On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 07:38:39PM +0100, Dave Howe wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > So where did the above "PDF and PS are programming languages" argument
> > come from? References, please!
>
> PDF and PS *are* programming languages, and quite powerful ones.
> However, they are entirely interpreted -
Francesco Poli writes:
> When there is no source (== preferred form for making modifications)
> available, I do not think we should call the work DFSG-free.
I would clarify the ambiguity of “available”: The upstream
developer, by definition, has available a preferred form of the work
for making
MJ Ray wrote:
> So where did the above "PDF and PS are programming languages" argument
> come from? References, please!
PDF and PS *are* programming languages, and quite powerful ones.
However, they are entirely interpreted - the output of a pdf "compiler"
would be a static image, not a pdf docum
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 17:40:06 -0400 Greg Harris wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:52:45 +0200
> Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > As far as I am concerned, I do *not* want to separate documentation
> > and programs from fonts, graphics, sounds, and so forth.
> > I am convinced that *all* these works need
Chow Loong Jin writes:
> Either way, remuco's upstream author has informed me that the WTK
> dependency can be dropped and replaced with MicroEmu, which appears
> to be LGPL. When I have time, I'll work on packaging that, as it
> doesn't seem to be in Debian yet.
Thanks for the update and good n
In message <49d496cc.yviehl9rqvhommxs%...@phonecoop.coop>, MJ Ray
writes
So where did the above "PDF and PS are programming languages" argument
come from? References, please!
No references, sorry, but I certainly got the impression from the books
I had years ago (PostScript reference manuals
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:52:45 +0200
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 23:02:06 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> [...]
> > It's reasonable for you to hold the position that this is "not
> > free". But that's not what the DFSG says; and before someone tries
> > to change the DFSG to say thi
On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 15:37 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> I disagree, seeing PDFs as being like intermediate code rather than
> source code, but both gammu and remuco claim to be under the GPL, so
> require good source for their applets, so let's not have this debate
> here now.
Both gammu and remuco come
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 23:02:06 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
> It's reasonable for you to hold the position that this is "not free". But
> that's not what the DFSG says; and before someone tries to change the DFSG
> to say this, I would recommend someone try to come up with a brighter line
> to
Steve Langasek wrote: [...]
> The argument used to justify the claim that the DFSG requires source for PDF
> and PS files is that PDF and PS are programming languages. [...]
I asked that we not have this argument here and now, because this case
involves applets under the GPL, so the PDF-source p
10 matches
Mail list logo
