be no
worse than any other reverse-engineering effort out there.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 09:06:50PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
Hi Sven
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:32:02PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
...CUT...
Will all reverse engineered drivers with hardcoded values be considered
as closed source? Must you always release everything that you know
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 parts of debian/main are not cleanly buildable out
of the box
compressor which can generate compressed archive with builtin
uncompressor binaries, is not a derivative work of the compressed files it
contains.
More arguments on this can be found in the list archive.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
will
happend with the tg3 and acenic firmwares, and if we need a new vote or not.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
,
Could you use some of the trunkloads of money available at SPI for debian, in
order to consult a lawyer on these issues, instead of making such comments ?
This should have been done months ago, and would have avoided probably much
dispute of no-lawyer person trying to argue stuff.
Friendly,
Sven
not a polite excuse but a
blatant attempt to knowingly violate the copyright law without
actually admitting the violation.)
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/10/msg00090.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/10/msg00102.html
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 07:09:53AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 10:28:20AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
There is some claims that some of those blobs represent just register dumps,
This is a strawman, and Sven knows this as I have told him quite plainly
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 11:58:51AM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
[Restricting to -legal, feel free to widen the audience if neccessary]
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers don't
cause
any kind of distribution problem
abide by all points, including the requirement for sources.
Since i am seen as not trusthy to analyze such problems, i think to deblock
this situation, it would be best to have a statement from debian-legal to back
those claims (or to claim i am wrong in the above).
Friendly,
Sven Luther
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 09:31:27PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers
don't cause any kind of distribution problem, while i strongly
believe that the GPL
probably code. That makes a bit less
than 30 problematic ones.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DPL, will contact them on Debian's
behalf. Ideally, we would do it in such a way that it is precedeed with a
slashdot article, and/or other widespread press campaign, or something.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 10:30:07AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
[-devel trimmed]
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please reread the discussion on debian-legal about this, where consensus was
mostly found to support this idea, and also remember that we contacted
broadcom with this analysis
be counted on the fingers of both
hands or so.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:18:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Since the firmware blobs are not derivative works of the kernel, but
constitute mere agregation in the same binary format, the authors of other
pieces of GPLed code fo the linux kernel cannot even sue us
be free because
you can't distribute software built from it.
What happens if you have a document in some source format under the GFDL
(let's say latex code or sgml stuff or whatever), and you are distributing the
'compiled' version (let's say a pdf) ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
they negotiated, maybe he can help.
If nothing else, they must have a copy of the paperwork around.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
forbids it to be distributed alongside other pdf generating tools like pdftex,
which is in big part why it was removed from non-free back then.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
within
TOG-X.Org, then no-one who was around during those days knows about it,
so it's likely been lost.
See the problem?
Can we not ask the original author to regrant us the rights ? Or clarify the
statement ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
is
NOT ALLOWED without prior written permission by the LinuxSampler
authors. If you have questions on the subject please contact us.
That is indeed non-free and fails DFSG #6, the package cannot be in main, but
could be in non-free maybe.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
with his
email address in it. Also notice that nothing in the CDDL clause force you to
include the email address or even your real name for code attribution, i think
a pseudonym would be widely accepted in such cases as the above.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 12:08:33PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 09:29:52AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
If non-discrimination doesn't cover groups persecuted by
governments, who does it cover for you?
I think the point here
.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for the above principle ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
down to human judgment calls at one point or
another.
So, is the spirit of the DFSG #5 to forbid choice-of-venue clauses, or the
anonymous contributions of the infamous dissident test ?
And who is to interpret the spirit of the different DFSG clauses :)
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
that modify our acceptance of the choice-of-venue ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
?
Especially as the CDDL mentions that the loosing side has to pay the expenses.
This leaves only the need to advance the money, and the problem with a given
court having the risk of not being fair or just or whatever the name is, and
in some way favour the author.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
.
Ah, but the CDDL does take that in account, and mentions explicitly that all
epxenses will be paid by the loosing side.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
noticed that the licence did change. I
believe packages are only examined if they pass NEW, but then maybe i am wrong
on this one.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
upstream removed the
choice-of-venue clause from the licence, under the menace of the package
removal.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:00:54AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 08, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed, the choice of venue is a fee argument is just that: an
opinion which has at best no clear roots in the DFSG, therefore it
cannot make a license non-free.
Yeah
finding a lawyer familiar with the laws of a foreign juridiction.
Now, i wonder what law and venue are applicable if no such clause is present ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
this seems to
be the case in France. But then maybe this was only for contract law, or
something, not sure, as IANAL.
This is indeed a good question, and one which needs to be solved to solve this
issue.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
,
altough in the past many have expressed themselves against it.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
it so.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
I wonder, let's say you are going to be judged in some random US court, even
if it is with German laws, you still would fall into common US-practice legal
or something such ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
, then it's up to you to explain why it follows
the DFSG and convince ftpmasters to admit the packages as a
general rule. If you can't even convince this liberal crowd, ow!
Naturally, you could try to get the package in on the sly, like apparently
happeend with star :)
Friendly,
Sven Luther
.
People generally consider the kernel and libc not to be one combined
program, so the GPL will not have effects across that boundary.
Friendly,
Sven LUther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
intent of being linked with GPL code, is already problematic, but that is up
to interpretation i guess.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:06:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:14:50AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:48:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:47:59PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
These two do not appear
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:10:56PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Sven Luther schrieb:
Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
packages which comes with this clause :
Wrong.
Well, i installed the package in sid (star 1.5a60-2), and looked at
/usr/share
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
packages which comes with this clause :
9. MISCELLANEOUS.
[snip]
The application of the
United Nations Convention
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
--cut--
Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file,
so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then.
http://packages.debian.org
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 06:24:34PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
--cut--
Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright
file,
so i am
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:57:59PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Thursday 08 September 2005 20:24, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
--cut--
Yeah, well, i did an apt-get
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:21:57PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 08, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) Any argument i may have are only the lame repetition of the opinion of
a
single person here on debian-legal.
Indeed, the choice of venue is a fee argument is just
clause, not sure if the other concerns of the start of the
year did indeed change or not, as there where various variations of the
licence.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the conclusion was that it is non free because there are
a set of unmodifiable fonts. Not sure if the above thread was forwarded back
to them though, or just debate in the empty.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
something.
What is the legal CDDL status anyway ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, but
forcing name change if there is modification of existing glyphs.
BTW, i wonder why the vera bitstream licence could not be used as is by this
project, in order to avoid yet another licence, and probably cut down lawyer
fees. (That said, if you are discussing with the lawyer ...)
Friendly,
Sven
surprised that you listed the second alternative as asking
the author to GPL it, instead of asking for a fre elicence, but i believe that
in this case, any licence that allows distribution of the music track should
be ok, not sure though.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
? Full redistribution right outside of enigma as well
?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-licence it
- move enigma as-is to non-free
Erich, applying the GPL to a documentation is ok, but don't you think you are
pushing things a bit hard by applying it to a music file too ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
pushed
for creation of NWN content and such also.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 05:32:37PM +0200, Achim Bohnet wrote:
Hi,
news about CECILL's DSFG status?
As far as i understood, CECILL can be transformed into the GPL, so it is DFSG
free by default. This seemed to be the concensus about this here last time it
was discussed.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
too, preferably this week. I am
overbusy this week though :/
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 08:53:44PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
+ * Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware
data
+ * in hexadecimal or equivalent format, provided this copyright notice is
+ * accompanying it.
Just
.
Thanks in advance,
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:06:58PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It sounds like you are now looking at the question of are the
huge string of hex characters the preferred form for making
modifications to firmware. Personally I would be surprised
without retroactively reclassifying all packages in
non-free.
Seems cool.
CCing to debian-legal in order to obtain advice on the different terms and
classification.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
firmware
blobs not derivative works of the kernel they are under.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FGPAs are on the threshold though, but
anything which is not physical hardware is software.
Dropping LKML, i hope that this is ok to all concerned.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and hence the
source code under the GPL.
I strongly disagree. This could be an open door to to anyone claiming that
whatever binary is the prefered form of modification.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
in the situation that the GPL discribes as mere aggregation.
So read the analysis and comment on it if you disagree, but let's take it to
debian-legal alone, ok ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(
ie. system memory).
The problem is that you can only argue it is mere agregation, if the copyright
notice doesn't de-facto put said firmware blobs under the GPL, thus making
them undistributable by the selfsame definition of the GPL.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 03:57:01PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
...
The other point is that other entities, like redhat, or suse (which is now
novel and thus ibm) and so have stronger backbones, and can more easily
muster
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 09:34:44AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 06 avril 2005 à 02:10 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
It merely depends on the definition of aggregation. I'd say that two
works that are only aggregated can be easily distinguished and
separated
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:19:24AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:19 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I am only saying that the tg3.c and other file are under the GPL, and
that the firmware included in it is *NOT* intented to be under the
GPL, so why not say it explicitly
clarification, but in the long
term the separate firmware solution is indeed better, altough more work and
more involved.
That said, the work to identify the firmware blobs and clarify their
copyright/licencing situation is common for both alternatives.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
yourself what the above mentioned companies where to do
if they where to be made aware of the issue, and ask their lawyers to attend
this. Also you have to consider the case of some of those companies ending in
the arms of a legally predative company and pulling another SCO at us.
Friendly,
Sven
licence or something such, and then listing all the
firmware blobs and their licencing condition in a separate toplevel file would
be enough.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and properly licenced, which they are not always.
Let's take this to debian-legal only if you want to further discuss it.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
resolution of these murky legalese issues nobody is really
fond of,
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:16:47PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
This is just the followup on said discussion, involving the larger LKML
audience, in order to get this fixed for good. As said, it is just a mere
technicality to get out
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:16:47PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
This is just the followup on said discussion, involving the larger LKML
audience, in order to get this fixed for good. As said, it is just a mere
technicality to get out
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:12:48PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 20:21 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
Then let's see some acts. We (lkml) are not the ones with the percieved
problem, or the ones discussing
, but they are
freezed so ...
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:58:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Mmm, probably that 2001 discussion about
statement added, saying that it is not covered by the
GPL, and then giving the information under what licence it is being
distributed.
Jeff, since your name was found in the tg3.c case, and you seem to care about
this too, what is your take on this proposal ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:05:03PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:23:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:58:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:55:27PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Nope, i am aiming to clarify this issue with regard to the debian kernel, so
that we may be clear with ourselves, and actually ship something which
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:47:36PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Yep, but in the meantime, let's clearly mark said firmware as
not-covered-by-the-GPL. In the acenic case it seems to be even easier, as
the
firmware is in a separate acenic_firmware.h file, and it just needs
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:24:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
It assuredly can't hurt to add a few lines of comments to tg3.c, and since it
is probably (well, 1/3 chance here) you who added said firmware to the tg3.c
file, i guess you are even well placed to at least exclude it from being
GPLed
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 12:23:29AM -0400, Jan Harkes wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Mmm, probably that 2001 discussion about the keyspan firmware, right ?
http://lists.debian.org/debian
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:02:41PM +, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sven Luther
I know, i argued the same thing, but it seems in legalese land there is
only a
fine step between distributing linked files and distributing files with the
sole express purpose
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:08:07PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sorry, I should have Cc:ed this here when I sent it.
You saw the couple of threads i started about this topic, right ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
ELF file can easily
enough be distributed in debian/main, and if it contains the firmware, it
could be distributed in non-free if the licence on the firmware allowed it.
Not that it would really make sense, since distribution is better done on the
manufacturers web server, but still.
Friendly,
Sven
-source in main, and have
only the non-free binary modules moved to non-free ? I believe that this is
more possible, since if we don't produce the binary modules from them, the
firmware blobs are only data, but it is limit.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 12:28:32PM +0100, Michael Below wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My understanding of this is that neither the firmware constitute a derived
work from the flasher, nor the flasher constitute a derived work of the
firmware. The fact
with a script or makefile to link any random
firmware in and produce a flasher would be.
The combined work is also distributable in the non-free section of our
archive.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
), and
its interpreted program placed in one sole binary elf file, which would be
possible provided the interpreted program doesn't use runtime libraries
provided by the interpreter.
Friendly,
Sven LUther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
could theoretically work with some
other (as yet unwritten) firmware blob.
Yeah, but consider that it is the usual practice in the firmware industry to
ship them together, so the mere medium of distribution would do it.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 12:05:58PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
The combined work is also distributable in the non-free section of our
archive.
I'm sure you mean it, but to clarify: IIF the flash is distributable.
Yep, obviously,
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
(or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License.
So, there can be no doubt.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
this is obviously not
an option.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
board.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:23:26AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
[This is wildly OT for -vote, MFT set to -legal and CC:'ed, please
follow up there or privately.]
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:52:20AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Still, debian-legal
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 05:18:36PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:30:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:13:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED
1 - 100 of 413 matches
Mail list logo
