Scripsit Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> How about:
>
> If the author could change something but you can't, he probably hasn't
> given you the source?
That is a very good rule of thumb, and really should be everybody's
first test for deciding whether something is source or not.
However, it s
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:36:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Requiring layered formats for
> > source is also going to result in PNGs being non-free in many cases.
>
> This sort of mindless sophistry accomplishes nothing. Requiring source
> does not make programs
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:36:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Requiring layered formats for
>> source is also going to result in PNGs being non-free in many cases.
>
> This sort of mindless sophistry accomplishes nothing. Requiring source
> does
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whether a PNG should be considered source or not depends on the
> content. If I made a PNG consisting of a white background with a
> black rectangle, I probably wouldn't bother to save any other format.
> If the image were made up from many elements with
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:16:44PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> >>> What freedom
Daniel Stone wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:51:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
No, not really. I can't reasonably alter the text to fix your spelling
mistake, for example. We should not be forced to put up with a
spelling error just because you couldn't be bothered to provide
source. It's not
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:36:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Requiring layered formats for
> source is also going to result in PNGs being non-free in many cases.
This sort of mindless sophistry accomplishes nothing. Requiring source
does not make programs non-free. Failing to provide source
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Right. If I create an image and only save it as a JPEG (say I've taken a
>>> picture with a digital camera and then overlayed some text on top of
>>> it), is th
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:51:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> No, not really. I can't reasonably alter the text to fix your spelling
> mistake, for example. We should not be forced to put up with a
> spelling error just because you couldn't be bothered to provide
> source. It's not like there'
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:16:44PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >>> What freedom are you trying to protect by claiming that JPEGs ar
David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 March 2005 12:28, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Right. If I create an image and only save it as a JPEG (say I've taken a
>> picture with a digital camera and then overlayed some text on top of
>> it), is that sufficient to satisfy DFSG 1?
>
>
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Right. If I create an image and only save it as a JPEG (say I've taken a
>> picture with a digital camera and then overlayed some text on top of
>> it), is that sufficient to satisfy DFSG 1?
>
> No, for a pho
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 11:28:35AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> What freedom are you trying to protect by claiming that JPEGs are not
> >> adequately modifiable? Do you wish to ap
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 12:28, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> What freedom are you trying to protect by claiming that JPEGs are not
> >> adequately modifiable? Do you wish to apply this
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> What freedom are you trying to protect by claiming that JPEGs are not
>>> adequately modifiable? Do you wish to apply this argument to al
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> What freedom are you trying to protect by claiming that JPEGs are not
>> adequately modifiable? Do you wish to apply this argument to all JPEGs?
>
> The freedom to modify the images to
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> (Mostly cut, because this is the fundamental argument:)
>
> > Yeesh, this is like the documentation thing all over again. Are we
> > going to have to go through the litany of months o
* David Schmitt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050228 23:55]:
> On Monday 28 February 2005 02:43, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > "acceptable form for modification" will get you in even worse trouble
> > than "(author's) preferred form for modification". The former is a
> > subjective criteria, and could raise iss
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050227 19:05]:
> > On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Justin Pryzby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050225 22:35]:
> > > > Well put. I think it is arguably not "source code", however,
> > > > if the source we are
* Josh Triplett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050228 02:45]:
> We do need some ability to determine if we have real source code
> available; "preferred form for modification" seems like a
> well-established definition, and far better than the alternatives.
The DFSG doesn't give any specific definition - so
* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050227 19:05]:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Justin Pryzby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050225 22:35]:
> > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 04:23:07PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > > I'll see about taking a closer look at parts to see if it
> > > > actu
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(Mostly cut, because this is the fundamental argument:)
> Yeesh, this is like the documentation thing all over again. Are we
> going to have to go through the litany of months of fruitless debates
> on the issue just to establish that special pleading do
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 04:08:41PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 10:16:46AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > Yes, it's odd, but it's odd in the opposite direction to the one
> > you're coming at it from. The unexpected thi
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Programs exist that allow you to read in JPEGs and produce new pieces of
>> artwork. People use them on a regular basis. No comparable programs
>> exist for ELF binaries. The obvious conclusion is that deri
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Programs exist that allow you to read in JPEGs and produce new pieces of
> artwork. People use them on a regular basis. No comparable programs
> exist for ELF binaries. The obvious conclusion is that derived works can
> (in general) be produced from JP
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 10:16:46AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Yes, it's odd, but it's odd in the opposite direction to the one
> you're coming at it from. The unexpected thing is that the binary, or
> jpeg, can *ever* be considered free. Conversely
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:16:46 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> If we actually upheld this standard at present, it would result in us
>> removing a large number of packages from Debian.
>
> I think that these issues are sarge-ignore because of GR2004-004
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If we actually upheld this standard at present, it would result in us
>> removing a large number of packages from Debian.
>
> Which packages? Without specific examples it's difficult to discuss
> this point
Scripsit Ben Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What I propose instead is that Debian considered a stricter
> definition of source code such as that in the GPL.
The GPL's defintion of "source" is already the definition we use in
practice when applying DFSG #1 in cases of doubt. This has been the
case
Scripsit Ben Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If the majority of the values is utilized no more than once or
> twice, with only a handful that keep being used, it does not really
> justify giving them human-friendly names, but what if the programmer
> always needs a large number of them at hand ? Cou
Ben Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In my understanding, for now source code in Debian could as well be
> precompiled code or code that can only be compiled on a compiler
> than only can be compiled by itself.
In fact, this is the case. Lots of code can only be compiled with
GCC, and GCC c
x27;Alméras
Mail to the FSF:
Dear Sir,
As of 01/03/05, there is an ongoing discussion on the
debian-legal mailing list to make sure the "nv" X
driver complies with the DFSG ; the title of the
thread is "Let's stop feeding the NVidia cuckoo". The
moral authority on free software
On Tuesday 01 March 2005 01:47, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > The DFS_Guidelines_ don't need to hold up in court. Therefore they
> > are able to say that source which is unacceptable for modification
> > because of lack of documentation, poor programming
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 04:41:47AM -0800, Ben Johnson wrote:
> but it seems there are now hundreds of registers in a video card.
Current Radeon Register Guides run to around 400 pages.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
>If people could prefer to code in that way back then,
I have no difficulty believing that there are people
today who honestly prefer a similar coding style when
they write device drivers.
Interesting point, yet maybe this coding style was
preferred because of much simpler hardware at the time
(ju
* Raul Miller:
> If you really want to find all files of this flavor, it be worth grepping
> for similar files. Perhaps the regular expression PGRAPH.0x[0-9A0-F]*/4
> would be a good place to start.
Yeah, I agree that it's not self-documenting code. But keep in mind
that even with full docu
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> No, it doesn't. The lone JPEG is only non-free if the lossless
>> version is what the original author would use to make a modification
>> to the JPEG. If, for example, the original author threw out the
>> lo
Ben Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, debian-wankers, got it.
I really didn't understand that until I read Josh's explanation. I
don't read many Marco d'Itri spews, so I thought you were ranting.
I was thinking of something a bit more like the short-term private
lists that exist for short
Scripsit David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The DFS_Guidelines_ don't need to hold up in court. Therefore they
> are able to say that source which is unacceptable for modification
> because of lack of documentation, poor programming practices,
> obscure language or any arbitrary criteria you migh
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 11:15:20PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:16:46 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > If we actually upheld this standard at present, it would result in us
> > removing a large number of packages from Debian.
> I think that these issues are sarge-ignore b
Scripsit Ben Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What still bothers me is that after Daniel Stone's very opinion,
> nobody could honestly prefer to write a driver using hex values for
> registers AND functions, period. This is not just a case of bad
> coding practices, it is deliberate.
I don't think t
On Monday 28 February 2005 11:16, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I haven't tried to formulate a precise definition yet, but I think that
> the GPL's definition is stricter than we should require in general. We
> don't have the DFSG because they provide philosophical freedoms - we
> have the DFSG because
On Monday 28 February 2005 02:43, Josh Triplett wrote:
> "acceptable form for modification" will get you in even worse trouble
> than "(author's) preferred form for modification". The former is a
> subjective criteria, and could raise issues with any code that someone
> claims is difficult to main
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 17:43:23 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote:
> "acceptable form for modification" will get you in even worse trouble
> than "(author's) preferred form for modification". The former is a
> subjective criteria, and could raise issues with any code that someone
> claims is difficult to ma
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:16:46 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
> If we actually upheld this standard at present, it would result in us
> removing a large number of packages from Debian.
I think that these issues are sarge-ignore because of GR2004-004, but
will be release-critical bugs post-Sarge.
> H
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:05:16 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote:
> What sorts of issues with JPEGs? We should have available and
> distribute the prefered form for modification for them as well. That
> is, whatever form upstream actually uses when upstream wants to modify
> the JPEG. In some cases, this w
--- Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think MJ Ray was answering rudely there
My sincere apologies to MJ Ray if I misunderstood what
he was saying.
> Please don't let a few people spoil your outlook
> on debian-legal as
> a whole.
>
> - Josh Triplett
Thank you, this is refres
Ben Johnson wrote:
>>Maybe debian-x, maybe debian-devel or maybe you need
>
> a new list.
>
> Ok, debian-wankers, got it. If some people feel the
> topic is so absurd, why do they waste their time
> answering rudely ?
I really don't know the answer to that question. I don't think MJ Ray
was answe
>Maybe debian-x, maybe debian-devel or maybe you need
a new list.
Ok, debian-wankers, got it. If some people feel the
topic is so absurd, why do they waste their time
answering rudely ? I expect contradiction, but if
gratuitously insulting others is some game, let them
play with their sado-masochi
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> No, it doesn't. The lone JPEG is only non-free if the lossless version
> is what the original author would use to make a modification to the
> JPEG. If, for example, the original author threw out the lossless
> version immediately on making the JPEG, t
* Daniel Stone:
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 10:50:13AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> Is there some proof that the files are created that way, or is this just
>> your assumptation?
>
> While you cannot prove it, it is incredibly unlikely that anyone would
> ever choose to write anything that way.
A
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 10:16:46AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What sorts of issues with JPEGs? We should have available and
> > distribute the prefered form for modification for them as well. That
> > is, whatever form upstream actually uses whe
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What sorts of issues with JPEGs? We should have available and
>> distribute the prefered form for modification for them as well. That
>> is, whatever form upstream actually uses when upstream wants to
>> mod
Ben Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] debian-legal is not *the* place
> where it should be debated, where else could it be ?
Maybe debian-x, maybe debian-devel or maybe you need a new list.
[...]
> Now, not everybody installing Debian on their belief
> it is the distro most committed to
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What sorts of issues with JPEGs? We should have available and
> distribute the prefered form for modification for them as well. That
> is, whatever form upstream actually uses when upstream wants to modify
> the JPEG. In some cases, this will just be a J
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>By throwing hardware support out the window? Good plan!
"We" already did this with the firmwares decision.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 02:46:14PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 06:05:16PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > While the GPL defines source as the prefered form for modification,
> > > that definition doesn't exist in the DFSG.
>
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 06:05:16PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > While the GPL defines source as the prefered form for modification,
> > that definition doesn't exist in the DFSG.
>
> There are a lot of things that the DFSG does not define, but we st
While my views on this are well known, I'll rehash them again just for
my own vanity.
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> While the GPL defines source as the prefered form for modification,
> that definition doesn't exist in the DFSG.
There are a lot of things that the DFSG does not def
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>It's not either. It's a hypothetical. That is, if, hypothetically, the
>>source provided is the result of a obfuscation regex, then it's not
>>source. [IE, we aren't provided the real prefered form for
>>modification.]
>
> While th
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not either. It's a hypothetical. That is, if, hypothetically, the
> source provided is the result of a obfuscation regex, then it's not
> source. [IE, we aren't provided the real prefered form for
> modification.]
While the GPL defines source as the
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 10:50:13AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Justin Pryzby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050225 22:35]:
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 04:23:07PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > I'll see about taking a closer look at parts to see if it actually
> > > makes sense, but so far it looks fi
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Justin Pryzby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050225 22:35]:
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 04:23:07PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > I'll see about taking a closer look at parts to see if it
> > > actually makes sense, but so far it looks fine to me. As it is,
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>First, thank you all very much for your time and
>valuable insight. I foresaw the issue would be
>controversical, but if debian-legal is not *the* place
>where it should be debated, where else could it be ?
Ask the debian listmasters to create [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is o
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:57:41 +1100 Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 07:06:11PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > I can only cite a work-in-progress project: the Open Graphics
> > project. http://wiki.duskglow.com/index.php/Open-Graphics
> >
> > But if you know of a modern-day vi
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 10:50:13AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Is there some proof that the files are created that way, or is this just
> your assumptation?
While you cannot prove it, it is incredibly unlikely that anyone would
ever choose to write anything that way.
signature.asc
Description:
* Justin Pryzby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050225 22:35]:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 04:23:07PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > I've just taken a quick (~10min) look through it. It's definitely
> > readable, and makes sense for the most part as far as I could see.
> > It's got comments and is fairly clean
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 07:06:11PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:58:37 +1100 Daniel Stone wrote:
> > If you want a fully free software experience, may I suggest a video
> > card from one of the few vendors these days who distribute
> > specifications to open source developer
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 03:10:47AM -0800, Ben Johnson wrote:
>> Obviously, what still strikes me is that, as points out Justin
>> Pryzby, to prefer this coding style Mark Vojkovitch would have
>> had to program the registers and the functions "off the top
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:58:37 +1100 Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 03:10:47AM -0800, Ben Johnson wrote:
> > I am trying to make sure Debian's
> > stance on software freedom is compatible with that of
> > the FSF and with mine, and if not, try and reconcile
> > them.
>
> The FSF has
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:47:41 -0800 (PST) Ben Johnson wrote:
> Actually, the FSF used to have a tooth against the X
> Consortium, but this episode is now over
> (http://www.gnu.no/philosophy/x.html).
This is a statement about the well-known FSF preference for copyleft
licenses, not a "shame on you
--- Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> None of X is free as defined by the FSF. It is open
source as defined by the OSI, and free as defined by
the DFSG, but the FSF would not call MIT/X11 or
three-clause BSD free software.
Actually, the FSF used to have a tooth against the X
Consortium,
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 03:10:47AM -0800, Ben Johnson wrote:
> Hi,
> Let us consider this: after all, maybe nv is not voluntarily
> rendered illegible, maybe I was plainly wrong saying so. The outcome
> of the investigations of the other posters will ascertain this.
> Obviously, what still strikes
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 03:10:47AM -0800, Ben Johnson wrote:
> I am trying to make sure Debian's
> stance on software freedom is compatible with that of
> the FSF and with mine, and if not, try and reconcile
> them.
The FSF has an issue with X as a whole, as the sample implementation
(aka XFree86/
Hi,
First, thank you all very much for your time and
valuable insight. I foresaw the issue would be
controversical, but if debian-legal is not *the* place
where it should be debated, where else could it be ?
As I did start this thread very in earnest, let me
clarify my intent to avoid further name
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 04:11:05PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:25:48PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Obfuscated C code is obviously not source, by any sensible definition--
> > any "definition" of the word "source code" that results in obfuscated
> > C code being calle
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 11:33:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 02:02:57PM -0800, Ben Johnson wrote:
> > > http://www.mail-archive.com/devel%40xfree86.org/msg03961.html
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 11:40:16PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Can someone tell me specifically what
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 02:02:57PM -0800, Ben Johnson wrote:
> Ok, I must confess I neither have XFree86's code at
> hand nor am I a programmer, therefore my information
> is only second-hand, yet I allowed myself to make this
> commentary on the authority of the posts of the
> following thread:
h
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:25:48PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Obfuscated C code is obviously not source, by any sensible definition--
> any "definition" of the word "source code" that results in obfuscated
> C code being called "source" is wrong. Since the GPL's definition
> of "source" is reas
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:02:50PM -0800, Ben Johnson wrote:
> I would like to hear your comments on the matter
> before I submit a bug report asking for the removal
> from base of the nv X driver and possibly also of the
> rivafb kernel module for severe policy violation. The
> code for nv is volu
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 11:33:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 02:02:57PM -0800, Ben Johnson wrote:
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/devel%40xfree86.org/msg03961.html
>
> Looks to me like it's been run through cpp, or the equivalent.
Can someone tell me specifically what fil
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 02:02:57PM -0800, Ben Johnson wrote:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/devel%40xfree86.org/msg03961.html
Looks to me like it's been run through cpp, or the equivalent.
While this might be classified as obfuscation, it's more likely
that the associated definitions are verbose,
Ben Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to hear your comments on the matter
> before I submit a bug report asking for the removal
> from base of the nv X driver and possibly also of the
> rivafb kernel module for severe policy violation. [...]
So you've already decided to submit a bu
* Ben Johnson:
> Mike A. Harrison still does not sound satisfied by the
> explanation of nv's maintainer:
>
> "While it is true this is an open source driver in a
> sense, in practice, it really isn't very open source,
> because the driver source is heavily obfuscated. It
> uses hexadecimal I/O a
Hi,
Ok, I must confess I neither have XFree86's code at
hand nor am I a programmer, therefore my information
is only second-hand, yet I allowed myself to make this
commentary on the authority of the posts of the
following thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/devel%40xfree86.org/msg03961.html
Mike
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 04:33:45PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Well put. I think it is arguably not "source code", however, if the
> source we are seeing is the result of some sed-like script which
> converts a sort of custom #defined MAGIC_NUMBERs to id numbers, and
> then removes the #definiti
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 04:23:07PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 04:12:50PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Good point. Similarly, there is a difference between actively
> > obfuscated "source code" (which isn't the preferred form of
> > modification), and poorly written co
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 04:12:50PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Good point. Similarly, there is a difference between actively
> obfuscated "source code" (which isn't the preferred form of
> modification), and poorly written code. The latter, although you may
> prefer to not modify it, is arguabl
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:47:32PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:25:48PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:02:50PM -0800, Ben Johnson wrote:
> > > Although the DFSG do not envisage the issue, the GPL
> > > does tackle it: "The source code for a wo
* Ben Johnson:
> I would like to hear your comments on the matter
> before I submit a bug report asking for the removal
> from base of the nv X driver and possibly also of the
> rivafb kernel module for severe policy violation. The
> code for nv is voluntarily obfuscated, [...]
Which files are ob
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:25:48PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:02:50PM -0800, Ben Johnson wrote:
> > Although the DFSG do not envisage the issue, the GPL
> > does tackle it: "The source code for a work means the
> > preferred form of the work for making modifications to
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:02:50PM -0800, Ben Johnson wrote:
> Although the DFSG do not envisage the issue, the GPL
> does tackle it: "The source code for a work means the
> preferred form of the work for making modifications to
> it". I am aware the DFSG !== the GPL, nevertheless the
> GPL is obvi
Hi list,
I would like to hear your comments on the matter
before I submit a bug report asking for the removal
from base of the nv X driver and possibly also of the
rivafb kernel module for severe policy violation. The
code for nv is voluntarily obfuscated, in effect
making it proprietary: its sole
101 - 193 of 193 matches
Mail list logo
