Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The first one load a BLOB/Firmware into a Hardware which runs
> ON the Hardware and not in the OS.
The OS *all* runs "ON the Hardware".
But Debian's determination is about what we distribute. We don't
distribute non-free things as part of Debian ma
Hello Sven,
Sorry for the late reponse, but I am currently Off-Line.
Am 2006-02-13 15:54:23, schrieb Sven Luther:
> Like the mips binary which is part of the tg3 (or some other of those) driver
> and uploaded to to the mips core on the card in question ?
>
> Does that mean that we will also di
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Xavier Roche dijo [Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:55:57AM +0100]:
So a cat is a software, or a hardware ? Do I have to provide the sources
(the DNA full sequence) if I want to give a kitten to someone, following
the "free" s
Scripsit Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Xavier Roche dijo [Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:55:57AM +0100]:
>> So a cat is a software, or a hardware ? Do I have to provide the sources
>> (the DNA full sequence) if I want to give a kitten to someone, following
>> the "free" spirit ? :p
> A cat is not li
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 12:13:04AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Xavier Roche dijo [Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:55:57AM +0100]:
> > > > Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake!
> > > everything that is not hardware is software
> >
> > So a cat is a software, or a hardware ? Do I have t
Michael Banck dijo [Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:22:39PM +0100]:
> > > > > Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake!
> > > > everything that is not hardware is software
> > >
> > > So a cat is a software, or a hardware ? Do I have to provide the sources
> > > (the DNA full sequence) if
Xavier Roche dijo [Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:55:57AM +0100]:
> > > Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake!
> > everything that is not hardware is software
>
> So a cat is a software, or a hardware ? Do I have to provide the sources
> (the DNA full sequence) if I want to give a kit
Adam McKenna wrote:
>> No, like chosing ati over nvidia for graphic cards, or silicon image over
>> others for SATA cards.
>
> Wait a minute, did I miss a memo? ATI isn't the devil anymore?
It surely is, the current generation of ATI cards doesn't even support
2D with free drivers (beyond VESA, o
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 11:43:27PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:54:23PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > No, like chosing ati over nvidia for graphic cards, or silicon image over
> > others for SATA cards.
>
> Wait a minute, did I miss a memo? ATI isn't the devil anymore?
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:54:23PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> No, like chosing ati over nvidia for graphic cards, or silicon image over
> others for SATA cards.
Wait a minute, did I miss a memo? ATI isn't the devil anymore?
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:35:02AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> That's not correct. The project simply voted not to removed it at that
> time, by defeating the GR. There was no affirmative vote to keep
> non-free as far as I can remember.
That's why we have web archives:
Dropping Option
[Jean-Christophe Dubacq]
> Is non-free not already distributable ? If something is not
> distributable, then it cannot even be in non-free.
non-free is distributable via the Debian FTP sites. However, not all
of it is distributable in other ways:
- some non-free software may have a license gran
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:09:26AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> You said "we *ALL* voted to keep it", which means that every vote cast
> was to keep non-free. In other words, the vote was unanimous.
Oh, whatever, i take back the word 'all' then in that sentence, i guess that
almost everyone under
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 04:35:31PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:23:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > I don't see what that has to do with the simple fact of what the vote
> > was about and how it turned out.
>
> So, you think that the vote in itself is the important one
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:23:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:57:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:35:02AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > That's not correct. The project simply voted not to removed it at that
> > > time, by defeating the G
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:57:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:35:02AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > That's not correct. The project simply voted not to removed it at that
> > time, by defeating the GR. There was no affirmative vote to keep
> > non-free as far as I can
13/02/06 at 15:54, Sven Luther wrote :
In this case, yes, the solution might be to create a "non-free-data"
*distributed* and available in standard.
non-free-distributable section, which CD creators can easy add to
the CDs, and
people wanting pure-free can include.
Is non-free not alread
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:35:02AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:22:07AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I want to remind you all, that previous to the two GRs which clarified the
> > meaning of what we must consider free, we had a widely disputed GR on the
> > fate
> > of
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:55:57AM +0100, Xavier Roche wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake!
> > everything that is not hardware is software
>
> So a cat is a software, or a hardware ? Do I have to provide the sources
> (t
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:22:07AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> I want to remind you all, that previous to the two GRs which clarified the
> meaning of what we must consider free, we had a widely disputed GR on the fate
> of our non-free section, and we all voted to keep it, especially because there
Gentlemen,
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:14:56PM +, Brett Parker wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:55:57AM +0100, Xavier Roche wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake!
> > > everything that is not hardware is software
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:55:57AM +0100, Xavier Roche wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake!
> > everything that is not hardware is software
>
> So a cat is a software, or a hardware ? Do I have to provide the sources
> (t
Xavier Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
>> Nope, but i think those who try to hide the issue of non-free material in
>> main, by insisting that it is not software
>
> Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake!
They aren't?
There are seve
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake!
> everything that is not hardware is software
So a cat is a software, or a hardware ? Do I have to provide the sources
(the DNA full sequence) if I want to give a kitten to someone, following
the
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Thomas Weber wrote:
> Well, there are cases where the differences are totally unclear. Let's
> start with PostScript files, go to interactive PDFs and -- while we are
> at it -- let's think about HTML files with Javascript.
Yes and no. They are clearly documentation in their f
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:37:31AM +0100, Xavier Roche wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Nope, but i think those who try to hide the issue of non-free material in
> > main, by insisting that it is not software
>
> Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake!
every
[Thomas Weber]
> let's think about HTML files with Javascript.
>
> What are these? Documentation, computer programs, both?
To me the much more interesting question is "Given that you can make a
distinction between documentation and other software, why do users of
documentation not deserve the sa
Am Montag, den 13.02.2006, 09:37 +0100 schrieb Xavier Roche:
> But I still consider documentation different than softwares, and don't see
> any major problem regarding the FDL.
Well, there are cases where the differences are totally unclear. Let's
start with PostScript files, go to interactive PDF
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
> Nope, but i think those who try to hide the issue of non-free material in
> main, by insisting that it is not software
Fonts or documentations are not softwares, for god's sake!
> I want to remind you all, that previous to the two GRs which clarified the
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 07:53:39PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 01:46:14PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > The reason I would do this is the same reason I often get so vocal and
> > sometimes angry about these matters: the issue of honesty. I feel that the
> > current s
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 07:41:03AM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 07:53:39PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Nobody is lying. A "lie" is an untruth made with the intent to
> > deceive. Debian doesn't try to hide these unmodifiable licenses;
> > it's been discussed open
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 07:53:39PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 01:46:14PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> The reason I would do this is the same reason I often get so vocal
>> and sometimes angry about these matters: the issue of honesty. I
>> feel that the current sit
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> However, there is also a dishonest way. That is to leave the Social
>> Contract claiming that everything in Debian is free (or "free software",
>> doesn't matter) according to the DFSG, but then to go ahead and put
>> DFSG-non-free stuff into Debian. A
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 01:46:14PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> The reason I would do this is the same reason I often get so vocal and
> sometimes angry about these matters: the issue of honesty. I feel that the
> current situation is one in which Debian is using its Social Contract to
> lie t
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 01:46:14PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> This belongs somewhere else. Directing followups to -project.
>
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:31:43AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > Incidentally, if I ever become a DD, I will immediately propose a
This belongs somewhere else. Directing followups to -project.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:31:43AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Incidentally, if I ever become a DD, I will immediately propose a GR to
> > amend the Social Contract to explicitly allow unmodifiable licens
36 matches
Mail list logo
