On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:01:46PM +0100, Oliver Kurth wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 01:25:24PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
The firmware is needed. Without it, the device is completely dumb.
But there are some devices which can store the fw permanently. Also,
the fw is distributed on their
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:43:01PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
There is also no way to be sure that the next minor upstream Emacs
release will still be entirely free software, and Debian has been
bitten by this before. So why not move everything to non-free which
is not under a GPL,
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 02:46:37AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
I think you must look at the entire picture --- not just the copyright
one --- to determine if software is free. I don't think its free if the
copyright holder decides to use patents, instead of copyright, to limit
your
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 01:21:35AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
| On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:01:46PM +0100, Oliver Kurth wrote:
| On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 01:25:24PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
| The firmware is needed. Without it, the device is completely dumb.
| But there are some devices
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:45:04PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
In the current patent-litigation context, a large stable of patents to
cross-license is considered a vitally important corporate defense
strategy.
*shrug* That's not our problem.
President Bush considers a missile defense
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:16:43AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:43:01AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
However, this is essentially what the reciprocal patent clause is
requiring.
As part of the Apache license, you must agree not to sue any contributor
for any
Scripsit Kenshi Muto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hmm, we don't accept what is Hitachi said. This is consensus of us?
What they said certainly wasn't very convincing.
I agree Hitachi make a mess, but it's not reason to kick them.
It's not so much a question of kicking Hitachi as providing scalable
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:43:01PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
There is also no way to be sure that the next minor upstream Emacs
release will still be entirely free software, and Debian has been
bitten by this before. So why not move
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 08:43:10AM +0100, Philipp Matthias Hahn wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 08:42:25PM +0100, Oliver Kurth wrote:
Maybe there can be an exception because the code is not run on the host
but on the device?
Perhaps taking a look at the copyright of linuxtv-dvb might be
At 20 Nov 03 07:09:51 GMT,
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Kenshi Muto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hmm, we don't accept what is Hitachi said. This is consensus of us?
What they said certainly wasn't very convincing.
I see.
I agree Hitachi make a mess, but it's not reason to kick them.
It's not
On Nov 19, Oliver Kurth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The firmware is needed. Without it, the device is completely dumb.
But there are some devices which can store the fw permanently. Also,
the fw is distributed on their (windows) installation CDs.
Make an unofficial package which will contain just
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:45:04PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
In the current patent-litigation context, a large stable of patents to
cross-license is considered a vitally important corporate defense
strategy.
*shrug* That's not our problem.
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:43:01PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
There is also no way to be sure that the next minor upstream Emacs
release will still be entirely free software, and Debian has been
Scripsit Kenshi Muto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If there are more-clearly-free alternative fonts in Debian that
provide the same glyphs, then I won't oppose removing them. But if
removal would entail actual hardship for
same glyph of Watanabe-font causes a trouble. It means copy without
original
Ken Arromdee said on Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 04:20:27PM -0800,:
by which you could create it. I find it highly unlikely that patent
lawyers cost appreciably more than software developers)
(snip)
But that's not cheap. Going to law school costs a lot of money. Becoming a
software
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Philipp Matthias Hahn wrote:
=== /usr/share/doc/dvb-utils/copyright ===
NOTE about the included firmware dump:
The files Root and Dpram are distributed with the source package. Even if
they contain binary code, it cannot be executed as part of any other software
under
On Nov 19, 2003, at 16:58, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Ok, I guess people that are more into law will tell me that this does
not really work,
Copyright law gives rights to the copyright holder(s), their assignees,
etc., not the general public.
The only person who can sue for copyright
On Nov 20, 2003, at 12:17, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Or to put it another way, is free software license with redefined
terms
necessarily a free software license?
No. DFSG 2 says _very_ clearly that we require source code.
On Nov 18, 2003, at 05:55, Andrew Suffield wrote:
;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to
return
;;;to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that
they make,
;;;so that these may be included in future releases; and (b) to
inform
;;;the
On Nov 18, 2003, at 14:07, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
;;; 2. Users of this software agree to make their best efforts (a) to
return
;;;to the T Project at Yale any improvements or extensions that
they make,
;;;so that these may be included in future releases; and (b) to
inform
;;;
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 12:41:13PM +0900, Kenshi Muto wrote:
Unless Japanese law is created in a much different manner than it is
in the rest of the world, the results of out-of-court settlements do
not constitute legal precedents; they may provide insight into the
legal counsel's
Hi,
Am Do, den 20.11.2003 schrieb Henning Makholm um 01:50:
Scripsit Joachim Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, doesn't Atmel promise by distributing the .hex files under the GPL
to either Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code or Accompany it with a
Scripsit Joachim Breitner
You are talking about the usual case where the copyright owner
releases a work under the GPL but still has all rights to do with it
what it wants, like selling the binarys.
Yes. That is what happens here.
But when they give me the file, and telling me: here, this
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 06:47:14PM +0900, Kenshi Muto wrote:
At 20 Nov 03 07:09:51 GMT,
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Kenshi Muto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hmm, we don't accept what is Hitachi said. This is consensus of us?
What they said certainly wasn't very convincing.
I see.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 03:56:47PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Kenshi Muto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If there are more-clearly-free alternative fonts in Debian that
provide the same glyphs, then I won't oppose removing them. But if
removal would entail actual hardship for
same
Thanks Osamu for clearing the issue,
At Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:12:12 +0100,
Osamu Aoki wrote:
Muto-san, if what Hitachi said is all what they can for asserting their
right, it is unconvincing and no one shall feel obligated. I think
Hitachi should find proper communication person who understands
At Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:36:40 +0100,
Osamu Aoki wrote:
One of More-clearly-free alternative scalable Japanese fonts is
kochi-mincho/kochi-gothic in sid/sarge. Many Japanese use this
font rather than Watanabe font.
If this alternative contains the necessary glyphs, then I do not see
At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:43:04 +0900,
Kenshi Muto wrote:
I think if your request was phrased differently, I think the outcome
may have been different.
What we agreed was HITACHI's claim in current shape can not be the
reason to remove package.
How we treat package with ugly data
28 matches
Mail list logo
