On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 10:48:43PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
We know perfectly well that the NVidia driver is in the condition it's
in partly because its development is funded by a profit-seeking entity
that has no wish to destabilize its market position, either by making
it easier for
On 7/22/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words, we'll take something as source that we know isn't,
because we like nVidia. ...
Hey, I didn't say I liked the idea myself. I'm just calling it like I
see it. I would say that the core functionality of the nv driver is
not
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050722 23:56]:
* Andreas Barth:
Actually, the DFSG says:
| 2. Source Code
|
| The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
| source code as well as compiled form.
Obviously e.g. fonts are no programms, even if they are
(CC's trimmed.)
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 09:21:04AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to
be interpreted as software.
I disagree with that. As there were editorial changes that had as
declared goal to replace any such places with
* Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050723 11:15]:
(CC's trimmed.)
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 09:21:04AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to
be interpreted as software.
I disagree with that. As there were editorial changes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a few questions about software developement. One of them is whether
a program written in e.g. Fortran by me or somebody else (who owns the
copyright) is converted to C (not f2c). How is copyright changed and what
about patent issues (maybe not relevant).
If the
Jeff King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
So say we have two drivers for a piece of hardware. One is written
without comments. One was originally commented, but the comments have
been removed. Both provide the same amount of
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
So say we have two drivers for a piece of hardware. One is written
without comments. One was originally commented, but the comments have
been removed. Both provide the same amount of
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 23:32 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
So this license is certainly on the right track. But we really don't
need yet another copyleft license which is not GPL-compatible, do we?
According the Study and Comments, they have some reasons:
quote
Several licences, known as “Open
On 7/23/05, Ivo Danihelka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you know a contact address to which these concerns can be
submitted?
IDABC provides online discussion forum
http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/4420
But more useful will be to post the well thought collected comments to
the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Florian Weimer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Copyleft clause: If the Licensee distributes and/or communicates copies
of the Original Works or Derivative Works based upon the Original Work,
this Distribution and/or Communication will be done under the terms of
this EUPL
* Matthew Garrett:
So say we have two drivers for a piece of hardware. One is written
without comments. One was originally commented, but the comments have
been removed. Both provide the same amount of information about how they
work. Both are released under the same license. Both provide
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 12:47:03PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Matthew Garrett:
How is one of these free and the other non-free?
In the end, you have to take upstream intent into account. We already
do this when interpreting licenses (at least in one direction), so I
don't think this
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 03:47:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:56:01PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Andreas Barth:
Actually, the DFSG says:
| 2. Source Code
|
| The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
| source code as
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 11:24:12AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050723 11:15]:
(CC's trimmed.)
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 09:21:04AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has to
be interpreted as
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 12:22:34AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Matthew Garrett:
There's two main issues here.
1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of
modification?
I don't believe so,
We had a GR that is
On 20050723T013237+0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
So if I write C with comments and then remove them that's not DFSG free,
but if I fail to add them in the first place then it's fine for main?
This is not a universally applicable rule, but:
When a good programmer writes uncommented code, it's
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 10:44:36AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One provided source, the other did not, and Debian considers having source
fundamental to having a free program.
Because it is, damnit?
No, because one provided source, and the other
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 21:15:12 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
I think it would be massive negligence for the project to accept as
source something which it knows has been obfuscated. If that's the
case, I'm rather disgusted. It's hard to take a project seriously
which claims to require source,
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 01:01:07 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote:
* Steve Langasek:
It's clear from the context (and previous discussion) that this has
to be interpreted as software.
No, it isn't. Considering we went through all the effort of a GR to
amend the DFSG and this still says
* Matthew Garrett:
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 12:47:03PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Matthew Garrett:
How is one of these free and the other non-free?
In the end, you have to take upstream intent into account. We already
do this when interpreting licenses (at least in one direction), so
Hi,
With the recent clarifications on software patents in Europe, would it
be possible to distribute encoders packages from Europe?
My current understanding is that the algorithm can be patented, but a
pure software implementation is not violating such a patent. Is that
correct?
23.07.2005 pisze Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
What difference does upstream intent make to the freedoms that our users
receive?
If upstreams sues you, the freedoms granted by the license texts don't
matter much. A court case is a great inconvenience, even if the
defendant wins in
If upstreams sues you, the freedoms granted by the license texts don't
matter much. A court case is a great inconvenience, even if the
defendant wins in the end.
Are you missing the point deliberately?
The question was: if we have two examples of source code; one stripped
of comments by
* Loïc Minier:
With the recent clarifications on software patents in Europe, would it
be possible to distribute encoders packages from Europe?
No, the parliament didn't change the existing legal framework, which
means it's still not clear how effective patents can be enforced
against
* Arnoud Engelfriet:
If the transformation from Fortran to C involves creative activity,
then the person who did the transformation may hold a copyright in
the C-version. Compare a translation from French to English of a
book. If it's just a literal translation, then the translator has
no
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Arnoud Engelfriet:
If the transformation from Fortran to C involves creative activity,
then the person who did the transformation may hold a copyright in
the C-version. Compare a translation from French to English of a
book. If it's just a literal translation, then
On 20050723T144156+0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
With the recent clarifications on software patents in Europe, would it
be possible to distribute encoders packages from Europe?
Actually, the recent decision had the side-effect that the swpat
situation was *not* clarified (the parliament's decision
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:29:19 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
You seem to be arguing that preferred form for modification is a
poor definition of source based on the fact that it doesn't permit
passing off obfuscated code (such as, perhaps, nVidia's) as source,
and that seems to me to be one of its
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:09:56 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:47:09PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
[...]
I think it's not acceptable to yse pregenerated files to prevent
software from entering contrib. (Look at all the Java programs, for
instance.) If there's a
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:28:54PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 7/22/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words, we'll take something as source that we know isn't,
because we like nVidia. ...
Hey, I didn't say I liked the idea myself. I'm just calling it like I
see
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, David Nusinow wrote:
This is true, but not because the driver isn't commented. It's because the
specs for the card have not been released, and as such we don't know what
the magic numbers mean. The hardware specs are entirely external to the
source code for the driver
Hi,
With the recent clarifications on software patents in Europe, would it
be possible to distribute encoders packages from Europe?
We won a battle that shouldn´t be fought. Currently the situation is
*exactly* the same as before, nothing has changed.
Better it would have been if
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 10:40:36AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Machine generated assembly is, in general, significantly less modifiable
than hand-written assembly.
And code in which information that the original coder inserted has been
removed is less modifiable than code written without
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 09:50:56AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, David Nusinow wrote:
This is true, but not because the driver isn't commented. It's because the
specs for the card have not been released, and as such we don't know what
the magic numbers mean. The hardware
On Saturday 23 July 2005 02:40 am, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a few questions about software developement. One of them is
whether a program written in e.g. Fortran by me or somebody else (who
owns the copyright) is converted to C (not f2c). How is copyright
On 7/23/05, Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With the recent clarifications on software patents in Europe, would it
be possible to distribute encoders packages from Europe?
Very inadvisable without an encouraging opinion from competent
counsel, which (IANAL, TINLA) you won't get without
* Arnoud Engelfriet:
It's possible that the patent refers to specific FORTRAN constructs,
such as storage layout of arrays, or syntactic elements of the
language. This may bite you in the other direction, too.
Perhaps, but I've never seen a patent like that.
There are patents on certain
The prospect of this patent application resulting in a patent that can
be successfully litigated is zero. (IANAL, TINLA.)
And while we're naming and shaming IP law firms who should, in my
non-lawyer opinion, know better, let's add Lee Hayes PLLC:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PG01p=1u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htmlr=1f=Gl=50s1='20030028685'.PGNR.OS=DN/20030028685RS=DN/20030028685
Yep, here's the associated politics:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?m=20050311
and especially:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1775159,00.asp
It will play well to the cheap seats if Microsoft can cram a few
obvious stupidities of its own through the examination process (which,
as we
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 00:03:56 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:
Anyone else have thoughts?
Yes, I have one:
|3. The licensee agrees to obey all U.S. Government res- trictions
|governing redistribution or export of the software and
|documentation.
That sounds non-free.
Suppose I'm *not* a
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 08:40:43 -0400 Evan Prodromou wrote:
I was surprised to see in this list of non-free documentation packages
soon to be moved out of main so many works licensed under the Open
Publication License (OPL):
Well, I was not, taking into account that even Debian website is (IIRC)
On Saturday 23 July 2005 04:41 pm, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 00:03:56 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote:
Anyone else have thoughts?
Yes, I have one:
|3. The licensee agrees to obey all U.S. Government res- trictions
|governing redistribution or export of the software and
|
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 17:11 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
This is a difficult situation that is worth commentary. Assume for a moment
that the U.S. has some strict export restriction. As a U.S. citizen I am
bound by those laws and cannot legally violate them. Further, if I am to
distribute
On Saturday 23 July 2005 08:04 pm, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 17:11 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
This is a difficult situation that is worth commentary. Assume for a
moment that the U.S. has some strict export restriction. As a U.S.
citizen I am bound by those laws and cannot
46 matches
Mail list logo
