* Raul Miller:
Anyway, this isn't the case I'm really interested in. And if there's
real source code, it should be reasonably clear that the GPL is
impractical.
I don't really understand this. I suspect I'm not thinking what you're
thinking real sourced code means.
A METAFONT program,
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Peter Van Eynde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And now you consider it software just because the method of storage is
different? How can the nature of the bytes change because they are
stored on a disk?
The nature of the bytes do not change. But my name, distributed in
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 09:53:51AM +0100, Peter Van Eynde wrote:
I'm stunned. So anything in a Debian package is software. With alien I can
convert a tar.gz into a debian package, so all tar files are software. With
tar I can create a tar.gz from any file, so all electronic data is software?
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Some firmware is part of the hardware. Some isn't. It's easy to tell
-- either it's in the hardware or it isn't. Of course, the name
firmware should make it clear that this is an often ambiguous line.
But this does seem to be a good practical place: can anybody
Raul Miller wrote:
Fundamentally, the DFSG is aimed at making sure that we can provide the
software that we can support. Restrictions that leave us writing an
opaque blob of bits which drives an unknown API very much put us into
a context where we can't know that we're doing the right thing.
Matthew Palmer wrote:
Should I go on?
No, I think you've adequately demonstrated that you don't have the foggiest
idea what you're talking about.
Ok. I'm game. Why? Where is the error my in applying your rules?
Groetjes, Peter
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 10:45:07AM +0100, Peter Van Eynde wrote:
Matthew Palmer wrote:
Should I go on?
No, I think you've adequately demonstrated that you don't have the foggiest
idea what you're talking about.
Ok. I'm game. Why? Where is the error my in applying your rules?
Primary
Peter Van Eynde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Some firmware is part of the hardware. Some isn't. It's easy to tell
-- either it's in the hardware or it isn't. Of course, the name
firmware should make it clear that this is an often ambiguous line.
But this does seem
Peter Van Eynde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Peter Van Eynde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And now you consider it software just because the method of storage is
different? How can the nature of the bytes change because they are
stored on a disk?
The nature of the bytes do
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please at least read Policy on what Depends means first. If you
also read the archives, you'll have a chance at understanding the
position of other debaters here, and of generating original
arguments. So far, this is all a repeat. It wasn't
Raul Miller wrote:
Fundamentally, the DFSG is aimed at making sure that we can provide the
software that we can support. Restrictions that leave us writing an
opaque blob of bits which drives an unknown API very much put us into
a context where we can't know that we're doing the right
I don't really understand this. I suspect I'm not thinking what you're
thinking real sourced code means.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 09:18:37AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
A METAFONT program, for example.
Ok, but in that context it's pretty clear that the font is not the
program. In that
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Peter Van Eynde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is your name input for a state-machine?
You should see what it does to TECO. My name is a killing word.
:-)
[data == software ?]
Bingo. Debian had this debate last year. There was a giant vote over
it. Then another
Nous avons le plaisir de vous annoncer que votre
commande a été accepté le 2004-12-17.
Votre paquet Eurorest contient les informations suivantes:
1. Un chèque hôtelier international Eurorest
2. Un réglement du système Eurorest
Votre ID de Participant de l'Action: HW2B2-YDSR6
La forme
Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 10:39:26AM +0100, Peter Van Eynde wrote:
The API is known, otherwise there would be no Linux driver.
The API that is programmed by the firmware -- which you shouldn't confuse
with the API used by the driver that downloads the firmware -- is not
Raul Miller wrote:
The API that is programmed by the firmware -- which you shouldn't confuse
with the API used by the driver that downloads the firmware -- is not
known to us.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 03:51:22PM +0100, Peter Van Eynde wrote:
I don't understand you.
Hmm...
An API is not
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 10:33:41AM -0500, I clumsily wrote:
I was talking about the API the firmware uses -- the one that the program
contained in the API was designed to work with.
That should have read:
I was talking about the API the firmware uses -- the one that the program
contained in
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 03:23:54PM +0100, Peter Van Eynde wrote:
Hmm. I remember we had an editorial change that then turned into
something completely different, followed by 6 damage limitation options and
1 hard line option. A damage limitation option won, but I if I read the
matrix
Peter Van Eynde wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Peter Van Eynde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[data == software ?]
Bingo. Debian had this debate last year. There was a giant vote over
it. Then another debate and another vote.
Hmm. I remember we had an editorial change that then turned
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But what if loading the firmware is not required?
That if the device was
warm-booted in another OS? (I know there are technical limitations
here) Would the driver-firmware relation still be a depends?
No, then the driver Depends: firmware | other-os
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 11:36:09PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
To me, that seems much like arguing that because an emulator (such as
one for a console system) provides a GUI, and because it can run and
display that GUI without needing a ROM, the emulator should go to main.
I don't believe
Peter Van Eynde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think I'm starting to understand your point of view. So _any_ use of
the software without using non-DFSG data makes it free, right?
Any reasonable use. Printing out a firmware not found message
doesn't count!
But what if loading the firmware is
On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 01:28:46AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
I'm convinced enough. Some time ago, I was playing around with an
emulator for Texas Instruments calculators. It obviously required a
ROM image to be useful, and the only legal way of obtaining one was
dumping it from your
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But what if loading the firmware is not required?
That if the device was
warm-booted in another OS? (I know there are technical limitations
here) Would the driver-firmware relation still be a depends?
No,
Title:
The Secret on How PORN STARS Grew Big DICKS !
The answer is here.
Turn off notifications here.
.
CQ International
Exports Ltd
St. #1469Belize City,
Belize
.
25 matches
Mail list logo
