Markus Laire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/27/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Since the CC licenses don't require distribution of the preferred
> > > form for making modification aka. source code, it is essential that
> > > downstream recipient can extract works for modification and
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=390664
> (please read it first)
Oh crap, it's a maintainer who thinks calling other people Nazis is
a good idea in debian/changelog. Defamation or what?
There's also some documentation-in-the-source-is-not-sou
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 11:58:51AM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> [Restricting to -legal, feel free to widen the audience if neccessary]
>
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers don't
> > cause
> > any kind of distribution pr
Hi debian-legal, ...
It seems the firmware kernel issue has reached a deadpoint, as there is some
widely different interpretation of the meaning of the GPL over sourceless
code.
For some background, the kernel/firmware wiki page includes both a proposed
GR, the draft position statement by the ker
[Restricting to -legal, feel free to widen the audience if neccessary]
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers don't cause
> any kind of distribution problem, while i strongly believe that the GPL clause
> saying that all the dist
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The main point is that the actual reason for this mess is that those vendors
> provided these firmware blobs without thinking of the implication, and the
> upstream kernel folk took them in because it was more convenient to consider
> them as "data" (to the
Am 2006-09-29 11:47:36, schrieb Henri Sivonen:
> If you get the source of e.g. Firefox or Gimp and modify the source
> and recompile for Windows, Windows will still run your own versions
> without you having to ask Microsoft to sign your binaries.
Which M$ can change at any time! (The code i
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 10:28:20 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
> So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers
> don't cause any kind of distribution problem, while i strongly believe
> that the GPL clause saying that all the distribution rights under the
> GPL are lost if you cannot abi
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers
> don't cause any kind of distribution problem, while i strongly
> believe that the GPL clause saying that all the distribution rights
> under the GPL are lost if you cannot abide by all point
"Nathanael Nerode" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Time to see what we would need to change to make it DFSG-free.
On a quick readthrough of the SFDL, it looks like this to me:
* Unlike the GFDL, no Invariant Sections or Cover Texts.
And they can't be added, so it
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 09:31:27PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers
> >> don't cause any kind of distribution problem, while i strongly
> >> beli
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 09:31:27PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> So the real question is whether we want to do that, whether in the
> particular cases there's in fact any doubt, etc.
A quick survey based on the size of the firmware blobs suggests 1/3 of them
may be register dumps, while 2/3 are mos
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers
>> don't cause any kind of distribution problem, while i strongly
>> believe that the GPL clause saying that all the distribution rights
>> under t
13 matches
Mail list logo
