Måns Rullgård writes:
> Don Armstrong writes:
>
> > Under GPL v3, when we convey a work in a non-source form, we must
> > satisfy all of 6d. That requires making the Corresponding Source
> > available, which we cannot.
> >
> > Under GPL v2, we distribute under 3(a), and that also requires
> > d
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
> > If we don't have the corresponding source, we can't satisfy the
> > GPL, so we cannot distribute (GPLv2 §4, GPLv3 §8).
>
> Your argument, if it can be called that, assumes that the
> requirements of the GPL, or any license, ex
Don Armstrong writes:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Don Armstrong writes:
>> > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> >> More precisely, Debian has the right to distribute such a work, but
>> >> chooses not to do so.
>> >
>> > If a work is GPLed and we do not have the com
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes:
> > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> More precisely, Debian has the right to distribute such a work, but
> >> chooses not to do so.
> >
> > If a work is GPLed and we do not have the complete source for the
> > work, w
Don Armstrong writes:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> More precisely, Debian has the right to distribute such a work, but
>> chooses not to do so.
>
> If a work is GPLed and we do not have the complete source for the
> work, we cannot distribute it under the GPL.
If the work as di
Josselin Mouette writes:
> More precisely: if you are the copyright owner, you can publish it
> in whatever format you like, and if under a free license (e.g. the
> GPL), it will be acceptable for Debian.
Even more precisely: The work is only redistributable under the GPL if
you also make availa
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> More precisely, Debian has the right to distribute such a work, but
> chooses not to do so.
If a work is GPLed and we do not have the complete source for the
work, we cannot distribute it under the GPL. [For non-copyleft works,
however, your statement is
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:20:02 +0100 Thomas Harding wrote:
[...]
> * To upload a "background source package", is it mandatory to use
>an uncompressed format, such as tiff, for photographies, or a
>high-res jpeg format, which is now commonly used by digital
>cameras and well-handled by
Ken Arromdee writes:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> More precisely: if you are the copyright owner, you can publish it in
>> whatever format you like, and if under a free license (e.g. the GPL), it
>> will be acceptable for Debian.
>
> Say what?
>
> If you GPL a program and don
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> More precisely: if you are the copyright owner, you can publish it in
> whatever format you like, and if under a free license (e.g. the GPL), it
> will be acceptable for Debian.
Say what?
If you GPL a program and don't provide source code, Debian doe
Le lundi 29 décembre 2008 à 13:52 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> > * To upload a "background source package", is it mandatory to use
> > an uncompressed format, such as tiff, for photographies, or a
> E.g. this is bullshit.
More precisely: if you are the copyright owner, you can publish it in
t...@thomas-harding.name wrote:
>Anyway, as the content have slightly changed, you'll find the thread in
>debian-legal:
You should not trust everything you read on debian-legal.
> * To upload a "background source package", is it mandatory to use
> an uncompressed format, such as tiff, for phot
12 matches
Mail list logo
