Raul Miller a écrit :
Those boot loaders are not in main.
Which bootloaders are you talking about?
So far, lilo/grub/yaboot are in main.
Benoit PAPILLAULT
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 09:19:20PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Martin Schulze:
According to a Reuters story, Microsoft's Sender-ID standard has been
revised and will be resubmitted to the IETF.
That's so vague and so many levels removed from primary source
material that it could mean
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 10:05:05PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
BIOSes are in the EPROM case that I've described--part of the hardware,
already present--and go in main.
How does this exception follow from either the SC, DFSG or Policy?
Hardware is not part of Debian,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 10:10:47PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Conflict in what way? It says contrib and non-free are for works
that do not conform to the DFSG. Packages in contrib conform to the
DFSG but depend on software that does not. If I interpret the SC's
Raul Miller writes:
You can't build those boot loaders on a system which hasn't been booted.
So not only is there a runtime dependency from the boot loader to the
BIOS, but there is a Build-Depends-like dependency as well. I still
see no conflict with the SC or Policy.
There are a number of
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 10:05:05PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
BIOSes are in the EPROM case that I've described--part of the hardware,
already present--and go in main.
How does this exception follow from either the SC, DFSG or Policy?
Hardware is not part of
Raul Miller a écrit :
Those boot loaders are not in main.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 08:21:53AM +0200, Benoit PAPILLAULT wrote:
Which bootloaders are you talking about?
So far, lilo/grub/yaboot are in main.
I was talking about the prior bootloader stage in rom (typically in the
bios), which
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 11:11:23AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Then let's forget for a minute boot loaders. What about all drivers
which interact with non-free software stored in computers and their
peripherals?
I think you're forgetting about more than boot loaders, since this has
been
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 08:38:21AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
So not only is there a runtime dependency from the boot loader to the
BIOS, but there is a Build-Depends-like dependency as well. I still
see no conflict with the SC or Policy.
I'm not sure if this is because you just plain can't
Raul Miller writes:
Raul Miller a écrit :
Those boot loaders are not in main.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 08:21:53AM +0200, Benoit PAPILLAULT wrote:
Which bootloaders are you talking about?
So far, lilo/grub/yaboot are in main.
I was talking about the prior bootloader stage in rom
Raul Miller writes:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 08:38:21AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
So not only is there a runtime dependency from the boot loader to the
BIOS, but there is a Build-Depends-like dependency as well. I still
see no conflict with the SC or Policy.
I'm not sure if this is
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 10:55:57AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
We ignore that bios dependency because it's trivial to write the software
which serves that role, but in most cases practically impossible to
change the hardware to use the resulting software.
In other words, it's a hardware
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then let's forget for a minute boot loaders. What about all drivers
which interact with non-free software stored in computers and their
peripherals?
I think you're forgetting about more than boot loaders, since this has
been explained more than once. However, I'll
My little brother was approached by SCO yesterday regarding licensing his
linux servers so as to avoid being possibly sued by SCO for copyright
infringment. I am wondering as to what the Linux comunity thinks regarding
this Licensing program, and if it is even legal.I have my doubts
14 matches
Mail list logo
