Sven Luther wrote:
> If we are going to do this, we obviously need to find out a strong framework
> how this is supposed to work, and all need to follow the same schema.
Upstream hasn't done this. I realized this need and started asking people
about an appropriate naming scheme for the files in /
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 06:46:39PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > If we are going to do this, we obviously need to find out a strong framework
> > how this is supposed to work, and all need to follow the same schema.
> Upstream hasn't done this. I realized this need and st
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 03:06:32PM -0600, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > I have argued previously (on debian-legal and elsewhere) that for some types
> > of works, such as icons, fonts, and documentation, "source code" is not
> > important to the modifiability of a work in the same way that it is to
>
> I have argued previously (on debian-legal and elsewhere) that for some types
> of works, such as icons, fonts, and documentation, "source code" is not
> important to the modifiability of a work in the same way that it is to
> programs. There are many cases in which the original source form use
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Second, the issues with the installer
> --
Your analysis of the modules that would be needed by the installer does
not take all possible installation methods and hardware combinations
into account, notably missing a) network cards b) p
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>licenced modules. If we don't want to do that, the most honest way to
>handle it is to get another GR out the door,explaining that this is not
>easily possible or convenient at this time, and asking for an explicit
>exception for kernel firmware. I would second such a GR.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 12:34:30PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:52:20AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> >> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060108 11:12]:
> >> > There where two fully independent issues here :
> >> >
> >> > 1) some (many)
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:52:20AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060108 11:12]:
>> > There where two fully independent issues here :
>> >
>> > 1) some (many) of those firmware using modules had a sloppy licencing
>> > situation, which m
"Firmware" are programs. They are binary executables designed to run on a
CPU.
Source code is clearly mandatory under the DFSG for programs.
There is no room for discussion here; the binary-only firmware is clearly
non-free.
--
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
:.
CONFIDENTIALITY : This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and
may be privileged. If you are not a named recipient, please notify the
sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person, use
it for any purpose or store or copy the information in a
10 matches
Mail list logo
