On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 04:26:26PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Yet the ICQ client is not useful without a component which is not in
Debian and in fact is not freely available.
Nor is a driver useful without a piece of hardware which isn't in
Debian.
Of course, license permitting, Debian
On Dec 25, Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yet, CF is actually chips --- often the same chips as used to hold
firmware distributed with hardware. Thus, it's all hardware.
Sure. It's on a medium for software exchange, thus it's software. If
it were an integral component of a
On Dec 28, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 04:26:26PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Yet the ICQ client is not useful without a component which is not in
Debian and in fact is not freely available.
Same thing applies to hardware drivers. And, for that matter, all
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Dec 28, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 04:26:26PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Yet the ICQ client is not useful without a component which is not in
Debian and in fact is not freely available.
Same thing applies to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Dec 25, Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yet, CF is actually chips --- often the same chips as used to hold
firmware distributed with hardware. Thus, it's all hardware.
Sure. It's on a medium for software exchange, thus it's
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 04:58:52PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
to support this. The obvious thing to do here is not to attempt to find
a way that we can interpret the SC that makes sense - the obvious thing
to do here is to decide what we want the SC to say and then change it so
I'll ask debian-legal. I have a pretty good idea that LGPL is ok for
source, but binary would be GPL due to MySQL client, but I'll ask anyway.
This is a question about possible license combinations. More
specifically, can a more freely licensed software than GPL use a GPL
library.
It states that
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't believe policy or the SC does expand on what requires
means. This is the only self-consistent explanation I've seen which
allows Debian to ship a usable OS. Have you another?
The parsimonious
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 04:58:52PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
to support this. The obvious thing to do here is not to attempt to find
a way that we can interpret the SC that makes sense - the obvious thing
to do here is to decide what we want the SC to
Hi,
Please CC replies to me, because I'm not on the list.
I noticed a problem with the license of the cephes library, which is
included in the Debian packages labplot (maintained by me) and grace
(maintained by Torsten Werner), and possibly others. At least
python2.2-scipy and
Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* The firmware blob on CD, if free, can be easily modified by end
users. It's just software. Even given the preferred form for
modification, it's much more difficult to re-flash a firmware chip
on hardware not designed for regular firmware
Helen Faulkner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Some software in this archive may be from the book Methods and Programs
for Mathematical Functions (Prentice-Hall, 1989) or from the Cephes
Mathematical Library, a commercial product. In either event, it is
copyrighted by the author. What
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can a company release an encrypted CD, so that it's as difficult to
modify the firmware on CD as it is in a chip, and then have it
count as part of the hardware?
No, that's not hardware. That's an encrypted CD. That, and the DRM
approach
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
That said, or not, I do think there's a significant practical
difference between firmware which ships as software, say on a CD
accompanying the device, and firmware which ships on the device:
* The firmware on the CD is typically not
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can a company release an encrypted CD, so that it's as difficult to
modify the firmware on CD as it is in a chip, and then have it
count as part of the hardware?
No, that's not hardware. That's an
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You can pull the chip from the socket, copy the contents to disk,
and
I probably can't. No good with that sort of thing. Software on disk
is software. Also, I could pull the Pentium off my motherboard, scan
its
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You can pull the chip from the socket, copy the contents to disk,
and
I probably can't. No good with that sort of thing. Software on disk
is software. Also, I could pull the Pentium off my motherboard,
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I probably can't. No good with that sort of thing. Software on disk
is software. Also, I could pull the Pentium off my motherboard, scan
its contents to disk, and open that in any editor I like -- right?
So if a BIOS can be scanned by a
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:58:58 -0600 Adam Majer wrote:
This is backwards. If we have,
A - GPL
B - LGPL
C - LGPL
D - BSD, non-free, LGPL or whatever
The above states that A cannot link with B, which is not what I meant.
Right. A *can* indeed link with B.
I meant that,
A links with B
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But that's a strange reason to require that the firmware blob on CD be free.
It's essentially saying if you can make it hard to modify the firmware,
you don't need to allow modifications at all.
As always, intent matters.
But most people
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 11:46:19PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: It
may be helpful to think of your hard drive as a computer. At that
point, the firmware is clearly software for the hard drive - it's a
string of bytes that is executed. The rest of the hard drive is
hardware. If something is
[let's see if I can keep from screwing up the formatting on this one.]
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 04:26:59PM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote:
I think the scenario They moved the firmware from a chip to a CD, so we
can't distribute a driver any more is ridiculous. Any attempt to modify
the rules to
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 11:44:54AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Dec 28, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 04:26:26PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Yet the ICQ client is not useful without a component which is
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You can pull the chip from the socket, copy the contents to disk,
and
I probably can't. No good with that sort of thing. Software on disk
is software. Also, I could pull
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You can pull the chip from the socket, copy the contents to disk,
and
I probably can't. No good with that sort of thing. Software on
25 matches
Mail list logo
