On Oct 31, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO, DFSG#2 refers to source code, as is usually defined, that is to
> say, as in the GNU GPL v2.
No, it does not. As usual, you are just inventing new requirements which
are not specified by the DFSG.
> Deliberately obfuscated code is absol
md wrote:
> On Oct 31, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > IMHO, DFSG#2 refers to source code, as is usually defined, that is to
> > say, as in the GNU GPL v2.
> No, it does not. As usual, you are just inventing new requirements which
> are not specified by the DFSG.
Perhaps. But how can
On 10/31/06, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Person C creates a driver knowing with properly names defines and
comments explaining why he does what and where to easily readable
structures of the register mappings of the hardware. Person C then
goes and obfuscates the code into p
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 01:20:43 +0100 Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 12:55:45AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:59:18 +0100 Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > Nope, because you can ship the source code and the object file if
> > > you wanted.
> > >
> > > Alr
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 18:38:34 +0100 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> md wrote:
> > On Oct 31, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > IMHO, DFSG#2 refers to source code, as is usually defined, that is
> > > to say, as in the GNU GPL v2.
> > No, it does not. As usual, you are just inventing new req
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (md) writes:
> On Oct 31, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Deliberately obfuscated code is absolutely against the spirit of
> > Free Software.
> But if it is X11-licensed then it is still free software, which is
> what matters here.
The license isn't the main thing
6 matches
Mail list logo
