On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 03:27:28 +0200 Thiemo Seufer wrote:
It would (if correct) make a lot of current copyright infringement
(or as it is sometimes called software piracy) legitimate. Since
I'm not distributing the source code (which is the original work of
authorship), just a mechanical
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 12:52:15PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
The act of compiling source code into binary does not *add* creative
elements to the original work, hence the law says that this act cannot
*add* copyright holders to the work.
That depends on the compiling process.
Consider, for
Evan Prodromou wrote:
I think that it's a mistake to say that an interpreter or emulator
depends on the data blobs it interprets, in the Debian sense of
dependence.
That's all well and good, but obviously somebody (presumably somebody
important) somewhere disagrees, or it wouldn't have
Get 1.25% lo a n r a te directly
from the bank! No cred i t or
personal information asked online. No embarrassing questions.
You are already approv e d
do
it today!
pvyfmez- dgevlt pzmkewkzv uiugktem iobabatf fcrdaaifx, kxxuffy nmsudfaxl
orgjvp pdekdkvtt gwtcuywjt. cynjipnkn uiotojt-
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 10:16:53 -0400 Raul Miller wrote:
Consider, for example, building emacs against a third party supplied
proprietary libc.
That would possibly require modifying Emacs source code and that's the
creative act (it would create a derivative work, no doubt about that).
OTOH, when
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:26:05 -0500 Joe Wreschnig wrote:
[...]
I agree with Michael Poole insofar as this message.
I agree too.
Here's an attempt
at an unbiased summary:
There are four classes of firmware:
1. Firmware which no one has any permission to distribute. These have
to go
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:06:37 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
I would argue that while the new Social Contract makes it
unambiguously clear that the DFSG applies to non-programs (such as
documentation, etc), both the old and new Social Contracts clearly
apply to software.
While it has been
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:47:53 -0400 Evan Prodromou wrote:
Perhaps my choice of words was poor, but I think that emulators fall
into their own class of software because they rely on what is
generally commercial, non-free (and honestly, quite probably
illegal) software in order to run, which
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 04:32:00PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
OTOH, when you issue the classical
$ ./configure
$ make
commands, you are not performing any creative act.
Do you agree?
What makes this particular point in time significant?
--
Raul
On Sun, 2004-06-20 at 10:32, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 10:16:53 -0400 Raul Miller wrote:
Consider, for example, building emacs against a third party supplied
proprietary libc.
That would possibly require modifying Emacs source code and that's the
creative act (it would
On Sun, 2004-06-20 at 11:50, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
I think that it's a mistake to say that an interpreter or emulator
depends on the data blobs it interprets, in the Debian sense of
dependence.
That's all well and good, but obviously somebody (presumably somebody
important) somewhere
So, yeah, I'm out looking for a useful piece of emulation related software
to package, and I found a 65xxx compiler assembler. Parts of it are licensed
under what looks like a subset of the GPL with one small change that may
make it non-free, and the rest under what appears to be the zlib
Ok, I have NO idea how that got threaded into the VBA thread, so let's try
that again...
I'm out looking for a useful piece of emulation related software to package,
and I found a 65xxx compiler assembler. Parts of it are licensed under what
looks like a subset of the GPL with one small
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 06:36:42PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I think that DFSG-free emulators should be in main as long as they don't
*depend* on non-free packages.
Usefulness is, IMHO, a completely different matter.
Because, of course, more useless software in main is exactly what we want.
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 05:21:10PM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
I'm out looking for a useful piece of emulation related software to
package, and I found a 65xxx compiler assembler. Parts of it are licensed
under what looks like a subset of the GPL with one small change that may
make it
Hi,
The last item at the summary in the mentioned page seems to be missing
some words at the end:
This clause is much too broad, and restricts all the freedoms that
the/li
--
Gustavo R. Montesino
GPG Key BACAB6C2
Matthew Palmer wrote:
Let me ask you this: if there was an image viewer, which only viewed one
format of images, and there were no images out there in that format, would you
want to see that in Debian? What if there were images in that format, but
in order to get them you'd have to break
Ok, just to see, I did a diff on any files that looked like they might have
been derived from the other... none of them matched a SINGLE LINE OF CODE,
except for silly things like opening/closing braces and a couple of #include
lines, and a comment or two. So I think that the source archive I
J.B. Nicholson-Owens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
The litmus test here is a significant amount of functionality, not
will refuse to work at all without it, although that's a fairly
good description of a console without a ROM.
Would one ROM cut it, then? I am working to determine if one ROM is
J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
Would one ROM cut it, then? I am working to determine if one ROM is
available under a DFSG-free license right now. I don't have much to
report yet except thanks to those who have supplied information to help
me track down the copyright holder. I should know
Joe,
Just a quick note to ask you about the fceu Debian package, as its story
kind of relates to some existing software in contrib.
In this message to debian-legal:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/01/msg00128.html
you said:
I currently maintain an NES
21 matches
Mail list logo
