Hello folks,
since some time we are developing a set of shell scripts in order to set
up a environment for xterminals and diskless workstations.
We provide the following capabilities
- install a chroot environment with debootstrap
- create a proper initrd
- create a custom kernel
- create a
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lots of people cannot write or modify C code, but we accept as free
many programs that include C code. The user being inexpert in some
technique does not render a thing non-free.
But something being *not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The relevant distinction is whether whether or not we consider there to
be an adequate abstraction barrier between the two pieces of code.
Other distinctions don't really matter.
Then why you keep talking about where firmware is stored?
Drivers for firmware, where the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The relevant distinction is whether whether or not we consider there to
be an adequate abstraction barrier between the two pieces of code.
Other distinctions don't really matter.
Then why you keep talking about where firmware is stored?
Huh?
On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lots of people cannot write or modify C code, but we accept as free
many programs that include C code. The user being inexpert in some
technique does not render a
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lots of people cannot write or modify C code, but we accept as free
many programs that include C code. The user being inexpert
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A BIOS is normally stored in binary form as executable or
interpretable code plus associated data. Most people would call
executable code in binary form software; Debian uses a broader
definition than that. The real question is why you think that
* Paul Hampson:
As I understand it, the issue is that anything in the Debian
archive is considered to be distributed with Debian, and so
the GPL's exception for libraries that come with the OS
doesn't apply since the application also comes with the OS.
(In GPL's terms, the OS comes with the
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
will happily present you with a copy of your system firmware (assuming
you're on x86). If you run ndisasm over it, you'll find it's x86 machine
code. You can even extract bits of it and run them. It looks
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 03:38:34PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Drivers for firmware, where the driver would typically be non-functional
if we didn't ship some non-free software image, we've been treating as
depending on non-free
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
/why/ those freedoms are no longer necessary. What is it about that code
that makes the ability to modify and distribute modified varients less
interesting?
It's not that it's a less interesting
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 02:21:24AM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
However, non-free is not part of Debian (as per the social
contract) so it would be OK to put GPL'd programs that
depend on OpenSSL into non-free?
The GPL special exception doesn't care about part of vs. not part of.
What matters
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
mozilla _wants_ us to make some changes to the thunderbird package in order to
not infringe their trademarks.
So what do they basically want? They basically want us to comply to the
community editions terms as described in [1]. This implies
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Paul Hampson wrote:
As I understand it, the issue is that anything in the Debian
archive is considered to be distributed with Debian, and so
the GPL's exception for libraries that come with the OS
doesn't apply since the application also comes with the OS.
(In GPL's
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Cc:ed because I've no idea if you read the list)
People distributing works derived from the default Debian package of
Thunderbird will have to also comply with the mozilla.org trademark policies,
or
remove the trademarks entirely from the package.
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Alexander Sack wrote:
Hi,
mozilla _wants_ us to make some changes to the thunderbird package
in order to not infringe their trademarks.
So what do they basically want? They basically want us to comply to
the community editions terms as described in [1]. This implies
On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 04:47:06PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Paul Hampson wrote:
As I understand it, the issue is that anything in the Debian
archive is considered to be distributed with Debian, and so
the GPL's exception for libraries that come with the OS
doesn't
17 matches
Mail list logo
