>> But th
Peter Van Eynde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Peter Van Eynde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>And now you consider it software just because the method of storage is
>>>different? How can the nature of the bytes change because they are
>>>stored on a disk?
>> The natur
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please at least read Policy on what "Depends" means first. If you
> also read the archives, you'll have a chance at understanding the
> position of other debaters here, and of generating original
> arguments. So far, this is all a repeat. It was
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > Fundamentally, the DFSG is aimed at making sure that we can provide the
> > software that we can support. Restrictions that leave us writing an
> > opaque blob of bits which drives an unknown API very much put us into
> > a context where we can't know that we're doing the
> > I don't really understand this. I suspect I'm not thinking what you're
> > thinking "real sourced code" means.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 09:18:37AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> A METAFONT program, for example.
Ok, but in that context it's pretty clear that the font is not the
program. In th
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Peter Van Eynde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Is your name input for a state-machine?
You should see what it does to TECO. My name is a killing word.
:-)
>>[data == software ?]
Bingo. Debian had this debate last year. There was a giant vote over
it. Then anoth
Nous avons le plaisir de vous annoncer que votre
commande a été accepté le 2004-12-17.
Votre paquet Eurorest contient les informations suivantes:
1. Un chèque hôtelier international Eurorest
2. Un réglement du système Eurorest
Votre ID de Participant de l'Action: HW2B2-YDSR6
La forme d'expédi
Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 10:39:26AM +0100, Peter Van Eynde wrote:
The API is known, otherwise there would be no Linux driver.
The API that is programmed by the firmware -- which you shouldn't confuse
with the API used by the driver that downloads the firmware -- is not
know
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > The API that is programmed by the firmware -- which you shouldn't confuse
> > with the API used by the driver that downloads the firmware -- is not
> > known to us.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 03:51:22PM +0100, Peter Van Eynde wrote:
> I don't understand you.
Hmm...
> An API
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 10:33:41AM -0500, I clumsily wrote:
> I was talking about the API the firmware uses -- the one that the program
> contained in the API was designed to work with.
That should have read:
I was talking about the API the firmware uses -- the one that the program
contained in t
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 03:23:54PM +0100, Peter Van Eynde wrote:
> Hmm. I remember we had an "editorial change" that then turned into
> something completely different, followed by 6 damage limitation options and
> 1 hard line option. A damage limitation option won, but I if I read the
> matrix c
Peter Van Eynde wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Peter Van Eynde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>[data == software ?]
>>
>> Bingo. Debian had this debate last year. There was a giant vote over
>> it. Then another debate and another vote.
>
> Hmm. I remember we had an "editorial change"
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But what if loading the firmware is not required?
>
>> That if the device was
>> "warm-booted" in another OS? (I know there are technical limitations
>> here) Would the driver-firmware relation still be a "depends"?
>
> No, then the driver Depends: firm
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 11:36:09PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > To me, that seems much like arguing that because an emulator (such as
> > one for a console system) provides a GUI, and because it can run and
> > display that GUI without needing a ROM, the emulator should go to main.
> > I don't
Peter Van Eynde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think I'm starting to understand your point of view. So _any_ use of
> the software without using non-DFSG data makes it free, right?
Any reasonable use. Printing out a "firmware not found" message
doesn't count!
> But what if loading the firmware
On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 01:28:46AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> I'm convinced enough. Some time ago, I was playing around with an
> >> emulator for Texas Instruments calculators. It obviously required a
> >> ROM image to be useful, and the only legal way of obtaining one was
> >> dumping it f
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> But what if loading the firmware is not required?
>>
>>> That if the device was
>>> "warm-booted" in another OS? (I know there are technical limitations
>>> here) Would the driver-firmware relation still be
Title:
The Secret on How PORN STARS Grew Big DICKS !
The answer is here.
Turn off notifications here.
.
CQ International
Exports Ltd
St. #1469Belize City,
Belize
.
25 matches
Mail list logo
