* Justin Pryzby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050225 22:35]:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 04:23:07PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
I've just taken a quick (~10min) look through it. It's definitely
readable, and makes sense for the most part as far as I could see.
It's got comments and is fairly cleanly
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 10:50:13AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
Is there some proof that the files are created that way, or is this just
your assumptation?
While you cannot prove it, it is incredibly unlikely that anyone would
ever choose to write anything that way.
signature.asc
Description:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:57:41 +1100 Daniel Stone wrote:
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 07:06:11PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
I can only cite a work-in-progress project: the Open Graphics
project. http://wiki.duskglow.com/index.php/Open-Graphics
But if you know of a modern-day video card
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, thank you all very much for your time and
valuable insight. I foresaw the issue would be
controversical, but if debian-legal is not *the* place
where it should be debated, where else could it be ?
Ask the debian listmasters to create [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:23:47 + Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 01:00:57PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
Well, trust and respect can grow for a fake identity (nick or nym),
if this fake identity is used consistently in time.
It shouldn't. At any point they could
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Justin Pryzby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050225 22:35]:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 04:23:07PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
I'll see about taking a closer look at parts to see if it
actually makes sense, but so far it looks fine to me. As it is,
I don't
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 10:50:13AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Justin Pryzby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050225 22:35]:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 04:23:07PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
I'll see about taking a closer look at parts to see if it actually
makes sense, but so far it looks fine to
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not either. It's a hypothetical. That is, if, hypothetically, the
source provided is the result of a obfuscation regex, then it's not
source. [IE, we aren't provided the real prefered form for
modification.]
While the GPL defines source as the
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not either. It's a hypothetical. That is, if, hypothetically, the
source provided is the result of a obfuscation regex, then it's not
source. [IE, we aren't provided the real prefered form for
modification.]
While the GPL
While my views on this are well known, I'll rehash them again just for
my own vanity.
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
While the GPL defines source as the prefered form for modification,
that definition doesn't exist in the DFSG.
There are a lot of things that the DFSG does not
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 06:05:16PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
While the GPL defines source as the prefered form for modification,
that definition doesn't exist in the DFSG.
There are a lot of things that the DFSG does not define, but we still
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 02:46:14PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 06:05:16PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
While the GPL defines source as the prefered form for modification,
that definition doesn't exist in the DFSG.
12 matches
Mail list logo
