is what was meant?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How does providing extra freedoms to certain recipients decrease the
freeness of a piece of software? Software under the GPL is free.
It doesn't. Requiring that others release more freedom in a mutual
that it should be
considered a free software license. I think a firm conclusion is going
to have to wait until we actually have a project-wide discussion of how
the DFSG should be interpreted nowadays, especially in the face of
issues that weren't considered when they were written.
--
Matthew Garrett
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(3) seems to fail the Dissident test.
It clearly fails the dissident test, but since that's not clearly
embodied in the DFSG it's up to the maintainer to decide whether or not
it's a problem.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
with is likely to be acceptable
to Debian as a whole, but I'm afraid that you do need to convince the
package maintainer as well. There's a limited amount of social pressure
the project can put on someone in this sort of situation.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
.
Read the context. The non-free code has been split out into a separate
tarball. The issue is that some (but not all) of the code in alsa-tools
depends on that non-free code.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
it results in us considering the Artistic and
4-clause BSD licenses free?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it hard to believe that people thought the Artistic
license was anything other than a confusing mess even then.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a
single small part of a larger work, so it's fine to go in main.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
use. You're permitted to
download it - you're not permitted to pass it on any further. It may
well be their intent that it be redistributable, but this notice doesn't
say so. Your best bet would be to contact the copyright holders and ask
for permission to distribute it.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL
in such a way that this state is changed. In another small
number of cases, the copyright holder imposes additional restrictions or
provides additional exemptions. Again, that changes the freeness of the
software. But these are exceptions to the general case.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED
as the prefered form for modification, that
definition doesn't exist in the DFSG. There's no reason to believe that
we need the preferred form for modification, merely an acceptable form
for modification. Otherwise we run into all sorts of issues with JPEGs
and suchlike...
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we actually upheld this standard at present, it would result in us
removing a large number of packages from Debian.
Which packages? Without specific examples it's difficult to discuss
this point. In fact
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:16:46 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
If we actually upheld this standard at present, it would result in us
removing a large number of packages from Debian.
I think that these issues are sarge-ignore because of GR2004-004
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 10:16:46AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Yes, it's odd, but it's odd in the opposite direction to the one
you're coming at it from. The unexpected thing is that the binary, or
jpeg, can *ever* be considered free. Conversely, any
doesn't apply to
images either?
What freedom are you trying to protect by claiming that JPEGs are not
adequately modifiable? Do you wish to apply this argument to all JPEGs?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What freedom are you trying to protect by claiming that JPEGs are not
adequately modifiable? Do you wish to apply this argument to all JPEGs?
The freedom to modify the images to suit my
rather
more wailing and gnashing of teeth by now.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:04:36 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
That's, uh, entirely insane.
Maybe it's insane, but could please explain why?
It's not something that's been well discussed within the project, and I
don't think it's an argument you're going
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In fact, starting by filing release critical bugs is likely to
ensure that the opposition is entirely entrenched to begin with.
Why are you so determined to keep fighting strawmen?
Where's the strawman
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
If we apply this to a photograph of a circuit board, we find that
the photograph is the source.
Quite possibly not, actually. Consider a 2 layer PCB, FE.
Oh, sorry - I meant to go somewhere with that example
raw files as well.
I add that to the next upload of the package containing the picture.
Are older versions of the package now non-free?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
way is it
free? We'd laugh at a license that attempted to claim that. Making it
impossible through technical means should be equally non-free, even if
that wasn't the author's intent.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
who've
been thinking about this stuff for a long time shooting down the FUD
of those who haven't thought about it at all.
Enjoying the view from inside my head?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
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
with Andrew Suffield. :-/
Why does this worry you?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
modifiable
that they can stay in main?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
binaries...
Does this pass the Dissident test?
No.
Does this matter?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the possibility that the output of a C
compiler may be sufficiently modifiable?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But how do you argue that a hand-crafted binary is sufficiently
modifiable without also admitting the possibility that the output
of a C compiler may be sufficiently modifiable?
I think it depends what the upstream
is preserved.
8888888=
8
That's the entirity of it? Looks fine.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of Washington had a case, so do a vast
number of other people. That's not a situation we can work with, so
instead we assume that licensors aren't hostile unless proven otherwise.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:26:22PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The same phrase appears in several other licenses that we consider free.
Your argument appears to be that we should consider those licenses
non-free because the words can be interpreted
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 12:16:54PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
No we don't. There's huge chunks of X under licenses like that without
us having obtained any clarification.
I doubt the accuracy of that, but regardless, if there are, it's just
to change it. The consitution gives
people this ability in order to allow them to fix mistakes that have
occured in the past. If you think the project's current attitude is
wrong, then do something about it. Complaining without actually *doing*
anything doesn't help anyone.
--
Matthew Garrett
Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html
http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.txt
Would it be possible to put a copy somewhere else while gluck is down?
Thanks,
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
on that.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and to RFCs, inconvenient
as that may be.
When did license incompatibility become a freeness issue?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a session on the
DFSG planned, and it would be helpful to gain a better idea of what the
not-on-legal part of the project think about these sort of issues.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Brett Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
QPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to
both the recipient and upstream. You claim this is a fee.
Well, this is non-free as upstream
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consider the case where 'upstream' refers to several hundred distinct
entities. It's the BSD advertising clause disaster all over again...
I don't think anyone is claiming that it's a good license.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED
constitutional delegation of
these decisions to -legal, I'll be somewhat more happy about it all.
Otherwise, -legal's opinions count no more than any other random set of
people. They're generally useful, but they don't determine policy in
themselves.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED
, no. The current generation of
BSD system libraries is very much not GPL compatible.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
legal if we distribute a bootstrap install
which contains no GPLed software from somewhere else and then provide
the rest of userland from debian.org? This seems a little, uhm, bizarre)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:21:20PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This interpretation does seem to have the side effect of rendering
NetBSD's distribution of gcc (for instance), uhm, interesting.
It would seem so, but it's not easy for to find
it's something that needs clarifying one
way or the other.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for educational establishments.
I am insufficiently aware of the philosophical basis for the existence
of fair use in US copyright law to know where else might be affected -
does the rest of Europe have general fair use provisions?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
an invarient
section (since it's also political speach) - sucks if it's a bad
translation of the original invarient section. If you're hit by a bus,
anyone who wants an accurate translation is either going to have to
stick *another* invarient section on, or throw away the work you did.
--
Matthew Garrett
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
There is a difference, even if someone doesn't want to see it.
Is documentation that is linked into a binary software? If not, how do
you tell which bits are documentation and which bits software? If so,
how is drawing a distinction terribly useful?
--
Matthew
in the traditional sense - see the removal of firmware
from the kernel source, for example.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for washing machine control and accompany it with an
application that speaks my modified protocol, I think there's a
compelling interest in being able to distribute it.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or documentation?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:49:28AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
And (again, sorry to keep whipping a dead horse) what is a copy of the
King James Bible that's linked into a reader application?
It's just that. You haven't transformed the document into object code;
you've
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 09:53:28AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 04:01:59AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
(Now, I'm not going to claim that there are no good reasons for
documentation being under licenses that wouldn't pass the DSFG - I
haven't really made up my mind
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:25:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What if the IETF don't want to publish it?
Well, that's their right, although it's very unlikely the IETF would
not want to publish anything related to network standards. Even if they
wouldn't, you could
acceptable to make this impossible.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
as described in the Debian
Constitution as of the date on this survey.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the DFSG in order to be in
Debian is an entirely separate issue, but the above is obviously not
true.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, and they deserve
freedom, too. This is why I made this very selection and this discussion
ends here.
You said that the GFDL was DFSG free. It's not. It fails the DFSG on
multiple counts. Do you really believe tht the GFDL is DFSG free?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joerg Wendland wrote:
Matthew Garrett, on 2003-08-22, 13:09, you wrote:
As previously pointed out, the same is true of software. I could insert
anti-semetic messages into pam-pgsql and NMU it now. Perhaps you should
change your license?
No, you didn't get it. What I wrote before was example
Fedor Zuev wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Right, and invariant sections can be useful for software. So what?
Goal of the free software movement, as declared by FSF :-)
is a completely replace proprietary software world.
Here you want to state that some useful
means I can't release it at all. This is plainly stupid. From a
pragmatic point of view, even if I could do so the combination of
invarient sections I may be forced to distribute may render the result
useless. It's a bad license, and it's a non-Free license.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
in the future when the hypothetical issues
suddenly turn up and screw everyone. If you have nothing to add to this
thread other than You don't need to worry about the restrictions
because they probably won't cause any problems most of the time, I see
no point in responding further.
--
Matthew Garrett
. There are no fair use provisions, either.
_In_ _a_ _way_ _requiring_ _permission_ _under_ _copyright_ _law_!
If I copy a GFDLed document, I require permission under copyright law.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fedor Zuev wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
See http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_3.htm#mdiv17
- in the UK, installation from CD requires permission from the copyright
holder. There are no fair use provisions, either.
IMHO, this is slightly outdated revision
be taken by you and racist error messages inserted.
If you continue to print my name as author in the help text, this
plainly misrepresents my opinions. Do you believe that the GPL should do
something to protect against this?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mathieu Roy wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
My GPLed code can be taken by you and racist error messages inserted.
If you continue to print my name as author in the help text, this
plainly misrepresents my opinions. Do you believe that the GPL should do
something to protect
is unimportant here - the issue is the
importance that the author of the software places on preservation of
those opinions. The GFDL allows the author to place that importance at a
level higher than freedom to modify, whereas the GPL doesn't. This is
inconsistent.)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL
Mathieu Roy wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Authors, then. Please don't degenerate to pedanticism when the meaning
is clear.
Hum, I think you misunderstood my answer. I was not aware of this
issue in coreutils and I wonder about which author of ls we are
talking about
Mathieu Roy wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
So you classify some forms of political statement as more worthwhile?
Which political statements should Debian accept? Which should it reject?
Debian already accept political statements. Please, a social contract
cannot
. Relying on quirks of US copyright law to make a
license practical may be acceptable for a project where most developers
fall under that jurisdiction, but is extremely impractical in other
cases.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
not be removed.
Essays and logos that cannot be modified are likely to be bugs - it is
only recently that we have become aware of the extent and scale of the
problem.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mathieu Roy wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Licenses are, for the most part, a legal necessity, in much the same way
that Debian contains copyright statements that may not be removed.
Essays and logos that cannot be modified are likely to be bugs - it is
only recently
that the discussions that have taken place do lead to clarification
and bugfixing in a mutually satisfactory way.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
are not going to change our opinions,
and we are not going to change yours. Further discussion of this seems
fairly pointless. Can we just agree to differ?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to the DFSG. Further
discussion of a Should the DFSG apply to documentation nature here is
pointless, as it is not within debian-legal's power to make that
decision.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian to
contain unmodifiable information outside that which is required by law.
Where would our incentive to remove or modify modifiable political
essays be? It's not a freedom we wish to exercise. It's a freedom that
we wish our users to have.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've put a copy of the GFDL with descriptions of various issues at
http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/fdl.html . It's likely that I've missed
things, made mistakes or phrased stuff badly, so feedback would be good.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that I'm not massively interested in here)
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 11:49:45PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Nowadays very few drivers will work without the presence of non-free
software. This may be located in flash, or it may be loaded from the
operating system. Why should a hardware
be attached. Would you class this as dongleware or acceptable behaviour?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and one isn't. This strikes me as a
strange means to discriminate.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
The firmware is never executed on your CPU.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
drive is a hardware
implementation issue, not a philosophical difference.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The firmware is never executed on your CPU.
The driver is. Look, there are two circumstances here:
* If the firmware's on an eeprom, I could build another device just
like that one but implemented
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Nowadays very few drivers will work without the presence of non-free
software.
(For the sake of argument, I'll treat this as true and go from there.)
How sad that very few drivers belong in independent packages in main.
Hm
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point is, some drivers DO require firmwares. I'd rather say: Some
depend on firmware. In that case, if the firmware is non-free, the
driver can't go in main.
Is this the case even if the firmware
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 03:41:13AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Is this the case even if the firmware is in a flash chip attached to the
device? If the total amount of non-free software on a user's system is
the same regardless, why are we concerned
of
something?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 07:07 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On the other hand, if it's clearly software when it's on CD then it's
clearly software when it's on eeprom.
False. That's why we call it firmware, not just software living
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 12:52:19PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Brian, we are talking about identical code.
Are we?
In many contexts, yes.
Software doesn't stop being software if it's burned into a ROM instead
of being supplied with the OS.
It does
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 12:52:19PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Brian, we are talking about identical code.
Are we?
In many contexts, yes.
Software doesn't stop being software if it's burned into a ROM instead
of being supplied with the OS.
It does
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 02:21:03PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Does this not strike you as mad? We make a distinction between main and
contrib because we want to discourage non-free code. The distinction
you're drawing instead merely encourages vendors
. The fact that we support these devices anyway means that
we're already arguably in conflict with version 1.1 of the social
contract. Pretending that software in hardware isn't software doesn't
strike me as better than pretending that documentation isn't software.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Regardless of whether this dependency is expressed in our package
management system, most drivers depend on non-free firmware.
They depend on the presence of appropriate and properly functioning
.
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 05:44:36PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'm not suggesting that that's why they're doing it. I'm suggesting that
our moving the driver in response suggests that something is wrong.
You're arguing semantics, at best.
There are all sorts of reasons that a vendor may put
On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 14:51 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's no interesting functional difference between these two things,
except that in one case the driver has to make a call to load the
firmware and in the other case it doesn't
on the PCB?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 - 100 of 416 matches
Mail list logo
