Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
>
>>On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 04:47:06PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
>>
>>>Unfortunatly, it is not clear that openssl is normally distributed
>>>with the other components, as we do not require that people
>>>actually install openssl.
>>
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 04:47:06PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Unfortunatly, it is not clear that openssl is normally distributed
> > with the other components, as we do not require that people
> > actually install openssl.
>
> Except, "we do not requi
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 03:57:48PM +1100, tbble wrote:
(Some stuff, but forgot to change the Mail-Followup-To header)
I would still like to CC'd on this discussion. Sorry for my
mistake.
--
---
Paul "TBBle" Hampson, MCSE
7th year CompSci/As
On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 09:37:23PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 04:47:06PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Paul Hampson wrote:
> > > As I understand it, the issue is that anything in the Debian
> > > archive is considered to be distributed with Debian,
I wrote:
> > However, non-free is not part of Debian (as per the social contract)
> > so it would be OK to put GPL'd programs that depend on OpenSSL into
> > non-free?
On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 04:47:06PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Unfortunatly, it is not clear that openssl is normally distribute
On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 04:47:06PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Paul Hampson wrote:
> > As I understand it, the issue is that anything in the Debian
> > archive is considered to be distributed with Debian, and so
> > the GPL's exception for libraries that come with the OS
> >
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Alexander Sack wrote:
> Hi,
>
> mozilla _wants_ us to make some changes to the thunderbird package
> in order to not infringe their trademarks.
>
> So what do they basically want? They basically want us to comply to
> the community editions terms as described in [1]. This im
Alexander Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(Cc:ed because I've no idea if you read the list)
> "People distributing works derived from the default Debian package of
> Thunderbird will have to also comply with the mozilla.org trademark policies,
> or
> remove the trademarks entirely from the packa
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Paul Hampson wrote:
> As I understand it, the issue is that anything in the Debian
> archive is considered to be distributed with Debian, and so
> the GPL's exception for libraries that come with the OS
> doesn't apply since the application also comes with the OS.
> (In GPL's t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
mozilla _wants_ us to make some changes to the thunderbird package in order to
not infringe their trademarks.
So what do they basically want? They basically want us to comply to the
community editions terms as described in [1]. This implies that
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 02:21:24AM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> However, non-free is not part of Debian (as per the social
> contract) so it would be OK to put GPL'd programs that
> depend on OpenSSL into non-free?
The GPL special exception doesn't care about "part of" vs. "not part of".
What mat
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> /why/ those freedoms are no longer necessary. What is it about that code
>> that makes the ability to modify and distribute modified varients less
>> interesting?
>
> It's not that it's a less inte
Juergen Lueters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We would like to call this project "debian extended xterminal" or short
> "dext".
>
> The question now arises if we can use this name or if there are any
> legal obstacles (copyrights).
No copyrights prevent you from using the name Debian, but differe
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> /why/ those freedoms are no longer necessary. What is it about that code
> that makes the ability to modify and distribute modified varients less
> interesting?
It's not that it's a less interesting problem to create free
firmware. It's just that it
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A firmware image is not software to the system on which Debian runs.
> What it is to another system (e.g. some PCI card) is irrelevant.
While I disagree, I don't see why we're getting hung up on this software
thing. Note that the only uses of the word "s
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 03:38:34PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> >Drivers for firmware, where the driver would typically be non-functional
>> >if we didn't ship some non-free software image, we've been treating as
>> >depending on
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> will happily present you with a copy of your system firmware (assuming
>> you're on x86). If you run ndisasm over it, you'll find it's x86 machine
>> code. You can even extract bits of it and run them.
* Paul Hampson:
> As I understand it, the issue is that anything in the Debian
> archive is considered to be distributed with Debian, and so
> the GPL's exception for libraries that come with the OS
> doesn't apply since the application also comes with the OS.
> (In GPL's terms, the OS comes with
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A BIOS is normally stored in binary form as executable or
> interpretable code plus associated data. Most people would call
> executable code in binary form "software;" Debian uses a broader
> definition than that. The real question is why you think th
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> Lots of people cannot write or modify C code, but we accept as free
> >>> many programs that include C code. The u
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Lots of people cannot write or modify C code, but we accept as free
>>> many programs that include C code. The user being inexpert in some
>>> technique d
(I'm not subscribed, I'll try and set my Mail-Followup-To
correctly, but I'd like to be CC'd)
Just reading up on the OpenSSL/GPL conflict.
As I understand it, the issue is that anything in the Debian
archive is considered to be distributed with Debian, and so
the GPL's exception for libraries tha
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >The relevant distinction is whether whether or not we consider there to
> >be an adequate abstraction barrier between the two pieces of code.
> >Other distinctions don't really matter.
> Then why you keep talking about where firmware is stored?
Huh?
On Wed, Dec 29,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>The relevant distinction is whether whether or not we consider there to
>be an adequate abstraction barrier between the two pieces of code.
>Other distinctions don't really matter.
Then why you keep talking about where firmware is stored?
>Drivers for firmware, where the
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Lots of people cannot write or modify C code, but we accept as free
>> many programs that include C code. The user being inexpert in some
>> technique does not render a thing non-free.
>
> But something
Hello folks,
since some time we are developing a set of shell scripts in order to set
up a environment for xterminals and diskless workstations.
We provide the following capabilities
- install a chroot environment with debootstrap
- create a proper initrd
- create a custom kernel
- create a tft
This account is no longer active. Thus, your
mail regarding "[PMX:VIRUS] Re:" will not be received.
27 matches
Mail list logo
