or the Eclipse
license that prevents Eclipse from going in Main.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 10:21:23PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
The kernel has an exemption. This has been pointed out more than
once.
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Irrelevant:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 07:43:27PM
[3] Debian dependencies. [The GPL doesn't seem to have any requirements
in this area.]
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 09:06:31PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
Actually, it does. The GPL says (with some parts elided)
If sections are separate works, then this License does not apply to
those
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 10:21:23PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
The kernel has an exemption. This has been pointed out more than
once.
Irrelevant:
The kernel supplies kernel-specific #include files which are incorporated
into C program.
Kaffe doesn't supply any such thing -- no one has
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 08:07:56AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
That is clear about *a* copyright holder. It is not necessarily true
about all of them. There have been times where Linus's interpretation
was not shared by all: Linus has said he has no objection to
distributing binary firmware
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:16:37PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Summary: Canadian law has a few interesting differences from US law,
but I reach the same main conclusions -- the GPL is a valid offer of
contract; technical distinctions like linking vs. interpretation
are irrelevant to its
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 09:53:16AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
If you use Eclipse with a JVM, then to the extent that a combined work
is created, it is created by the user or by the JVM.
For the record, I disagree with this line of reasoning. I think
it's misleading, and I see no need for it.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 02:31:45PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
No, it talks about *any* copies at all, and then excepts mere
aggregation. If there's code written by Debian, no matter how brief,
to run them together, then it's not merely aggregation.
You've asserted this many times.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:33:08PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
If you can't release your modifications under the same terms as the
original, then it isn't DFSG-Free.
I can think of a couple obvious exceptions to this:
[1] Where a program is offered under optional terms, some of which
are
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 05:57:54PM +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Now, before you go off ranting about Kaffe's native libraries, please
take a moment to let the fact sink in that while these native libraries
are the result of Kaffe developers being a somewhat clever bunch at
developing
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 01:39:09PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But what ends up on the user's Debian system when he types apt-get
install eclipse; eclipse is a program incorporating a JVM and many
libraries. Debian's not just distributing Eclipse or just
distributing Kaffe -- the idea
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 04:44:39PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But you can see that it's not mere aggregation, because they invoke
each other when run.
Evidence is not proof.
--
Raul
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 07:08:23PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
It is also legal to sell all the ingredients for a bomb, along with
instructions needed to build one. However, building and using the
bomb is most likely illegal.
As a general rule, bombs are not copyrighted works.
--
Raul
--
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:29:13PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
copyrightable. To get at the cases the FSF is shooting for, they
would have to use terms of art instead of derivative or collective
works, and would have to insert far more draconian provisions to
create an action for breach
Is this relevant to Eclipse? I was under the impression that Eclipse
was pure java -- that it did not use JNI at all.
If Eclipse does use JNI, would still a question about whether or not
Kaffe's JNI implementation constitute some kind of extension designed
to work around the GPL or
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 07:08:23PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
It is also legal to sell all the ingredients for a bomb, along with
instructions needed to build one. However, building and using the
bomb is most likely illegal.
As a general rule, bombs are not copyrighted works.
--
Raul
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:19:36PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
However, when the interpreter is extended to provide bindings to
other facilities (often, but not necessarily, libraries), the
...
Do you understand that an
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:18:21PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
To make what I fear explicit, here is a fleshed-out scenario:
1. A writes a program and releases it under the current CPL.
2. B takes A's program, hacks on it, distributes his Contributions
on a website under the current
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:35:50PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
But was Kaffe _extended_ to provide such bindings for Eclipse 3.0?
This FAQ entry discusses 2 cases. One is when we have an interpreter,
that basically goes over the pseudo-code and purely interprets it
(an old BASIC
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:29:13PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
copyrightable. To get at the cases the FSF is shooting for, they
would have to use terms of art instead of derivative or collective
works, and would have to insert far more draconian provisions to
create an action for breach
Is this relevant to Eclipse? I was under the impression that Eclipse
was pure java -- that it did not use JNI at all.
If Eclipse does use JNI, would still a question about whether or not
Kaffe's JNI implementation constitute some kind of extension designed
to work around the GPL or
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:37:28 -0500, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's laws and precedents -- particularly those grouped under the principle
which is termed contributory infringement which makes it true.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:13:58PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
What laws
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:58:38PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Right. But whether it will run isn't a copyright criterion, any more
than whether a work of criticism will make any sense if not read
side-by-side with the work it critiques.
Sure, and evidence isn't proof.
If it can be
[Note: I don't know enough about Eclipse and Kaffe to make any comments
on that specific issue. Instead, I'm responding to some of the things
Michael has written.]
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:41:08PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
You know, just because the FSF has claimed for many years that
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:37:28 -0500, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's laws and precedents -- particularly those grouped under the principle
which is termed contributory infringement which makes it true.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:13:58PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
What laws
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:58:38PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Right. But whether it will run isn't a copyright criterion, any more
than whether a work of criticism will make any sense if not read
side-by-side with the work it critiques.
Sure, and evidence isn't proof.
If it can be
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:38:34PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
I dare you to package the golden arches as clipart.
Or Mr. Peanut.
What good would that accomplish?
[I'm hoping you can give me a meaningful answer.]
Also, is there some reason to represent a Mr. Peanut instead of just
a regular
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 09:08:09PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
It clearly states that some elements of an illustration are
protectable. A young boy with dark hair and eyeglasses is
not protectable, but a young boy with eyeglasses, similar facial
featurs, style and color of hair *clearly
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 10:46:09PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Actually, that's not entirely true. To the extent that a chunk of
published code is purely functional and lacking in creative
expression, or meets either the de minimis or the fair use
standard of affirmative defense,
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 02:22:33PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
have the right to do something without a license (although we might;
it may not be patented), just as we might not have the right to copy a
Or there might be prior art, which means that the patent is without merit.
Typically,
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 04:21:32PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But in the case of the GPL, he's not bound. It's just that he's
already issued the license -- or are you talking about some case other
than an author releasing his own works under the GPL?
I don't think he's claiming that
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 10:03:44PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Note that this email message is subject to copyright, and can't legally
be reprinted without permission (except for fair use, such as quotation
rights). Under pre-1986 US law, it would be public domain, because I
didn't affix a
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 05:19:04PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
The only form in which the GPL can be read as requiring any conduct
from licensees (such as the provision of copies of source code on
demand and the extension of the GPL to the licensee's copyright in
derived works) is as an
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Josh Triplett wrote:
If the firmware we have packaged in non-free comes standard on the
device, then the driver does not need a copy of the firmware, so it does
not have a dependency on it.
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:21:52PM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Hm? The driver
On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 10:41:08AM -0500, Dave Harding wrote:
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sat, 01 Jan 2005 10:06:17 -0500
said:
So we have to therefore say beyond a certain level of change,
please remove our trademarks.
What purpose is served by Mozilla licensing
On Sat, Jan 01, 2005 at 11:33:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
Please suggest any case which you don't think this criteria adequately
covers.
The bios.
Unless, we decide that the bios we put in non-free isn't the bios we
need to boot the machine.
--
Raul
On Sat, Jan 01, 2005 at 07:49:15PM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
Again, a fair point. Although the impact of this event is arguably less
than the same issue with a code licence. After all, if the code licensor
(e.g. UWash) goes bad on you, that's the end of the package.
Only for non-free
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 05:02:15PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
The social contract says ...but we will never make the system depend on
an item of non-free software. not but we will never make the system
depend on an item of non-free software /which we must distribute/.
We don't make 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
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
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 04:58:52PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
to support this. The obvious thing to do here is not to attempt to find
a way that we can interpret the SC that makes sense - the obvious thing
to do here is to decide what we want the SC to say and then change it so
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 11:46:19PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: It
may be helpful to think of your hard drive as a computer. At that
point, the firmware is clearly software for the hard drive - it's a
string of bytes that is executed. The rest of the hard drive is
hardware. If something is
[let's see if I can keep from screwing up the formatting on this one.]
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 04:26:59PM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote:
I think the scenario They moved the firmware from a chip to a CD, so we
can't distribute a driver any more is ridiculous. Any attempt to modify
the rules to
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 04:26:26PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Yet the ICQ client is not useful without a component which is not in
Debian and in fact is not freely available.
Same thing applies to hardware drivers. And, for that matter, all of
the kernel.
--
Raul
No: it's reporting that the card did activate correctly, but it's not
the driver's fault. The driver is complete and does not lack anything
needed to operate the device.
On Dec 19, Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...except the firmware?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 11:29:47PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
And this is probably the reason we have thousands of (probably
invalid) software patents instead.
Copyright law is only a minor part of that issue.
--
Raul
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
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
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 Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 11:20:06AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
I've been asked for advice regarding copyleft (GPL-like) font
licensing.
Without special exceptions, the GPL is not a suitable license for
fonts because it is common practice to embed fonts (or subsets of
fonts) into PDF
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 11:20:06AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Without special exceptions, the GPL is not a suitable license for
fonts because it is common practice to embed fonts (or subsets of
fonts) into PDF documents (and other document formats). In this
scenario, the GPL would
Why would subsetting be a problem?
I don't see anything in the GPL which requires source for things
which have been left out of the program being required.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 04:53:02PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
The subsetted font is not the preferred form of doing modifications
[just some minor additions.]
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 09:20:14PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
No, I argue that because you've pried chips off the board, the
hardware is broken.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 09:39:59PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Er, no. Flash can be overwritten with
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 09:47:07PM +0100, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
Well, lets make it practical. netPanzer is in both Debian testing and
unstable, it is full of sprites which are based on 3d models, the 3d
models files itself however are not distributed with it and most likly
never will be since
a) declare that the images as they are are 'enough' to be considered
'prefered form of modification' and leave it as it is
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the 3d models were available, I imagine they'd be the preferred form
for modification.
Since they're not available
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 02:04:12AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
If you create a model, and render a PNG with that model, the source for
the PNG is the model. Okay, that's easy; we all probably agree here.
This assumes that artists can't use software, or equipment, which are
primarily designed
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 02:04:12AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
If you create a model, and render a PNG with that model, the source for
the PNG is the model. Okay, that's easy; we all probably agree here.
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 08:17:17AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
This assumes that artists
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 12:15:57PM -0500, Christopher Priest wrote:
Is this helpful
http://web.archive.org/web/2711071330/sanjose.alteon.com/license-agree.shtml
This license doesn't let us distribute the software.
This is pretty clearly stated in the first two sentences of the first
two
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 05:14:56AM +0100, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
Well, its a practical problem that some people are facing and that
applies to a whole bunch of free software. Its not necesarry the
unwillingness of the author, might also be that the images simply got
lost over time, that textures
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 04:00:03PM -0500, Christopher Priest wrote:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html I'd see any action going the
way of discussions first and then correction. If it actually went to court,
I'd expect a claim for statutory damages as there are no real damages.
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
If there is -- if Wontshare in some way tries to enforce the use of
readline, then this non-distributable product is being distributed
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 07:31:06AM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Why? Distributing X, which relies on Y, isn't the same
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 01:45:33PM -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote:
I don't think it's feasible for us to create separate non-at, non-cn,
non-za, etc. package repositories. It'd just be ridiculous for users in
one country to assemble a sources.list from lists of packages that may
or may not be
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
If I ship some product in three parts, such that the combination of those
three parts is consistently assembled and used, then I'm distributing
that product.
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 02:36:42PM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Says who?
That was me
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 10:01:04PM +, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
Hopefully that then makes them query what is going on, and they won't be
keen to do business with Mr Wontshare.
More likely, they'll just use editline. Since that's what Wontshare's
software is built against and distributed
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 11:07:02AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
If it isn't creative, it isn't a work under copyright law. See, e.g.,
Fesit v. Rural Telephone Service, holdings (a) and (b).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=casecourt=USvol=499invol=340
A problem
On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 01:51:56AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
So you say that non-free software is OK with you as long as you can
pretend it's not there? Which part of the policy or SC justifies this
theory?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I ignore something as a part of a system when
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 07:11:33PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
How do you define what is part of our system, and from what you derive
this definition?
Fundamentally, everything we put in Main is a part of our system. I get
that definition from looking at debian cds, installing debian on
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 09:53:21PM +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
What I am concerned about is the following scenario:
Mr. John Wontshare writes a streaming multicast client.
To deal with packet loss, he uses my error-correcting library.
Without my library, Mr. Wontshare's client can't
You're asking why I think can be flashed, but works just fine without
being flashed is different from won't work without being loaded?
Fundamentally, the latter case forces us to not ignore it. The equipment
won't work if we ignore the issue.
On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 01:51:56AM +0100,
You're asking why I think can be flashed, but works just fine without
being flashed is different from won't work without being loaded?
Fundamentally, the latter case forces us to not ignore it. The equipment
won't work if we ignore the issue.
On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 01:51:56AM +0100, Marco
Raul Miller a écrit :
Those boot loaders are not in main.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 08:21:53AM +0200, Benoit PAPILLAULT wrote:
Which bootloaders are you talking about?
So far, lilo/grub/yaboot are in main.
I was talking about the prior bootloader stage in rom (typically in the
bios), which
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 11:11:23AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Then let's forget for a minute boot loaders. What about all drivers
which interact with non-free software stored in computers and their
peripherals?
I think you're forgetting about more than boot loaders, since this has
been
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 08:38:21AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
So not only is there a runtime dependency from the boot loader to the
BIOS, but there is a Build-Depends-like dependency as well. I still
see no conflict with the SC or Policy.
I'm not sure if this is because you just plain can't
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 10:55:57AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
We ignore that bios dependency because it's trivial to write the software
which serves that role, but in most cases practically impossible to
change the hardware to use the resulting software.
In other words, it's a hardware
Note that we do treat dependencies on software we do not distribute as
real dependencies.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 01:20:12AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
In the goal of seeking consistency, I think this requires mass bug
filing against packages with unmet dependencies, including:
We have
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure it does. The Debian Free Software Guidelines only apply to
software. Hardware is hard, not soft.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 12:40:02PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
That's an unfortunate circumstance of naming. Anything that we could
We have traditionally ignored boot loaders because they're outside
our scope. The reason they're outside our scope is not because we don't
treat them as software but that we can't take control of a system without
using a boot loader.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 04:33:39PM +0200, Andreas
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 10:41:07AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
We do it that way because it's not practical to do it the other way?
Except for GR 2004-004, when has that been good enough to ignore the
SC?
If I were ignoring the social contract your question might have some
relevance.
What we
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Software which we don't and can't ship, which is a part of the platform
we're running on, which is not application code, and which basically is
outside the scope of the project is software we ignore.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 05:50:09PM +0100, Matthew
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 08:27:47PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Regardless of whether works and components mean the same as
software, a computer's BIOS is a work, component and software.
Commercial IM and Microsoft Exchange servers are works and software
(and a component, but not clearly a
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 10:56:58AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
I explained my principles at the beginning of the discussion, and I do
not feel the need to state them again because they are not relevant here:
How about something that is relevant, then?
If that's not possible, maybe you don't
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 08:05:34AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
They are useful only for people who agree with you about certain
premises.
This sentence is true of all communication.
The premises typically being the definitions of the words used.
Examples: the firmware is software rather than
Another premise which would work better is that firmware is somewhere
between hardware and software and that there are circumstances where it
makes sense to treat firmware as hardware and other circumstances where
it makes sense to treat firmware as software. I feel that this premise
is
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems clear to me that the distinction here is whether we
treat the firmware in question as software or hardware.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 12:32:22AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The firmware that we are talking about is, in every case I've actually
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 05:36:36PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
I don't see how adding support for handling contrib udebs would actually
create a dependency; it just makes it possible to install them if
desired.
It doesn't create the dependency -- it just forces us to recognize their
contents
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's different because, when the firmware is built into the device,
the person who has the device has the firmware.
Note that this difference is similar in character to the difference
between main and contrib.
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 01:39:03PM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In cases where firmware is basically indistinguishable from hardware,
we treat it as hardware, and not as software.
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 12:27:09PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Really? Which part of policy states this?
Historical practice.
--
Raul
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I said similar, not identical.
The difference I was referring to was the difference of convenience --
using software from contrib requires a few extra steps. Similarly,
using an external copy of firmware requires a few extra steps.
On Tue, Oct 26
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
So if I have a program which loads a library, and replace the library
with random data, the program will continue to do what I expect and
what I can follow by reading its source. It is the library that will
not perform, not living up to its end of the
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. What course of action do you advocate?
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 04:12:20PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Modify the social contract to create a new section that would be
distributed alongside main, and put the firmware in there.
This is the
In cases where firmware is basically indistinguishable from hardware,
we treat it as hardware, and not as software.
Really? Which part of policy states this?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Historical practice.
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 06:07:28PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
OK, thank you for
That said, it sounds like the drivers do behave differently depending on
the firmware -- you've asserted that the difference is not of interest
to the driver, but that's not at all the same as asserting that there
is no difference.
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 01:47:06PM -0400, Michael Poole
Raul Miller writes:
It's a matter of point of view.
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 03:42:41PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
I am quite certain that you have never worked with the drivers I was
describing, and the chance you have worked with any of the boards is
nearly zero. Your assumption
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 04:42:45PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
No, the entire point was to make it clear that, as far as the Social
Contract is concerned, everything in Debian is software. (This is
my understanding, based both on the changes made by 2004-003 and the
discussions surrounding
This is the wrong mailing list for that sort of proposal.
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 08:32:47PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
That's why I'm not actively proposing it here. Brian asked me a
question, and I answered it.
In that case, perhaps you should take your discussion elsewhere?
Correct me
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 06:46:34PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
How many significant free examples of DVD content are there?
I have Debian main (sarge) on DVD, so there's at least one example.
If you're talking about audio-visual materials, I imagine that the right
way to find such materials
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 01:18:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Get real. Software does not change its nature depending on the media
it's stored on.
Some aspects do change. But it's true that what a person thinks about
that software doesn't need to change (depending on the person doing the
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 12:52:19PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Brian, we are talking about identical code.
Are we?
Software doesn't stop being software if it's burned into a ROM instead
of being supplied with the OS.
It does, however, cease to be a dependency issue if those who have the
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 02:21:03PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Whichever argument you're using, it leads to the following situation. A
vendor releases a piece of hardware. It requires run-time loadable
firmware. We put the driver in contrib. A customer comes to the vendor
and asks for a
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It does strike me as a bit mad, to suggest that hardware vendors are
going to be redesign their hardware, to move a driver from debian contrib
to main.
If it were that important to them, they'd should have done it right in
the first place.
On Mon
301 - 400 of 1213 matches
Mail list logo
