On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 01:28:50 +0100 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 31 décembre 2008 à 09:15 -0800, Ken Arromdee a écrit :
Indeed, but we are not talking of a program but of pictures here.
The same applies if you don't provide the source code for the picture.
No. If you’re the
Le mercredi 31 décembre 2008 à 09:15 -0800, Ken Arromdee a écrit :
Indeed, but we are not talking of a program but of pictures here.
The same applies if you don't provide the source code for the picture.
No. If you’re the copyright owner, you get to decide what is the
preferred form of
Le lundi 29 décembre 2008 à 10:44 -0800, Ken Arromdee a écrit :
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
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:33:48 +0100 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 29 décembre 2008 à 10:44 -0800, Ken Arromdee a écrit :
[...]
If you GPL a program and don't provide source code
Indeed, but we are not talking of a program but of pictures here.
I am convinced that this distinction is
Le mercredi 31 décembre 2008 à 15:50 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit :
Indeed, but we are not talking of a program but of pictures here.
I am convinced that this distinction is (almost) irrelevant from the
GPL point of view.
The relevance comes from the fact that pictures can be their own
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:09:53 +0100 Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 31 décembre 2008 à 15:50 +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit :
Indeed, but we are not talking of a program but of pictures here.
I am convinced that this distinction is (almost) irrelevant from the
GPL point of view.
On Wed, 31 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
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote:
1: I should note that belittling remarks like Your argument, if it
can be called that aren't particularly conducive to polite
conversation or indeed any further consideration of this subthread by
me.
I should note that pontificating about belittling
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 02:17:51 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
[...]
I can easily imagine a photograph where the
preferred form for modification is the depicted scene itself, rather
than its depiction.
I am convinced that the depicted scene could possibly be the preferred
thing for *re-creating* the
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
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
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
Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net 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
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
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
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org 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
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org 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
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org 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,
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org 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
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org 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
Måns Rullgård m...@mansr.com writes:
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org 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
On 24/Dec - 11:16, Paul Wise wrote:
Firstly, -curiosa is the wrong list for your post, see the description here:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-curiosa/
Ooops... I expected unexpected things, not funny ones, sorry!
I suppose a better place had been debian-desktop.
Anyway, as the content have
This whole topic is very debatable (I suggest not doing that though,
Debian produces enough long threads).
I would suggest doing what you think is best and getting that uploaded
to Debian. If the ftp-masters reject that, you can improve it and
re-upload until they accept it.
--
bye,
pabs
23 matches
Mail list logo
