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
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
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.
Already now, major
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 requirements
[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 to
6 matches
Mail list logo
