Hi,
I would like to inform you, that the current source of your VCG
package is based on illegal code. James Michael DuPont started
a GNUVcg project on the GNU Savannah Server:
http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/vcgdotgnu/
This project was recently shut down by FSF, since he used pirated
code
Henning Makholm wrote:
No, because the quoted license explicitly allows the distribution of
binaries built from modified sources. That kind of patch-clause
licenses is specifically blessed by DFSG #4.
OK. I think understand. qmail and pine are non-free because they
disallow binary distribution,
Scripsit Michael Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To be precise: your package VCG 1.30debian-1 (currently contained
in testing and unstable) should be removed since its upstream
package vcg_130debian.orig.tar.gz is pirated code. The upstream
source package should also deleted on your servers.
In
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Source code is any form of a work that allows any user who might be
reasonably expected to modify the work to perform any modifications
that they might be reasonably expected to perform. Occasionally a work
may have several forms that meet this
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:55:53AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:36:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Requiring layered formats for
source is also going to result in PNGs being non-free in many cases.
This sort of mindless sophistry
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:41:43PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:16:44PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 03:11:47PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is a photograph is not sufficient information to determine
whether something might be source. Extreme examples: a photograph of
the text of a C file is not source. A photograph
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:13:50AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So yes, I agree that the ability to modify works is key to their
freedom. But, as has already been discussed, the best definition of
good enough that we know of is the preferred form
Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Also, VCG 1.30 (the obfuscated source) contains code which is Copyright
Bob Corbett and Richard Stallman and which is licensed under the GPL
version 1 or later[2]. Because the code is (at least with the default
makefile) copied into the executable, you must distribute *the
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:24:21AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
If we're going to have this debate,
then it ought to start by engaging in discussion with the wider
community rather than being another Debian takes on the world PR
disaster.
What on earth would be the point of that? It won't
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That example was carefully selected. You don't *get* another chance to
take a picture of a lightning bolt. They only last a second or two,
and every one is unique. That photo is the only one that will ever
exist. (jpeg-compressed is no good when a
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 03:41:49PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Also, using the term pirated code is not likely to win you many
friends here. A pirate is defined as the following:
1. A robber on the high seas; one who by open violence takes
the property of another on the high
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By this definition, procmail is non-free because it does not have any
forms that allow a reasonable person to modify it in reasonable ways.
The existence of two authors in the copyright statements suggests that
that's not true.
It is not the
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:51:47PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:55:53AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:36:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Requiring layered formats for
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:43:58PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That example was carefully selected. You don't *get* another chance to
take a picture of a lightning bolt. They only last a second or two,
and every one is unique. That photo is the
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First of all (and most telling, to my view) there's are a lot of
reasonably in this definition. I think you're using these to paper
over a lot of difficult cases. It doesn't work very well for our
purposes because different people will always have
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What on earth would be the point of that? It won't magically become
free just because the wider community doesn't want to make it
free. If you are seriously suggesting that we would compromise our
principles because the wider community doesn't like
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:41:43PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:16:44PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:49:18PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
There's a difference between most other people and no other people.
What use is the freedom to modify if nobody can make practical use of
that freedom?
Sounds to me like you are trying
Scripsit Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OK. I think understand. qmail and pine are non-free because they
disallow binary distribution, period. gnuplot can go into main since
the Debian project distributes sources as a .orig.tar.gz and a .diff.gz
(except for native Debian packages
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe Jeremy could have sprinkled a just or some
reasonablys into it to help you, but it looks fairly
clear from the original context what narrow aspect he was
looking at. Remember, your previous intervention Message-id:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] only considered one
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 18:23:21 +, Matthew Garrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've found several patches to procmail written by people who aren't the
original authors. This suggests that it's practically modifiable. But
you still haven't answered my question - what use is freedom to modify
if
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 03:11:47PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I think with these examples you're getting away from the preferred
form for making modifications definition of source.
Yes, I'm accepting or as close as is physically possible. Note that
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:15:33 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
Are you implying that a 2-clause-BSD licensed manual can be
distributed in main in PDF format, if the LaTeX source (preferred by
upstream for making modifications to it) is kept secret and not
available?
I think it's sucky and
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:36:02 + Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
* 3. provide your name and address as the primary contact for
*the support of your modified version, and
[...]
No, because the quoted license explicitly allows the
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 11:59:18PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:15:33 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
Are you implying that a 2-clause-BSD licensed manual can be
distributed in main in PDF format, if the LaTeX source (preferred by
upstream for making modifications to
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:11:38PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:16:44 +0100, Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In your case, your best bet would probably be to provide the
photograph without the text, or (even better) provide the image in a
more advanced
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why can upstream fix the typo the easy way, while I cannot (without
rewriting all the LaTeX markup by reverse engineering)?
Do you think that figuring out the LaTeX markup by looking at the
resulting PDF is easy?
As a practical example of this,
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* 3. provide your name and address as the primary contact for
*the support of your modified version, and
The above quoted clause worries me a bit, though.
Identifying yourself seems to be a necessary condition for distributing
modified
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 17:15:41 -0700, Joel Aelwyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Actually, we aim to throw out 100% of closed-source software. But I'm
assuming you were just being careless with trying to make a point.
Unfortunately, the point you're trying to make also misses.
Well, I was a
Get your downloads at our great site!
Download any programs you want from our site below:
here
Another rule implemented was that the student was allowed to spend as much or as little time at the computer as he/she wished. There would be no more, 'We aren't finished, yet.' The student
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
The odds are that we always have something that it is possible
to modify *somehow* by necessity of packaging, so why do you
think we need to worry about that and ignore upstream?
Because taking upstream's
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050304 08:50]:
They do not have anything to add to the discussion. Particularly since
it's not even a discussion at present, but merely those of us who've
been thinking about this stuff for a long time shooting down the FUD
of those who haven't thought
33 matches
Mail list logo
