Gunnar Wolf wrote:
A PDF _can_ be the source - If it uses OpenOffice's new Hybrid PDF
format [1], which embeds an ODF. Of course, that is _very_ seldom the
case. (and writing practically anything with OOo is... Bah, I just
hate the Office mindset. It is an inefficient as it gets!)
You can
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Brian May
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can edit PDF files with Adobe Acrobat too. They don't need to by
hybrid documents.
I think this is very dodgy and also requires proprietary software to do
the editing. I don't know of any DFSG software that will do the
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Brian May wrote:
Is there any requirement that says the source code must be editable
in a sane manner (e.g. editing a PDF file with a binary hex editor
would not be sane) with entirely DFSG compliant tools?
Source code is the (digitally-distributable) form of a work that
Hi Brian!
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 03:16:07 +0100, Brian May wrote:
You can edit PDF files with Adobe Acrobat too. They don't need to by
hybrid documents.
I think this is very dodgy and also requires proprietary software to
do the editing. I don't know of any DFSG software that will do the
same
Romain Beauxis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you claim a PDF file is a binary file, or a program object ? Even if PDF
was a programming language, as proposed in another anwser, it would fall into
the script category, where the executed object is also the source.
In most cases, the PDF is not
Hi,
On Monday 27 October 2008 19:35, Frank Küster wrote:
If the PDF is frozen documentation, it's probably worth the effort. If
upstream changes the PDF with every new version, you should ask them for
their sources instead.
What if they use openoffice.org to edit the pdf and the pdf is the
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 01:15:44PM +0200, Thomas Weber wrote:
You are missing my point. We[1] got a reject for a documentation PDF
without source. So, we contacted upstream who checked the copyright with
the company in order to release the source for the documentation. And
yes, it's work,
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could you please elaborate here? The DFSG does not require us to have or
ship source code for non-program works, and if documentation is being
rejected on the basis of a *source* requirement (as distinct from a
licensing issue), then I think we have a
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 01:47:15AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 01:15:44PM +0200, Thomas Weber wrote:
You are missing my point. We[1] got a reject for a documentation PDF
without source. So, we contacted upstream who checked the copyright with
the company in order to
Le Saturday 25 October 2008 10:56:56 Kalle Kivimaa, vous avez écrit :
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could you please elaborate here? The DFSG does not require us to have or
ship source code for non-program works, and if documentation is being
rejected on the basis of a *source*
On Sat, Oct 25 2008, Romain Beauxis wrote:
Le Saturday 25 October 2008 10:56:56 Kalle Kivimaa, vous avez écrit :
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could you please elaborate here? The DFSG does not require us to have or
ship source code for non-program works, and if documentation is
Hi,
I take that back. postscript is a programming language, PDF
might not be. Scratch what I said in my previous email.
manoj
--
The early bird gets the coffee left over from the night before.
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/
1024D/BF24424C
Romain Beauxis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since the licence comming with the pdf was, up to what I read and
understand, compatible with DFSG, in particular right to reproduce,
distribute and *modify*, I completely fails to see the motivations
for such a decision.
Let me quote the GR text:
In
Le Saturday 25 October 2008 18:36:33 Kalle Kivimaa, vous avez écrit :
Romain Beauxis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since the licence comming with the pdf was, up to what I read and
understand, compatible with DFSG, in particular right to reproduce,
distribute and *modify*, I completely fails to
Romain Beauxis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you claim a PDF file is a binary file, or a program object ? Even
if PDF was a programming language, as proposed in another anwser, it
would fall into the script category, where the executed object is
also the source.
I grant you that it is possible
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 04:36:33PM +, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Romain Beauxis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since the licence comming with the pdf was, up to what I read and
understand, compatible with DFSG, in particular right to reproduce,
distribute and *modify*, I completely fails to see
[Followup-To: header set to linux.debian.devel.]
Thomas Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:06:29PM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 09:03 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
William Pitcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unfortunately, those who contribute to
Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I just wrote this:
http://womble.decadent.org.uk/blog/for-those-who-care-about-firmware.html
Drat, just missed:
Intel Corporation 82801DB PRO/100 VM (LOM) Ethernet Controller (rev
81)
Thanks for the article.
--
Any technology distinguishable from
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
acceleration, right? So the box can be installed, and is usable for
non-gaming purposes. The drm stuff can possibly be gotten from non
You
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:20:43AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
I can deal with a two-step install process for my video cards, as long as it
is properly documented. But I would serioulsy recommend that we produce
easy to use non-free installer disks to go along with the Debian
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be a good compromise between SCs #1, #3 and #4 if we made an
exhaustive list of non-free bits in main, and make it our goal that the
list gets smaller between each release and not to add anything to
that list?
The last part of the sentence is
Hi there!
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:28:08 +0200, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
acceleration, right? So the box can be installed, and is usable for
non-gaming purposes. The drm stuff can possibly be
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:23:50PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, you wrote:
But, in fact, fixes are not welcome from the team. They have raised a
major roadblock, allowing only one kind of fix which requires a lot of
work, and rejecting anything simpler.
Ever hear
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 03:51:22PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:23:50PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, you wrote:
But, in fact, fixes are not welcome from the team. They have raised a
major roadblock, allowing only one kind of fix which
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 05:41:05PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 03:51:22PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:23:50PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, you wrote:
But, in fact, fixes are not welcome from the team. They have
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 07:06:14PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 05:41:05PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 03:51:22PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:23:50PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, you wrote:
Luca Capello wrote the following on 23.10.2008 10:53
- *snip* -
That should be good enough to install, and then add non-free to
sources.list and get the firmware required for the driver to work
(absent a non-free debian installer that bundles non-free bits). This
is no different
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 18:13 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
Perhaps I'm mis-reading the above. Which bit of the foundation documents
do you think would need overriding for the tech-ctte to rule on which
fix to take?
One might think that this is the situation: two alternative fixes for
the DFSG
Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 11:38 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
The iwl4965 firmware changed 2 times incompatible since the driver
exists.
That makes me wonder just how separate the driver and firmware are. If
they are tightly coupled then the firmware may become subject to
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 21:13 +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 11:38 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
The iwl4965 firmware changed 2 times incompatible since the driver
exists.
That makes me wonder just how separate the driver and firmware are. If
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:50:23PM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
In the kernel itself, yes. Provided that:
* the kernel framework for loading firmware is used for drivers
depending on non-free firmware, and
* that firmware is available in non-free via firmware-nonfree
What if the
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 21:13 +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
Firmware and driver do not run on the same CPU. There is no 'linkage'
between them. With a client/server application, a GPL client does not
enforce the server to be GPL, even if client and server are
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 22:08 +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
The FSF seems to disagree on this[1]:
Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered
plug-in?
It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. For instance, if
the program uses only
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 15:51 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:50:23PM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
In the kernel itself, yes. Provided that:
* the kernel framework for loading firmware is used for drivers
depending on non-free firmware, and
* that firmware
Hi
Dne Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:25:59 +0200
Vincent Danjean [EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal(a):
Looking at your packages, I've a question. I see one package per firmware
without version number in the package name.
Do you think about a way to have different kernels that each requires
different firmware
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 08:07:52AM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
At least ipw2100 drivers changed firmware name if they required
different version, so I guess this is also used by others...
If they need an incompatible one. Not necessarily if they just need a
newer one.
Bastian
--
Violence in
* William Pitcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081021 22:11]:
Luckily very few others do.
How can it be lucky that people think it is a good idea to break
the law (distributing stuff without license to do so), to trick people
into breaking the law (by claiming everyone can copy Debian CD images
and mirror
Am Mittwoch, den 22.10.2008, 08:36 +0200 schrieb Bastian Blank:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 08:07:52AM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
At least ipw2100 drivers changed firmware name if they required
different version, so I guess this is also used by others...
If they need an incompatible one. Not
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 02:17:37PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 22:47 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
Doing so would be a violation of basic NMU policy.
The claim was, hey, nobody is stopping anyone from fixing it, if it's
not fixed, it's lame for people to complain, they
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:54:41AM +0200, Thomas Weber wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 22.10.2008, 08:36 +0200 schrieb Bastian Blank:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 08:07:52AM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
At least ipw2100 drivers changed firmware name if they required
different version, so I guess this is
On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
acceleration, right? So the box can be installed, and is usable for
non-gaming purposes. The drm stuff can possibly be gotten from non
You can always use VESA, yes. I don't think the X.org
Manoj Srivastava wrote the following on 22.10.2008 15:28
- *snip* -
That should be good enough to install, and then add non-free to
sources.list
now it gets really absurd.
Either be free and clearly tell the people that you are not willing to
support their hardware or don't blame
- *snip* -
That should be good enough to install, and then add non-free to
sources.list
now it gets really absurd.
Either be free and clearly tell the people that you are not willing to
support their hardware or don't blame RMs for the same thing you did above.
Everything
[NO CC, please]
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:59 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
If we waited for a release to be 100% perfect, it will likely take
several more years. The good news is that the amount of inline firmware
in the kernel is decreasing. So, eventually, all
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 09:38:00PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
... and if it is *not* different, why should be the release managers
be considered
Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
it's not the release team that is violating a foundation document.
It's Debian as a whole and it's happening now, not when we release
or not.
This is an important distinction, thank you.
The only thing we did as a release team is to make clear that we
Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hmm. I am not so sire it is nonsense. Yes, the release
team is not alone in this, and, really, all of us are somewhat to
blame for not helping the kernel team fix the DFSG violations.
But I don't think that the
On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
We didn't decide to release yet...
Fair enough.
Now, if we are all so very eager to have these bugs go away, we
have no objections to an NMU with the patches that have been posted on
-kernel mailing list, right? (Note: some of these
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:49:40 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
No, really. The kernel team are volunteers. Ordering them to do things
doesn't help at all; one could equally well send the same message to
everyone working on
Ben Finney (2008-10-21 17:37 +1100):
That's not the point being made: As I understand Manoj's point, it is
that tagging a bug ‘lenny-ignore’ is an active decision that a
particular bug, even if it represents a DFSG violation, will not be
considered in the decision to release.
To that
Le mardi 21 octobre 2008 à 00:00 +0100, Ben Hutchings a écrit :
The modified linux-2.6 and firmware-nonfree source packages, and the
linux-source-2.6.26 and firmware-* binary packages, can be found in:
http://people.debian.org/~benh/firmware-removal/
Thanks for the summary.
Please test them
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 03:49:40PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
If they were actively stopping people working on these issues then that
would be different but I have not seen them doing this.
Great, so since there won't be any
Am Dienstag, den 21.10.2008, 08:29 +0200 schrieb Marc Haber:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:49:40 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
No, really. The kernel team are volunteers. Ordering them to do things
doesn't help at all;
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 09:04:21AM +, Thomas Weber wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 21.10.2008, 08:29 +0200 schrieb Marc Haber:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:49:40 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
No, really. The kernel team
Am Dienstag, den 21.10.2008, 12:57 +0200 schrieb Pierre Habouzit:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 09:04:21AM +, Thomas Weber wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 21.10.2008, 08:29 +0200 schrieb Marc Haber:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:49:40 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon,
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:43 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Interesting; Manoj's post isn't in the -vote archives on master. I wonder
why that is?
Actually, I think we need a GR on the lines of
,
|
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 08:29 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:49:40 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
No, really. The kernel team are volunteers. Ordering them to do things
doesn't help at all; one could
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 15:22 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
Thomas: your continued inaction and unwillingness to code an acceptable
solution to this issue, in spite of being aware of the problem since
at least 2004 -- over four years ago! -- means we will continue to do
releases with non-free
On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 01:32:51PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Seems like there are patches stripping the kernel of these
non-free blobs. So, how much would out hardware support be degraded?
How many people are affected by these non-free
On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 04:12:25PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Howdy all,
Have I missed some announcement that DFSG violations don't matter for
the release of ‘lenny’?
I ask because a whole lot of bug reports of DFSG violations have been
tagged
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I am *happy* to code an acceptable solution, but I regard not support
the hardware for installation as acceptable.
I'm very glad that history has shown most developers disagree with you.
So I can upload an NMU right now that fixes the problem?
No, it's not OK. See
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 10:38 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 15:22 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
Thomas: your continued inaction and unwillingness to code an acceptable
solution to this issue, in spite of being aware of the problem since
at least 2004 -- over four years
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 21:21 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I am *happy* to code an acceptable solution, but I regard not support
the hardware for installation as acceptable.
I'm very glad that history has shown most developers disagree with you.
So I can upload an
Would it be a good compromise between SCs #1, #3 and #4 if we made an
exhaustive list of non-free bits in main, and make it our goal that the
list gets smaller between each release and not to add anything to
that list?
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P)
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:59 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
If we waited for a release to be 100% perfect, it will likely take
several more years. The good news is that the amount of inline firmware
in the kernel is decreasing. So, eventually, all non-DFSG
redistributable firmware can belong in
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I see. So the previous statement that nobody is standing in the way
of a fix is simply not so. People certainly are standing in the way.
That's nonsense. Uncoordinated NMUs are never acceptable for packages that
are in general actively
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 13:30 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:59 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
If we waited for a release to be 100% perfect, it will likely take
several more years. The good news is that the amount of inline firmware
in the kernel is decreasing. So,
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 12:56 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 07:30:23PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 07:16:12PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
You cannot ask, so late in the release process,
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 22:47 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I see. So the previous statement that nobody is standing in the way
of a fix is simply not so. People certainly are standing in the way.
That's nonsense. Uncoordinated NMUs are
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 16:00 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
Unfortunately, those who contribute to Debian must be dedicated to
ensuring future releases of Debian support the latest available hardware
at time of release.
No matter what our principles are? Wow. Why are we not equally
committed
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:28 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Would it be a good compromise between SCs #1, #3 and #4 if we made an
exhaustive list of non-free bits in main, and make it our goal that the
list gets smaller between each release and not to add anything to
that list?
I would be
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, you wrote:
But, in fact, fixes are not welcome from the team. They have raised a
major roadblock, allowing only one kind of fix which requires a lot of
work, and rejecting anything simpler.
Ever hear of the Technical Committee?
signature.asc
Description: This is
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:20 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:28 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Would it be a good compromise between SCs #1, #3 and #4 if we made an
exhaustive list of non-free bits in main, and make it our goal that the
list gets smaller between each
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:23 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, you wrote:
But, in fact, fixes are not welcome from the team. They have raised a
major roadblock, allowing only one kind of fix which requires a lot of
work, and rejecting anything simpler.
Ever hear of the
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 16:27 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:20 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:28 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Would it be a good compromise between SCs #1, #3 and #4 if we made an
exhaustive list of non-free bits in main,
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:36 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 16:27 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:20 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:28 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Would it be a good compromise between SCs #1, #3
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
This is a technical dispute? Whether your packages need to comply with
the DFSG?
Isn't a dispute about alternative fixes for a bug a technical dispute?
I thought that was your point.
The violation itself is not a matter for the TC
- Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 16:00 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
Unfortunately, those who contribute to Debian must be dedicated to
ensuring future releases of Debian support the latest available hardware
at time of release.
Really do have to
William Pitcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unfortunately, those who contribute to Debian must be dedicated to
ensuring future releases of Debian support the latest available
hardware at time of release.
That's news to me. Where is such a dedication required? Is it some
special reading of the
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 09:03 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
William Pitcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unfortunately, those who contribute to Debian must be dedicated to
ensuring future releases of Debian support the latest available
hardware at time of release.
That's news to me. Where is
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:06:29PM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 09:03 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
William Pitcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unfortunately, those who contribute to Debian must be dedicated to
ensuring future releases of Debian support the latest
Ean Schuessler dijo [Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:35:55PM -0500]:
If I was going to suggest any kind of change to the Social Contract
at this point it would be:
6. Debian will obey the law
We acknowledge that our users live in real communities in the real
world. We will support the needs of
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 17:06 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
I worded that rather badly. You should imply within acceptable terms of
the DFSG here... in this case, putting stuff in the nonfree firmware
package in non-free is an acceptable solution.
Of course; that's an excellent solution. Right
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 11:35 +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
Hi
Dne Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:00:54 +0100
Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal(a):
The modified linux-2.6 and firmware-nonfree source packages, and the
linux-source-2.6.26 and firmware-* binary packages, can be found in:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 15:55 -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Hi,
Sorry if this breaks threading, I'm not on this list, I was merely
referred to the discussion through the archives. If you respond to
this e-mail, please address your replies directly to myself as well,
so that I can respond
- Gunnar Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Umh, problem is the myriad of jurisdictions all over the world. This
would very easily become unfeasible. In the end, it ends up being each
user's responsability to obey the law the best way he can. Debian
helps as much as possible by only using
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
acceleration, right? So the box can be installed, and is usable for
non-gaming purposes. The drm stuff can possibly be gotten from non
You can always use VESA, yes. I don't think the X.org driver can get an ATI
GPU to work without the memory
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 11:00 +0300, Teemu Likonen wrote:
Ben Finney (2008-10-21 17:37 +1100):
That's not the point being made: As I understand Manoj's point, it is
that tagging a bug ‘lenny-ignore’ is an active decision that a
particular bug, even if it represents a DFSG violation, will
Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just wrote this:
http://womble.decadent.org.uk/blog/for-those-who-care-about-firmware.html
Great! Many thanks for this constructive work.
--
\ “I was arrested today for scalping low numbers at the deli. |
`\ Sold a
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 18:45 -0500, Ean Schuessler wrote:
I guess the question is, staying in the arena of 100% Free, what if
DRM technologies become pervasive in the United States and Europe and
it literally becomes illegal to have a computer without some
proprietary software in it? What if it
Ben Hutchings wrote:
I just wrote this:
http://womble.decadent.org.uk/blog/for-those-who-care-about-firmware.html
Hi,
Thank you for your constructive work in this area.
Looking at your packages, I've a question. I see one package per firmware
without version number in the package name.
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have I missed some announcement that DFSG violations don't matter for
the release of ‘lenny’?
No, because they generally matter.
I ask because a whole lot of bug reports of DFSG violations have been
tagged ‘lenny-ignore’ without explanation:
[...]
and
On Mon, Oct 20 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
Btw, I'm looking for supporters for a GR to stop this gross violation
of the SC. Any DDs who read this, please let me know if you're
interested.
Actually, I think we need a GR on the lines of
,
| http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007
Le lundi 20 octobre 2008 à 16:34 +0200, Robert Millan a écrit :
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 04:21:24PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
What if, instead of ranting everywhere, you actually contributed code to
fix these bugs?
I did...
And you deserve kudos for that. But that doesn’t make this
Le lundi 20 octobre 2008 à 16:34 +0200, Robert Millan a écrit :
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 04:21:24PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
What if, instead of ranting everywhere, you actually contributed code to
fix these bugs?
I did...
And you deserve kudos for that.
But still, it is
Damnit, sent mail instead of moving to drafts. Sorry for the double
sending.
--
.''`.
: :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
`-our own. Resistance is futile.
signature.asc
Le lundi 20 octobre 2008 à 19:30 +0200, Robert Millan a écrit :
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 07:16:12PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
You cannot ask, so late in the release process,
Some of these bugs have been known for *years*. In one of them, I even got
a reply saying something along the
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 16:08 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 08:41:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Has the current release team lowered the bar on Debian actually
trying to follow the social contract?
Yes, they have.
Furthermore, the FTP team (which is
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:43 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Actually, I think we need a GR on the lines of
,
| http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007
| General Resolution: Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel
`
To get a special dispensation for
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I object to a second round of this. I was ok with it once, as a
compromise, but the understanding I had then was that it was a one-time
thing, to give time to actually *fix* the problem.
Note that there is currently active
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
