Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are drivers we ship that require you to have a specific version of
the firmware in eeprom. In at least one case, it's not possible to
provide this without the user returning the card so that extra flash can
be attached.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a perfectly reasonable means to discriminate. One is *in the
hardware*. If I buy a widget, I don't care whether it uses firmware
in an eeprom or a well-trained gerbil. It's a box. Software on my
CPU is different.
Firmwares do not run on your CPU. Your poing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why should debian adopt a different policy if the vendor provides this
firmware on a CD instead of on a flash EEPROM chip?
Because of the reasonable expectation that the user already has the
EEPROM chip, and it's part of the hardware. It's not something Debian
could
On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 20:36 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
It's a perfectly reasonable means to discriminate. One is *in the
hardware*. If I buy a widget, I don't care whether it uses firmware
in an eeprom or a well-trained gerbil. It's a box. Software on my
CPU is different.
The
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyways, here's the relevant quote:
Examples of packages which would be included in contrib or
non-US/contrib are: [...] free packages which require contrib,
non-free packages or packages which are not in our archive at
all for
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that requiring a hardware upgrade to support behavior is
irrelevant to free software. Firmware that's part of the hardware is
part of the hardware. Firmware that looks like software is software.
If Debian *could* ship it, it's software.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marco, it seems to me that there's a parallel case to non-free
firmware: dongleware. Perhaps you could explain how this philosophy
applies to that. If a piece of software is distributed under the GPL,
can I add functionality by putting it into firmware on a dongle and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that requiring a hardware upgrade to support behavior is
irrelevant to free software. Firmware that's part of the hardware is
part of the hardware. Firmware that looks like software is software.
If Debian *could* ship it, it's software.
This distinction is not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In both cases, the quantity of non-free software used has remained the
same. The purpose of contrib is to discourage free software with
non-free dependencies. Deciding whether software falls into it or not
purely based on another vendor's choice of media seems mad. Either
NOTE: The packages I am talking about are not debianised (yet) and
contain non-free code. If that disqualifies me from asking that's
too bad but this is as good a place to ask as I could find.
I've been pestered by the people who pay for the development of
several of our packages to add a blurb
On 2004-10-12 10:40:38 +0100 Olaf Meeuwissen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been pestered by the people who pay for the development of
several of our packages to add a blurb claiming copyright on the
*binary* packages we build and distribute.
What do you mean blurb? Including a
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 06:40:38PM +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
I've been pestered by the people who pay for the development of
several of our packages to add a blurb claiming copyright on the
*binary* packages we build and distribute. Binary packages built
and distributed by others are not
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 20:36 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
It's a perfectly reasonable means to discriminate. One is *in the
hardware*. If I buy a widget, I don't care whether it uses firmware
in an eeprom or a well-trained gerbil. It's a box.
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The firmware is never executed on your CPU.
The driver is. Look, there are two circumstances here:
* If the firmware's on an eeprom, I could build another device just
like that one but implemented
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What extra freedoms does this buy you? How is the cause of free software
benefited from this distinction? Your entire point here seems to be that
drivers that depend on non-free code that's in ROM are preferable to
non-free code that's on disk. This
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyways, here's the relevant quote:
Examples of packages which would be included in contrib or
non-US/contrib are: [...] free packages which require contrib,
non-free packages or packages which are not in
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that requiring a hardware upgrade to support behavior is
irrelevant to free software. Firmware that's part of the hardware is
part of the hardware. Firmware that looks like software is software.
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that requiring a hardware upgrade to support behavior is
irrelevant to free software. Firmware that's part of the hardware is
part of the hardware. Firmware that looks like software is software.
If Debian *could* ship it,
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 06:40:38PM +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
I've been pestered by the people who pay for the development of
several of our packages to add a blurb claiming copyright on the
*binary* packages we build and distribute. Binary
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 12:57:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The vendor then produces a second revision of the hardware. It uses the
same driver, but this time the firmware is on an eeprom. By your
argument, we are then free to move the
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 04:27:48PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What extra freedoms does this buy you? How is the cause of free software
benefited from this distinction? Your entire point here seems to be that
drivers that depend on non-free code that's in ROM are preferable to
non-free code
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want to argue that a package in contrib should be included on CDs
or in the installer, feel free to argue that. Please do not conflate
that issue with the entirely non-technical decision of whether a package
goes in main or contrib; otherwise,
Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 03:51:11PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
I strongly disagree with that, as I do with anything other than a set of
words being called a name.
Why should this be an issue?
It's clear that trademarks serve an identification role. We interpret
the DFSG
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have just packaged a driver for wifi cards. The driver is licensed
under GPL, but the cards needs a non-free firmware to be uploaded in
order to work.
I will quote from policy 2.2.2:
Examples of packages which would be included in
Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 12:57:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The vendor then produces a second revision of the hardware. It uses the
same driver, but this time the firmware is on an eeprom. By your
Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Oct 11, Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it's a question of what dependence means for contrib. If the
driver absolutely _depends_ on using the non-free firmware, it should
be in contrib. If the non-free firmware is optional, it should go into
main.
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marco, it seems to me that there's a parallel case to non-free
firmware: dongleware. Perhaps you could explain how this philosophy
applies to that. If a piece of software is distributed under the GPL,
can I add functionality by
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DFSG-free. On the other hand, requirements such as *acknowledge the
origin of the logo*, *do not misrepresent the origins of the logo*, and
*do not falsely claim endorsement by or affiliation with Debian* are
perfectly
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the driver does not provide any significant functionality without the
firmware, it belongs in contrib.
If there are some cards which the driver drives which work without the
firmware, it can go in main.
Nowadays very
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, there's shades of gray, here. If all the driver does is emit
a message CAN'T FIND NON-FREE FIRMWARE, ABORTING without the firmware,
it's hard to say that it doesn't depend on the firmware. But if the
This applies to almost every driver
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 10:43:15AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Anyone who distributes the work, modified or unmodified. I don't think
we can't regulate use and be Free; fortunately, most uses of the logo
are distributions, such as putting it on a website, or stamping it on a
CD and
Hello,
A few months ago, I was planning on ITP'ing GNOME GTray[1] applet, thing
that I did not because of lack of time to do it. A few weeks ago, I saw
that package RFP'ed[2], and today I saw an ITP for gmailfs[3].
Is it correct to package that kind of software? I mean, one of the
reasons why I
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There is an argument that the whole of Debian belongs in 'contrib' rahter
than 'main' because there is no entirely free (as in speech) machine on
which it can run.
I think there are free CPU designs around and you could probably
compile a free emulator to
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Nowadays very few drivers will work without the presence of non-free
software.
(For the sake of argument, I'll treat this as true and go from there.)
How sad that very few drivers belong in independent packages in main.
Hm.
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This package should be removed from Debian before Debian gets sued for
copyright infringement.
Can you cut this bullshit please? You know well that Debian is not going
to get sued.
Well, the corporations issuing the firmware haven't been bought
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The logo _should_ be usable as a logo by anybody else, as long as they
fulfill certain requirements.
You say that in a very general way. I'm not imagining all the
specific cases, I'm
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 03:51:11PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
I strongly disagree with that, as I do with anything other than a set of
words being called a name.
Why should this be an issue?
It's clear that trademarks serve an
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 06:22:45PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
snip
The point in a traditional common-law trademark is that we don't want
someone to go out and start Debian Computing, Inc., use the Debian
open-use logo, and proceed to run a competing organization.
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-09-22 23:22:45 +0100 Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A trademark license *has* to prohibit such things. Prohibiting
misrepresenting the origin of the *logo* doesn't suffice. We have to
require that the logo, and anything confusingly similar, is not
used
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 05:03:30PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
account; I agree that it should have. I don't have much experience with
designing trademark licenses, as you can tell. Having a trademark license
...
Why don't we simply start with a permissive copyright license,
and a
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But trademarks don't cover works. Your whole message treats
trademarks as a funny sort of copyright which sometimes doesn't follow
chains of derivation. They aren't. They're a completely different
beast.
For example, your model doesn't deal at all with the
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The issue is that the top-level name of a project is relatively easy to
change, while needing to provide a replacement for possibly dozens or
hundreds of images *funtionally used* by the software is a significant
barrier to
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 10:43:15AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Anyone who distributes the work, modified or unmodified. I don't think
we can't regulate use and be Free; fortunately, most uses of the logo
are distributions, such as putting it on a website, or stamping it on a
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS a écrit :
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There is an argument that the whole of Debian belongs in 'contrib' rahter
than 'main' because there is no entirely free (as in speech) machine on
which it can run.
I think there are free CPU designs around and you could
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I still do not believe that there is anything non-free about traditional
trademark rights; that there is nothing which actually constitutes
traditional trademark infringement which Debian would want to defend the
right to do.
To the extent that those trademark rights
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 01:05:29PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 06:40:38PM +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
I've been pestered by the people who pay for the development of
several of our packages to add a blurb claiming
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 03:11:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
When did I say I thought it acceptable that you would need to change
every single occurance of the word Mozilla when making a modified
version? :) I said top-level name, and I meant exactly that. To the
extent names have been
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luis R. Rodriguez) writes:
You are free to distribute the images under the GPL. The XCF image is
produced from the Debian Open Use logo, also provided here
http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/grub-images/
Awesome splash image!
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The issue is that the top-level name of a project is relatively easy to
change, while needing to provide a replacement for possibly dozens or
hundreds of images *funtionally used* by the
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
*This issue*, meaning leading someone to believe that something
non-Debian is Debian. That doesn't mean they should be limited to using
the logo only to refer to Debian, only that when referring to something
else, they can't say that that something
50 matches
Mail list logo
