On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Don Armstrong wrote:
Yes, but this isn't something that a sane upstream is ever going to
do, so it's not worth discussing much. [And frankly, if it's something
that upstream does do, one should strongly question whether Debian
should actually be distributing the work in
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Don Armstrong wrote:
Yes, but this isn't something that a sane upstream is ever going to
do, so it's not worth discussing much. [And frankly, if it's something
that upstream does do, one should strongly
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Francesco Poli wrote:
However, we also have to consider this: in some cases, when the
uncompressed form is hundreds of times larger than the compressed form,
the former may be really unpractical to handle. In those cases, maybe
we prefer to use some compressed form to make
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 03:47:39PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Mark Weyer wrote:
Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, let me rephrase my
scenario: Someone modifies a GPLed work, say a program written in C.
Between compiling and distributing, he deliberately
Noel David Torres Taño env...@rolamasao.org writes:
Sure, it should be - what happens if it no longer exists? That seems
quite possible for a years-old journal paper.
It can happen that the scientific paper has non-free copyright: it
uses to be attributed to the journal where first
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 01:25:57PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Mark Weyer wrote:
I always thought that such distribution would be in breach of the
GPL, or more generally of copyleft. After all, it is impossible to
distinguish, from the outside, between lost and secret
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Mark Weyer wrote:
Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, let me rephrase my
scenario: Someone modifies a GPLed work, say a program written in C.
Between compiling and distributing, he deliberately deletes the C
files. Then he distributes the compiled binary. By
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:57:24 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
Mark Weyer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 07:39:58PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:26:39 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
Sure, it should be - what happens if [the source] no longer exists?
That seems
quite
Francesco Poli wrote: [...]
It's true that there's no clear definition of the term source code
in the DFSG text, but the most accepted definition of source in the
context of Free Software has been the one found in the GNU GPL, for
quite a long time.
Are you sure it's the most accepted? I
Paul Wise wrote:
This seems to be the definition used by the ftp-masters, they have
rejected packages containing PDF files that looked like they were
generated before and this is explicitly mentioned in the REJECT-FAQ:
Source missing: Your packages contains files that need source but do
not
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote: [...]
It's true that there's no clear definition of the term source code
in the DFSG text, but the most accepted definition of source in the
context of Free Software has been the one found in the GNU GPL, for
quite a long time.
Are
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:26:39 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote: [...]
It's true that there's no clear definition of the term source code
in the DFSG text, but the most accepted definition of source in the
context of Free Software has been the one found in the GNU GPL, for
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 07:39:58PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:26:39 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
Sure, it should be - what happens if [the source] no longer exists? That
seems
quite possible for a years-old journal paper.
This seems to be a FAQ...
Well, if some
[...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are
the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the
source files are TeX documents.
Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says what it
means by source code?
I feel it's a grey area, so if the PS files
tag 614525 - pending
thanks
Hi Joerg
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 09:26:33AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
[...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are
the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the
source files are TeX documents.
Cool, where is the agreed clearer
Hi debian-legal
I'm in the process of preparing a NMU for autoclass [1]. During
checking the package I encountered the two postscript files kdd-95.ps
and tr-fia-90-12-7-01.ps . Both are awailable from [2].
Can these be shipped in the source and binary package?
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/614525
Salvatore Bonaccorso asked:
I'm in the process of preparing a NMU for autoclass [1]. During
checking the package I encountered the two postscript files kdd-95.ps
and tr-fia-90-12-7-01.ps . Both are awailable from [2].
Can these be shipped in the source and binary package?
[1]
Hi!
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:09:39AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Salvatore Bonaccorso asked:
I'm in the process of preparing a NMU for autoclass [1]. During
checking the package I encountered the two postscript files kdd-95.ps
and tr-fia-90-12-7-01.ps . Both are awailable from [2].
Can
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Salvatore Bonaccorso car...@debian.org wrote:
[2]
http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/tech/rse/synthesis-projects-applications/autoclass/autoclass-c/
Both of these files have lines like the following in their header:
%%Creator: dvipsk 5.521a Copyright 1986, 1993 Radical
Paul Wise wrote:
[...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are
the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the
source files are TeX documents.
Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says what it
means by source code?
I think one is deep into language
* MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop [110314 16:09]:
Paul Wise wrote:
[...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are
the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the
source files are TeX documents.
Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says what it
means
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:09:00 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
Paul Wise wrote:
[...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are
the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the
source files are TeX documents.
Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says
In addition to the points already covered by Bernhard and Francesco:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 03:09:00PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
source code
n : program instructions written as an ASCII text file; must be
translated by a compiler or interpreter or
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:09 PM, MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote:
Paul Wise wrote:
[...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are
the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the
source files are TeX documents.
Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that
24 matches
Mail list logo
