But trademarks don't cover works. Your whole message treats
trademarks as a funny sort of copyright which sometimes doesn't follow
chains of derivation. They aren't. They're a completely different
beast.
For example, your model doesn't deal at all with the fact that we have
the string IBM
On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 11:49:45PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the driver does not provide any significant functionality without the
firmware, it belongs in contrib.
If there are some cards which the driver drives which work without the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it's a question of what dependence means for contrib. If the
driver absolutely _depends_ on using the non-free firmware, it should be
in contrib. If the non-free firmware is optional, it should go into
main.
Again, please explain which part of the policy defines
Marco d'Itri a écrit :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your driver can be compiled and successfully executed without the
firmware, so it should go in main because it's free software. As you
correctly stated, the card needs a firmware, not the device driver.
The hardware device may not perform useful
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 11:49:45PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Nowadays very few drivers will work without the presence of non-free
software. This may be located in flash, or it may be loaded from the
operating system. Why should a hardware
Very large profit handling Money Judgments.
From the beaches in Hawaii.
You can be the Boss.
Control when you want to work.
Lots of our associates earn 5,000US to 12,000US per mo.
Excellent training and support.
http://www.supernewsrequested.com/3/
More information or to stop receiving or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the other side, if it is possible to distribute the firmware in the
non-free section (I have to ask that to Texas Instrument), the package
of the driver will have a Depends: or at least a Recommends: on the
firmware package. In that case it seems that the driver has
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This package should be removed from Debian before Debian gets sued for
copyright infringement.
Can you cut this bullshit please? You know well that Debian is not going
to get sued.
--
ciao,
Marco
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, there's shades of gray, here. If all the driver does is emit
a message CAN'T FIND NON-FREE FIRMWARE, ABORTING without the firmware,
it's hard to say that it doesn't depend on the firmware. But if the
This applies to almost every driver
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the other side, if it is possible to distribute the firmware in the
non-free section (I have to ask that to Texas Instrument), the package
of the driver will have a Depends: or at least a Recommends: on the
firmware package.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, there's shades of gray, here. If all the driver does is emit
a message CAN'T FIND NON-FREE FIRMWARE, ABORTING without the firmware,
it's hard to say that it doesn't depend on the firmware. But if the
This applies to almost every driver in the Linux kernel.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right, the package in main should not depend on an hypothetical package
from non-free.
So rather than ship the driver in contrib and the firmware in
non-free, you're suggesting that the driver go in main and the
firmware not be shipped at all, even though that reduces
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right, the package in main should not depend on an hypothetical package
from non-free.
So rather than ship the driver in contrib and the firmware in
non-free, you're suggesting that the driver go in main and the
firmware not be shipped at all, even
On Mon, 2004-11-10 at 10:27 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
I think it's a question of what dependence means for contrib. If the
driver absolutely _depends_ on using the non-free firmware, it should be
in contrib. If the non-free firmware is optional, it should go into
main.
Again, please explain
On Oct 11, Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it's a question of what dependence means for contrib. If the
driver absolutely _depends_ on using the non-free firmware, it should be
in contrib. If the non-free firmware is optional, it should go into
main.
Again, please
On Mon, 2004-11-10 at 20:14 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Oct 11, Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it's a question of what dependence means for contrib. If the
driver absolutely _depends_ on using the non-free firmware, it should be
in contrib. If the non-free firmware
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, there's shades of gray, here. If all the driver does is emit
a message CAN'T FIND NON-FREE FIRMWARE, ABORTING without the firmware,
it's hard to say that it doesn't depend on the firmware. But if the
This applies to
Am I correct? Is his e-mail reply enough to liberate the non-free
parts of figlet?
[ Please Cc: me on replies ]
Thanks,
Carlos.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Carlos Laviola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:52:35 -0300
Subject: Re: Copyright license on some of your
Marco, it seems to me that there's a parallel case to non-free
firmware: dongleware. Perhaps you could explain how this philosophy
applies to that. If a piece of software is distributed under the GPL,
can I add functionality by putting it into firmware on a dongle and
having GCC call that?
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marco, it seems to me that there's a parallel case to non-free
firmware: dongleware. Perhaps you could explain how this philosophy
applies to that. If a piece of software is distributed under the GPL,
can I add functionality by putting it into
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You obviously missed the point. Almost every driver talks to a device
which needs some kind of firmware, but you obviously noticed the ones
which do not have it on a non-volatile medium.
Why should debian
It's a perfectly reasonable means to discriminate. One is *in the
hardware*. If I buy a widget, I don't care whether it uses firmware
in an eeprom or a well-trained gerbil. It's a box. Software on my
CPU is different.
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marco, it seems to me that there's a parallel case to non-free
firmware: dongleware. Perhaps you could explain how this philosophy
applies to that. If a piece of software is distributed under the GPL,
can I add functionality by putting it
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marco, it seems to me that there's a parallel case to non-free
firmware: dongleware. Perhaps you could explain how this philosophy
applies to that. If a piece of software is distributed under the GPL,
24 matches
Mail list logo
