Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 05:46:07PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
This is clearly not appropriate; it is not perfectly reasonable to
install a driver package without the firmware, any more than it is
reasonable to install a dynamically-linked binary without its shared
library
Note: I've left Anthony Youngman's email address in the headers, but I
seem to have a local problem where email to Anthony bounces. [I can work
around that, using telnet, but it's a pain.] quote I strongly
suggest that you read the following two web pages:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 08:04:31AM +0100, Anthony Youngman wrote:
Sorry for lookout mangling my cut-n-paste - this isn't quite a proper
reply ...
And the guy who admins this system claims I should be able to
email you now... so hopefully you won't have to do much more of
that.
Did you look at
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 06:09:29AM -0400, I wrote:
Instead, it's pointing out that you can't prohibit employees [for
example, ad subsidiaries] from distributing it to your competitors or
Er, I meant at, not ad.
--
Raul
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 11:23:11AM +0100, Anthony Youngman wrote:
But as I see it, they (QM) are adding an extra restriction, as
proscribed by the GPL (clauses 6 and 7).
If you distribute to subsidiaries, you may not stop them distributing
to the world. But the GPL explicitly recognises
Well, I'm using two different email addresses and computer systems -
it's my home system that's subscribed to Debian Legal, and I was
emailing from my work system ...
But as I see it, they (QM) are adding an extra restriction, as
proscribed by the GPL (clauses 6 and 7).
If you distribute to
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 04:59:37PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
True enough, but as processors get faster, so does bandwidth.
I expect that ultimately, it will always need to be as fast as possible.
Possibly; however, I think bandwidth grows far slower than CPU speed and
overall system
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 11:23:11AM +0100, Anthony Youngman wrote: But
as I see it, they (QM) are adding an extra restriction, as proscribed
by the GPL (clauses 6 and 7). If you distribute to subsidiaries,
you may not stop them distributing to the world. But the GPL
explicitly recognises
Hello.
Navigating in the xchat site (debian package xchat),
I found in http://www.xchat.org/windows/ these sentences:
Q. Has the license for X-Chat changed?
A. The Windows version is shareware, however, you may still
download the source code, released under the G.P.L.
You may use X-Chat
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 01:51:29PM +0100, Anthony Youngman wrote:
Sorry, my goof. I shouldn't be sloppy. It's the FSF faq. Is making and
using multiple copies within one organization or company distribution?
. As I read that, it's simply saying that the you in the FAQ can
be a company, and
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 04:59:37PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
True enough, but as processors get faster, so does bandwidth.
I expect that ultimately, it will always need to be as fast as possible.
Possibly; however, I think bandwidth grows far slower than CPU
Joel Baker wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 04:59:37PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
True enough, but as processors get faster, so does bandwidth.
I expect that ultimately, it will always need to be as fast as possible.
Possibly; however, I think bandwidth grows far
On Wednesday 20 October 2004 08:19 am, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Hello.
Navigating in the xchat site (debian package xchat),
I found in http://www.xchat.org/windows/ these sentences:
Q. Has the license for X-Chat changed?
A. The Windows version is shareware, however, you may still
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 20.10.2004, 16:36 -0500 schrieb John Goerzen:
Now, if the registration/validation logic is not part of those GPL'd
sources, then we have a problem.
If it only applies to the windows sources/binary, we don't have a
problem. If anybody has a problem, then those who
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given that the entire purpose of the driver is to actually *drive a
device*, and that it can't do that at all without the firmware, then the
No, apparently you do not understand how the driver, hardware and
firmware interact. The driver is fully functional as is: the
John Goerzen writes:
On Wednesday 20 October 2004 08:19 am, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Hello.
Navigating in the xchat site (debian package xchat),
I found in http://www.xchat.org/windows/ these sentences:
Q. Has the license for X-Chat changed?
A. The Windows version is
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given that the entire purpose of the driver is to actually *drive a
device*, and that it can't do that at all without the firmware, then the
No, apparently you do not understand how the driver, hardware and
firmware interact.
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 07:05:08 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
When accepting the terms
of the GPL, I also must give up certain rights about warranties
that I normally expect to have.
I didn't see that way: I saw the disclaimer of warranty as a
declaration(valid even if I don't
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:09:17 -0400 Raul Miller wrote:
However, let's take AbiWord as an example. We've been told that we do
not have a license to use AbiWord on derivative works. We're
clearly not required to retain AbiWord on those works.
It seems correct.
The question is: if we remove
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:00:28 -0300 Carlos Laviola wrote:
Still haven't subscribed, but I'm reading the archives periodically.
It's mandatory, you know. It's just easier to manage...
I'm in the middle of a lot of stuff -- just gave a talk about Debian
at the university's 2nd annual week on
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:48:06 -0400 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
You can't quite change the name of the work using a patch. You always
have to distribute the original, which includes its name. If Abiword
were under a patch-clause license, Debian'd have to distribute
software which said This
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 11:55:30PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
But is the original unpurged work DFSG-free?
I'm not sure that's the right question.
Remember, we interpret the DFSG based on the spirit of the rules, rather
than the letter.
I think the right question is: how should we handle
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 11:39:56PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
Still haven't subscribed, but I'm reading the archives periodically.
It's mandatory, you know. It's just easier to manage...
Huh? Subscribing to debian-legal isn't mandatory.
--
Glenn Maynard
23 matches
Mail list logo
