it to the level of the 3-clause BSD license, which
also prohibits endorsement or promotion; as has been previously
discussed on debian-legal, stating endorsement or promotion is already
prohibited without permission.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
is unfortunate for DFSG10 to be interpreted as an
exception to the rest of the DFSG, rather than as a list of a few
examples of licenses which follow the rest of the DFSG.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
en the acceptance of ffmpeg, I can't think of any reason an XviD
package would be rejected. (Of course, until it is, mplayer still can't
be uploaded linked with it.)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
The other software
license could theoretically do so, but does not in this case. This
would imply that GDAL would have to go into contrib, since this library
is non-free.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
icense exceptions, then no. File a bug
at severity "serious", stating that either the software needs to be
built against lesstif (if possible), or removed from Debian. (In the
latter case, the bug should be reassigned to ftp.debian.org.)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
lipse. If it can, why not Sable-VM or
> some other non-GPL'd JVM?
If you mean gcj and gij, then yes, it can; gcj can even be used to
natively-compile Eclipse. Also, at least according to the SableVM
changelog, SableVM can now run Eclipse as well.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
How is this different from
> your case?
Hold on a second. You seem to be arguing against the established
interpretation of the GPL here: at least according to the FSF, you may
not distribute the GPL-incompatible Foo compiled against GNU readline,
linked or not.
- Josh Triplett
signature.
ormer case, the clause doesn't
affect you, and in the latter case, we aren't talking about the
swpat-free jurisdiction.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ns are necessary, you could add a (non-binding)
clarification stating that "program" corresponds to "text" and "object
code" corresponds to "typeset form", and add an exception to any clauses
you don't care about. However, I don't think that's a good idea, and I
don't think people will be confused by a GPLed document.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[I seem to have missed responding to one of your important points.
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:33:35 -0800, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>That's the *point* of the GPL: to create a set of software
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:33:35 -0800, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>That's the *point* of the GPL: to create a set of software available for
>>use by GPLed applications, giving those applications an advantage. If
>>GPLed comp
about.
Being "not-the-GPL" is certainly notable when an overwhelming majority
of Free Software is GPLed. (Justification for that statement: "Make
Your Software GPL-Compatible or Else", by David A. Wheeler.)
Regardless, even if you don't like the copyleft provisions of the GPL, I
see no reason to be *GPL-incompatible* because of that. The LGPL exists
for the "weak copyleft" purpose you describe, of protecting the program
itself but not things that link to it. Use the 2-clause BSD or the MIT
license if you want a complete lack of copyleft and want to allow people
to do whatever they want with your code. Use the GPL with an exception
clause if you want the copyleft of the GPL but want to permit usage over
a particular interface, or otherwise provide a wider set of allowable
actions for proprietary software (or GPL-incompatible software). All of
these are GPL-compatible.
> As a contributor to any of these projects, access to the others'
> source code without permission to copy it gives me no freedom that I
> don't already have with a decent shelf of CS textbooks containing
> similar ideas. Perhaps I should have asked, this is a commons?
No one has said that a sea of incompatible licenses is a commons. The
intent of the GPL is to create a *GPLed/GPL-compatible* commons.
Admittedly, this does not include GPL-incompatible software (which to
the GPL, is no different from proprietary software). I see no easy way
to avoid this, and all copyleft licenses have basically the same problem.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
gest that
the points of view that most people tend to believe (both on and off of
-legal) is more correct will attract accusations of bias by the summarizer.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
inate their rights to *use* the program, only to copy, modify, and
distribute it.
>>You want C to lose any patent licences granted for program #49. How does
>>that help defend program #49 and hedge software patents?
>
> When did I say that it did? The proper way to defend the program against
> party C is by shooting him, obviously; but that's out of scope for copyright
> licenses.
Heh. :)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
TML under the GPL. That way, the
current package in non-free could simply be moved to main without
waiting for a new version, solving your problem entirely.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:37:03 -0800, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Michael K. Edwards wrote:
>>>Encouraging competitive interoperation is a valid public policy goal,
>>>pursued fairly consistently by the courts in the ca
Josh Triplett wrote:
> I agree that this proposition is not specific enough about the types of
> conditions that we consider acceptable. I would propose the following
> addition to the above text, which I believe specifies a set of
> acceptable conditions that many on -lega
mechanism
> through which software works. That is why rules about static linking
> versus dynamic linking versus I/O streams versus other IPC can only be
> rules of thumb. They can hint at the type of relationship, but do not
> determine it.
Agreed entirely.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
rammers are employed to do.
>>>They might also be in the interest of the egos of the maintainers of
>>>some GPL components which would be overdue for a rewrite if
>>>mission-critical projects depended on them. Everyone else loses out.
>>
>>Everone else, with a few million exceptions, sure.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. Who are those few million people,
> and what have they gained?
Among others, the millions of Free Software users who benefit through
the creation of more Free Software.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
uestion infringes their
patent(s).
However, many software licenses choose to go further than that,
requiring that distributors refrain entirely from engaging in patent
lawsuits against any authors of the software, regardless of whether
those lawsuits are related to the software or not. We do not support
the practice of patenting software, but we find it unacceptable for
licenses to place requirements which pertain to other, independent
works. We believe this policy is consistent with the principles behing
in Debian Free Software Guideline 9, "License Must Not Contaminate Other
Software".
"""
What do others think of this proposal?
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
n't get copyrights for works they author.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:10:57 -0800, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>On the other hand, a program written againt a unique GPLed
>>library, with no other implementation, is almost certainly a derivative
>>work of th
itten in ANSI C is certainly not a derivative of glibc or any other C
library. On the other hand, a program written againt a unique GPLed
library, with no other implementation, is almost certainly a derivative
work of that library: you are combining two expressive and copyrightable
works into a new whole which is greater than either.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
the issue of whether a program is a derived work
or not. Linus has stated on several occasions that the statement he has
made regarding the user/kernel boundary and the GPL was simply a
clarification regarding "derived works": a program written to standard
UNIX interfaces is clearly not a deriva
t allow modifications and derived works, and must
> allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of
> the original software.
If you can't release your modifications under the same terms as the
original, then it isn't DFSG-Free.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 01:05:27AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>>I don't know what was meant, but I know what it should mean: imagine a
>>>work under a copyleft-like license, which insisted that all
>>>
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 01:05:27AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>>I don't know what was meant, but I know what it should mean: imagine a
>>>work under a copyleft-like license, which insisted that all
>>>
n under either the
same license or under a non-redistributable proprietary license (with
various definitions for "proprietary"). In this case, there are no
actions which may only be performed by the original copyright holder;
*everyone* could take the code proprietary. This license seems
obnox
n under either the
same license or under a non-redistributable proprietary license (with
various definitions for "proprietary"). In this case, there are no
actions which may only be performed by the original copyright holder;
*everyone* could take the code proprietary. This license seems
obnox
worth worrying about, the same
thing is quite avoidable in the case of the GPL. If you don't trust the
FSF for whatever reason, you can always redistribute under GPL 2 only,
not permitting later versions of the GPL.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
nal_
purpose, it can no more be trademarked than the names of functions in an
API.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
worth worrying about, the same
thing is quite avoidable in the case of the GPL. If you don't trust the
FSF for whatever reason, you can always redistribute under GPL 2 only,
not permitting later versions of the GPL.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
nal_
purpose, it can no more be trademarked than the names of functions in an
API.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Justin Pryzby wrote:
>>>ftpparse.c heading:
>>>
>>> Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
>>> you're using this in.
>>>
&g
ant number of Debian's ten-thousand packages
had such conditions. Other debian-legal denizens may be able to offer
advice on good ways to approach the upstream developer.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Justin Pryzby wrote:
>>>ftpparse.c heading:
>>>
>>> Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
>>> you're using this in.
>>>
&g
ant number of Debian's ten-thousand packages
had such conditions. Other debian-legal denizens may be able to offer
advice on good ways to approach the upstream developer.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ware* infringes a patent, you lose the entire license. 8.2b
says that if you sue a Participant over *any patent*, you lose *only
their patent license for the software*. Hence Matthew's statement that
"It terminates a right we don't require in the first place.".
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 07, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I'll assume for the moment you are only disagreeing with the
>>driver->firmware dependencies, not the client->server dependencies,
>>since the latter is standard Debian poli
Michael Poole wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Michael Poole wrote:
>>>Josh Triplett writes:
>>>
>>>>If the ICQ server were packaged in the Debian non-free section, would
>>>>you make ICQ clients Depends: or Recommend
un, the
larger package expresses only a Suggests relationship on the other
package. Therefore, by the dependency-based test, the larger package
can go to main.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Matthias Klose wrote:
> Josh Triplett writes:
>>Matthias Klose wrote:
>>
>>>CC'ing debian-legal, please could you have a look at the license?
>>
>>The question being "is this acceptable to go into non-free"?
>
> exactly.
OK.
> I ask
Michael Poole wrote:
> Josh Triplett writes:
>>If the ICQ server were packaged in the Debian non-free section, would
>>you make ICQ clients Depends: or Recommends: on the ICQ server? If not,
>>then if the ICQ server were packaged, the ICQ client would still be in
>&g
ot related to the software terminates the patentee's
> license, which seems unreasonable.
This clause does indeed seem to terminate your patent license from that
one participant if you sue that participant over any patent, which is
far stronger than the previous clause, and possibly problematic (though
still better than clauses that terminate the copyright license).
I think (a) is not a problem at all, but (b) might be.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 06, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>An ICQ client wouldn't Depends: icq-server; it might Suggests:
>>icq-server, but that's OK. A driver might at most Suggests:
>>burned-in-firmware-for-reflashing, but it w
in.
If we don't use a mechanism similar to this, then we end up in a
situation where if the firmware becomes distributable, ends up in
Debian, and the driver can then express proper dependencies, the driver
would have to move to contrib. That would make no sense.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
see when people are
suggesting things like "installer" packages for non-free software, as a
way to work around such dependencies. Otherwise, someone could claim
that any package in contrib could be in main, because it only depends on
apt, not the non-free software it fetches and uses. :)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
is Free Software, and you may download an unsupported
version for no charge from our site. However, you may also purchase a
supported version for $49.95, and you will get the added benefit of
support from the original developers.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
o wants Free Software will take the GPLed version, and the only people
who purchase proprietary licenses will be those who *want* proprietary
licenses that work with their proprietary software.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Andrew Suffield wrote:
>>
>>>Frankly, I think we were better off in the days when copyright had to
>>>be explicitly claimed.
>>>
>>>Anybody who doesn't know enou
ds like Mozilla may not be one of those cases.)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:25:49PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>>Yes, this is what SUCKS about current copyright law. The presumption is
>>>"All
>>>rights reserved unless you have explicit permission".
>>
>>Somehow,
; lot of the crap we see.
I agree entirely. I also agree with the various proposals to revoke the
copyright grant when the copyright holder ceases to care about it.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
only
difference between this situation and that one is that we like the
license change in one of them. :)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
) that it will continue to be maintained for
the forseeable future.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
NG file in the package contains a copy of the GPL.
The only other script in the package, freedb/index.cgi, also contains a
GPL header and the same author's copyright.
There is no licensing bug in this package, but there is a bug in that
the debian/copyright file does not include the full GPL i
"Build-Depends" relationship on a non-_main_
> package),
, the parenthetical would need to be updated to make it clear that it
still applies even if the dependencies are not expressed because the
package is not in the archive.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
s are still
proprietary and sourceless. Suppose the GNU/Linux version had this
functionality. Would we still put ZSNES in contrib? I don't know that
I have a consistent answer to that particular question.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
y kind of distribution is also no problem, as there is no derived
> product involved.
As mentioned in another of my messages to this thread, Debian packages
often contain differences from the upstream version.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Package: php4-xdbg
>>Description: debugging aid for PHP scripts, based on xdebug
>> Xdbg is a debugging aid for PHP scripts. It provides various debug
>> information about your script...
>> [f
Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 08:59:06PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Justin Pryzby wrote:
>>>What kind of license is associated with code produced by Yacc?
>>Presuming this modified yacc isn't trivially replaceable with a Free
>>yacc, this woul
n-free yacc implementation, that
won't work here.
Presuming this modified yacc isn't trivially replaceable with a Free
yacc, this would prevent these packages from being uploadable to main.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
description]
.
The upstream version of Xdbg is called "Xdebug". Since the Debian
version may contain bugfixes, patches, or other differences from the
upstream version, the Xdebug license requires Debian to use a
different name.
Also note that the requirement to change the product name presumably
does not extend to the actual module names and file names used in the
package; those should be unchanged, so that PHP scripts which require
Xdebug still work.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
connect to a wifi
> lan is the same situation as with grub not being able to load XP without
> the XP bootsector, if there were a free firmware with the same API I
> would be able to load and use it.
I don't think you can equate those two. In the case of Grub, there are
many existing Free OSes it could boot, several of which we provide. In
the case of this driver, no Free firmware exists, and hypothesizing that
one _could_ exist does not allow the package into main, any more than
hypothesizing that a Free replacement for some library a contrib package
requires would allow that package into main.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
is
> assumed that terminology used in the License has
> the same meaning in both versions. Should,
> however, differences arise, such meaning is
> authoritative which best brings into line both
> versions, taking into consideration the aim and
> purpose of the Lice
://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException , which
provides the text of a much more generic exception statement, avoiding
the mention of specific technologies.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 11:47:34AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Note that since you are creating an embedded system, the size of all
>>these files may be an issue. I believe you could legally supply them
>>separately as long as they are supplied in
n a Free purpose such as a copyleft.
Overall, they seem to be just like any other company that supplies both
a Free copylefted version and a proprietary "buy this if you want to
keep your stuff secret" version of their software.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
h packages your software
is based on to supply more information.
I hope that helps you with your project. Thank you for contacting
debian-legal, and for taking the time and consideration to comply with
Free Software licenses.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[Just realized that I only sent this to Matthias Klose and the bug, but
not to debian-legal. This mail is to debian-legal only to avoid
duplicates; Mail-Followup-To set to everyone.]
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
>
>>CC'ing debian-legal, please could you h
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:22:56 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Agreed. For the same reason, I wonder why one particular variant
>>(3-clause, copyright "The Regents of the University of California") of
>>the BSD license is included in /usr/s
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 10:56:14AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>The text of this license is nearly identical to that in
>>/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD, modulo the different copyright holder
>>and the corresponding changes in the third clause and
t of the copyright notice
boilerplate rather than the license. Before the Berne Convention, that
phrase was required in order to assert the full force of copyright law
in many countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_rights_reserved has
a good description of the reasons behind that phrase.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
which doesn't
explicitly specify invariant sections or cover texts should be assumed
to have none.
This still doesn't make it DFSG-free, of course, so a bug should still
be filed. Thank you for raising this issue. If the Debian project is
going to advocate against the GFDL, we should certai
s sent or not,
> but different firmware blobs are used for different boards.
Yes, tg3 is a very interesting case. Since the driver can drive at
least some devices without needing firmware, it can go to main, and the
firmware would be only a Suggests.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
cently.
>
> -Sekar
... this clarification makes the software clearly DFSG-Free (though it
would be preferable if this mail explicitly referred to socket++ and not
just "it" :) ).
> -- Side Note
>
> This ITP is being cross posted to debian-legal for the purpose of verifyi
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>
>>>We could do that, but it couldn't reasonably form part of the standard
>>>debian-installer. A forked d-i doesn't do anyone any favours.
>>
&
license.
You could also try asking der Mouse if the levels are public domain as well.
> The game
> is on the net since 1991 (even though it is pretty unknown),
> and by now there were no objections, AFAIK.
This is not to prove that the game levels are public domain or otherwise
F
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>
>>>It is certainly the case that I would like our users to be able to use
>>>their computers regardless of the mechanism that the vendor uses to ship
>>>fi
s can be relicensed however
you wish; however, don't do that. Instead, note clearly that the
sources are in the public domain, and include the email from der Mouse
authorizing this in the debian/copyright file.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ng an ideological "compromise" solution
for what sounds more like a technical problem.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>>I would disqualify that driver from main not because it depended on a
>>>Windows driver, but because it depended on having Windows itself.
>>
>>I see; so some dependencies on non-free software
ot the device (except for handing the firmware to the
device). The driver is no more complete without the firmware than the
program without the library.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ontrib
could be put in main if the non-free packages on which it depends were
dropped from the Debian archive, which makes no sense.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>However, suppose that your statement were true. Why stop there?
>>Consider the case of a piece of hardware which could not be initialized
>>correctly except by the Windows driver. In order for the device to
e were a new, proprietary 3D graphics
interface, ClosedGL, only implemented by ATI's and nVidia's proprietary
driver. Suppose someone wanted to package a game that used ClosedGL.
Repeat after me: "Programs don't require drivers, hardware devices
require drivers (to provide APIs)". :) So by your arguments, why can't
this game go in main?
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
r/lib/hotplug/firmware/something_or_other), the driver will only
print an error message and return an error code. If that is your
definition of "fully functional", then perhaps we should include all the
programs in contrib that link to non-free shared libraries in main;
after all,
nds for that reason), so it cannot go in main.
Hopefully, MPlayer will be accepted into the archive someday, so that
this will not continue be an issue in the future.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Joel Baker wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 04:59:37PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>>Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
>>
>>>True enough, but as processors get faster, so does bandwidth.
>>>I expect that ultimately, it will always need to be as fast as possi
Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 05:46:07PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>This is clearly not appropriate; it is not "perfectly reasonable" to
>>install a driver package without the firmware, any more than it is
>>reasonable to install a dynamically-l
than most, such as their explicit
note that GPL != non-commercial, as well as a statement that when
someone is "violating the GPL", what they are really violating is
copyright law, since they are distributing without a license.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
eam is happy with
> the license clarification from Sagem, you can keep eagle-usb-data too in
> main for sarge.
Yes, that's correct for Sarge; you may, of course, want to begin working
on the issue, since this will become a release-critical bug immediately
after the Sarge release.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
c License";
there is no such thing as the "GNU Public License", although it is a
rather common misinterpretation.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
lly so. This would be a
loss of functionality.
The correct answer is that on a completely Free system, it never had
that functionality in the first place.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> Since there's one GPL question left, I am still posting to debian-legal.
> The legal question is marked ** for those who want to skip the rest.
>
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 11:49:56AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Whether your universit
x27;s
>>>needs if so required.
>>
>>I have no disagreement with this statement.
I do. Wesley suggested that the software could not do its job
flawlessly when compiled with GCC, because it was too slow to keep up
with "line speeds". This is yet another reason why it is not acceptable
to ship a package in main built with a non-free compiler: if everyone is
using that compiled version, how do you even know the other version is
usable at all? It sounds as though it would not be sufficient for many
applications.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
achine code; if that is indeed your preferred form
for modification, then providing it is sufficient. I seriously doubt
that is a common occurance, and at a minimum it should be clearly
documented if it is the case.)
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ho just want to send debian-legal a
question. Regulars have the advantage of knowing more of the context
and therefore being able to search past discussions more effectively.
As for the proliferation of hardware with non-free firmware, that is
highly unfortunate, but it seems as though it may continu
Loïc Minier wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Mon, Oct 18, 2004:
>>I don't believe you can. In order to distribute software under the GPL,
>>we must provide the "preferred form for modification" of that software,
>>which is the source. From yo
such source
exists but is not being distributed. This means that we do not have the
preferred form for modification available, so we cannot make it
available to others, which means we can't satisfy our obligations under
the GPL, and therefore we cannot distribute the software at all.
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
101 - 200 of 510 matches
Mail list logo
