On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 08:52:35AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
That's been brought up on -legal, and any package in main including
that logo has a bug.
For anyone interested, this is fixed: http://bugs.debian.org/246784
--
Glenn Maynard
Lewis Jardine wrote:
There are, however, standards that are backed by patents and/or
trademarks, and not freely implementable (postscript, mp3, pdf, etc.),
^^
No, trademarks are different. Trademarks are always DFSG-free and don't
cause problems except when certain companies get
On May 1, 2004, at 05:40, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
Ah that's an interesting point. TCP/IP is a standard, so it's non
free...
No, that's not true. The idea of TCP/IP is free --- an idea can't be
covered by copyright, and there is AFAIK no patent being actively
enforced on it. A
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 08:52:35AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Debian significantly restricts use (not just modification or
redistribution) of what is in that file. There is no question that
the rules for the official use logo fail the DFSG. The only way I can
see for Debian to follow
Francesco Paolo Lovergine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ah that's an interesting point. TCP/IP is a standard, so it's non free...
Maybe all implementation of that should go in contrib so, because
they 'depend' on a piece of 'something' which is not free. So, we
have to move the whole kernel
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To adapt an analogy that someone used earlier, when you go to a store,
you might find fonts, images, or other data in a box in the software
section. However, you are not likely to find a specification for
TCP/IP in the software section, and you are not
Glenn Maynard writes:
That does not mean that software freedom should be the only freedom
that Debian pursues, but it does not help to pretend that Free
Software is the same thing as Free License Texts or Free Reference
Documentation or Free Speech.
It does not help to pretend that Free
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 11:06:35PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Glenn Maynard writes:
That does not mean that software freedom should be the only freedom
that Debian pursues, but it does not help to pretend that Free
Software is the same thing as Free License Texts or Free Reference
Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
Ah that's an interesting point. TCP/IP is a standard, so it's non free...
Maybe all implementation of that should go in contrib so, because
they 'depend' on a piece of 'something' which is not free. So, we
have to move the whole kernel there, and oh sure, libc
Francesco Paolo Lovergine writes:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 11:06:35PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
To adapt an analogy that someone used earlier, when you go to a store,
you might find fonts, images, or other data in a box in the software
section. However, you are not likely to find a
On 2004-05-01 04:06:35 +0100 Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To adapt an analogy that someone used earlier, when you go to a store,
you might find fonts, images, or other data in a box in the software
section. However, you are not likely to find a specification for
TCP/IP in the
Francesco Paolo Lovergine dijo [Sat, May 01, 2004 at 11:40:08AM +0200]:
To adapt an analogy that someone used earlier, when you go to a store,
you might find fonts, images, or other data in a box in the software
section. However, you are not likely to find a specification for
TCP/IP in
On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 10:24:59AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
I can understand some gift not meeting your standards, but it goes
much too far to characterize the giver of disappointing gift as
'reprehensible'.
I find it extremely difficult to classify the GFDL as a gift.
The trade-off that
Stephen Frost writes:
Of course it could. Writing an assembler would probably take some
serious effort too without knowing that information. To some extent
that's my point- are we going to require hardware specifications for
anything that uses firmware? Personally I don't think we need to,
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:09:18PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
I want to distinguish between software and other data because I prefer
to use English in a precise way, and because I think that is
consistent with the broader usage[1].
[1]- See, for example,
People have argued that since there exists open source tools for
editing fonts, font files should be considered their own source, even
if Font Foundries have their own preferred source formats and use
propietary tools to create font files via a compilation process.
But the TrueType files
* D. Starner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
But almost no one, if given a choice of the binary or the assembly language
to edit, would choose the binary. At the very least, the assembly would be
invaluable to deciphering the details of the firmware, and I suspect many
programmers would write a
* D. Starner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's not like there's a whole lot of difference between the assembly and
the binary in this case. Write a QD disassembler and extract the
assembly if you want.
Even if we were talking about x86
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's not like there's a whole lot of difference between the assembly and
the binary in this case. Write a QD disassembler and extract the
assembly if you want.
Even if we were talking about x86 assembly, there would still be a lot
of difference
19 matches
Mail list logo
