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
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
* 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 usually interpreted in a manner which disagrees
with you.
Certainly we require that the DFSG apply to documentation. As
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050722 23:47]:
* 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 usually interpreted in a manner which disagrees
with you.
* 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 in main.
It's clear from the context (and previous
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:47:09PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
2) Does a GPLed work have to include the preferred form of modification?
Probably, and this may include the source code for the graphics.
However, this may also be affected by the copyright holder's
interpretation of the
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 well as compiled form.
Obviously e.g. fonts are no programms, even
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 well as compiled form.
Obviously e.g. fonts are no programms, even
* 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 program, not software, I don't see how you
can claim it *has* to be
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 usually interpreted in a manner which disagrees
with you.
We had a GR that
* Matthew Garrett:
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 povray dependency, the software cannot be
included in main.
Yes, but *WHY* do you think that?
It makes it very
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Matthew Garrett:
Yes, but *WHY* do you think that?
It makes it very hard to fix bugs in the pregenerated files.
Look at the gsfonts mess, it's pretty instructive.
Not all pregenerated files are difficult to modify.
If there existed reasonable ways
On 7/22/05, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It makes it very hard to fix bugs in the pregenerated files.
Look at the gsfonts mess, it's pretty instructive.
That's an argument from maintainability, not from freeness. The two
are, in my view anyway, distinct though related judgments.
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 12:40:00AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From a technical point of view, Java bytecode is as good as
uncommented source code. The Java-to-bytecode compilers are not very
sophisticated.
We're happy to accept uncommented
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uncommented source is not the same as source with comments stripped to make
it harder to understand.
The former is merely potentially bad source code, but clearly source. The
latter is obfuscation, and is not source at all. Assuming what Florian
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, 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?
I've no idea if it's fine for main,[1] but it's clearly DFSG Free.
Whether a work is DFSG Free is a
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 01:32:37AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uncommented source is not the same as source with comments stripped to make
it harder to understand.
The former is merely potentially bad source code, but clearly source. The
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 01:32:37AM +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?
Yes; as noble a goal as is writing good,
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 information about how they
work. Both are
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 information about how they
work. Both are
On 7/22/05, Jeff King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's say I write a program in C code and compile it to assembly
language, which I distribute. Somebody else writes an equivalent program
directly in assembly language and distributes it. The distributed
products contain the same amount of
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As of yet, no one has put forward a better definition of source code.
Anything that allows a form of practical modification consistent
with the functionality of the
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Practicalities aren't a primary issue. If it's not a practical form for
modification, it's probably not preferred by anyone, either--but if I really
do prefer an unpractical form to modify a program, then it's still my
source, and your definition is
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Practicalities aren't a primary issue. If it's not a practical form for
modification, it's probably not preferred by anyone, either--but if I really
do prefer an unpractical form to
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sometimes source just isn't enough to figure out how a program (or hardware)
works, lacking eg. hardware documentation; that's annoying, but it's still
source. If I create a program with a hex editor, it's source, even if it
doesn't serve Free
** Matthew Garrett ::
If you define source as the preferred form for modification,
then
http://cvs.freedesktop.org/xorg/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86
/drivers/nv/nv_hw.c?rev=1.7view=markup is not source. I, on the
other hand, believe that it is an acceptable (though borderline)
form of
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Anything that allows a form of practical modification
consistent with the functionality of the resulting work,
What does that mean?
That definition
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 11:24:15AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sometimes source just isn't enough to figure out how a program (or hardware)
works, lacking eg. hardware documentation; that's annoying, but it's still
source. If I create a program with a hex editor, it's source, even if it
On 7/21/05, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip stuff where I agree with Don 100%]
ITYM Freedom 1 (the second) or possibly Freedom 3 (the last). In
either case, in this situation, you've got everything that the
original author has to be able to modify the work. You're not being
[Please trim your responses so that they only contain the minimal
verbiage necessary to present your point; otherwise we'll leave them
unread.]
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 7/21/05, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To me, the FOSS movement is about giving everyone
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you back up a bit, first, and explain to me why that is not the
preferred form for modification? It certainly looks like it to me.
The preferred form for modification has all of the hex constants
replaced with preprocessor defines that give you
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 12:07:05AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Could you back up a bit, first, and explain to me why that is not the
preferred form for modification? It certainly looks like it to me.
The preferred form for modification has all of the hex constants
replaced with
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That depends. I can see two scenarios: either they removed these constants
from their own codebase, and that's how they now maintain it; or they pass
the code through a filter to remove these constants before distributing it
to the world.
It's the
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 02:04:24AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'm asking you to be willing to accept the consequences of the opinion
you hold, which (in this case) is inevitably going to be some large
amount of irritation from other members of the project.
I think it would be massive
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 04:52:23PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
First of all, GFingerPoken is released under the GPL.
GFingerPoken uses xpms for the graphics. Those files are included in the
distribution as .h files, and included directly into the source. Some of
them, however, were generated
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO, yes, as this is the widely accepted definition of source
code (it is found in the GPL text, as you know) and DFSG#2
mandates the inclusion of source code.
I'm not convinced that it's a widely
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'm not convinced that it's a widely accepted definition of source
code.
As of yet, no one has put forward a better definition of source code.
Until that time, the prefered form for modification seems to be
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I'm not convinced that it's a widely accepted definition of source
code.
As of yet, no one has put forward a better definition of source code.
Anything that
. And everything must be compiled from source.
To be in the main archive, not only the code must be DFSG free, but also the
compiler. So far so good. Now there are two files in the tarball which
aren't actually source files: tilepix.h and marblepix.h. They are generated
from source files with povray
There's two main issues here.
1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of
modification?
I don't believe so, and it's trivial to demonstrate that this isn't the
current situation (see the nv driver in the X.org source tree, for
instance). The DFSG require the availability of
On 7/19/05, Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[an assessment with which I agree almost 100%]
The game GFingerPoken (which I have played and really quite enjoy)
is definitely a derivative work of its artwork. It's a complex work
that integrally incorporates substantial portions of a
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:13:43 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote:
There's two main issues here.
1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of
modification?
IMHO, yes, as this is the widely accepted definition of source code
(it is found in the GPL text, as you know) and DFSG#2
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:52:23 +0200 Bas Wijnen wrote:
Hello,
Hi! :)
[...]
Some background about all this:
First of all, GFingerPoken is released under the GPL.
[...]
However, when I found that (some of) the graphics had a source from
which they could be compiled, I concluded two things:
-
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:13:43 +0100 Matthew Garrett wrote:
1) Does everything in main have to include the preferred form of
modification?
IMHO, yes, as this is the widely accepted definition of source code
(it is found in the GPL text, as you know) and
On Nov 18, 2003, at 05:55, Andrew Suffield wrote:
;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to
return
;;;to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that
they make,
;;;so that these may be included in future releases; and (b) to
inform
;;;the
On Nov 18, 2003, at 14:07, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to
return
;;;to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that
they make,
;;;so that these may be included in future releases; and (b) to
inform
;;;
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 11:05:57AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
;;; 3. All materials developed as a consequence of the use of this software
;;;shall duly acknowledge such use, in accordance with the usual
standards
;;;of acknowledging credit in academic research.
This is
on the following two clauses contained in a couple of
source files.
scsh-0.6.4/scheme/big/sort.scm:
;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to return
;;;to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that they
make,
;;;so that these may
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:29:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On reflection, we've rejected this exact clause (in its MIT Scheme
incarnation) as non-free in the past, after some heavy analysis of the
wording.
All I found was the thread starting at
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 07:07:43PM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:29:03PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On reflection, we've rejected this exact clause (in its MIT Scheme
incarnation) as non-free in the past, after some heavy analysis of
the wording.
All I found was
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:39:56AM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote:
We're currently trying to sort out the non-free status of scsh within
Debian. Most of the issues are unambiguous, however, I'd like to see
some more opinions on the following two clauses contained in a couple of
source files
on the following two clauses contained in a couple of
source files.
scsh-0.6.4/scheme/big/sort.scm:
;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to return
;;;to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that they
make,
;;;so that these may
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to return
;;;to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that they
make,
;;;so that these may be included in future releases; and (b) to inform
;;;the T Project
contained in a couple of
source files.
scsh-0.6.4/scheme/big/sort.scm:
;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to return
;;;to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that they
make,
;;;so that these may be included in future releases; and (b
Scripsit Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a)
;;; to return to the T Project at Yale any improvements or
;;; extensions that they make, so that these may be included in
This clause is moot, because The T Project at Yale has
Scripsit Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This clause is moot, because The T Project at Yale has not existed
for the last fifteen years.
I grabbed the source and looked at it. As Daniel wrote, there are
three files with this clause in them.
The one that references the T Project implements
On 2003-11-18 19:07:18 + Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
aren't removed, Barak Pearlmutter cannot guarantee that he will not
give your phone number to his ex-wife. That should get results.
What, no automatic weapons?
101 - 158 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
