While looking at the gnuplot documentation (trying to figure out
how to make a bar graph) I came across this in the FAQ:
1.6 Legalities
Gnuplot is freeware authored by a collection of volunteers, who cannot
make any legal statement about the compliance or non-compliance of
gnuplot or its uses. Ther
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I don't think /my/ preferred form of modification is more special
> than the author's, but if nobody but the author is in a reasonable
> position to alter the code then I don't think that's free.
If this is because the author is withholding information
Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> In fact, starting by filing release critical bugs is likely to
>>> ensure that the opposition is entirely entrenched to begin with.
>> Why are you so deter
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(snip)
I read Jeremy's message as suggesting that whether something was the
preferred form of modification for the author was more important than
whether or not it was modifiable by anyone else. Having gone back and
reread it, I still interpret that way. If that
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> If we apply this to a photograph of a circuit board, we find that
>> the photograph is the source.
>
> Quite possibly not, actually. Consider a > 2 layer PCB, FE.
Oh, sorry - I meant to go somewhere with tha
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> In fact, starting by filing release critical bugs is likely to
>> ensure that the opposition is entirely entrenched to begin with.
>
> Why are you so determined to keep fighting strawmen?
Where's the s
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we have very, very different ideas about the goals of free
> software. In my world, we ask for source code because the ability to
> modify code is fundamental to free software. I'm not quite sure how that
> works for you.
I hope that you are nev
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> If we apply this to a photograph of a circuit board, we find that
> the photograph is the source.
Quite possibly not, actually. Consider a > 2 layer PCB, FE.
> A 20 megabyte binary-only application is non-free, even if the
> author wrote and maintains
Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In fact, starting by filing release critical bugs is likely to
> ensure that the opposition is entirely entrenched to begin with.
Why are you so determined to keep fighting strawmen?
> We should work with them to change their minds, not start tellin
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:04:36 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> That's, uh, entirely insane.
>
> Maybe it's insane, but could please explain why?
It's not something that's been well discussed within the project, and I
don't think it's an argument you're
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So yes, I agree that the ability to modify works is key to their
> freedom. But, as has already been discussed, the best definition of
> "good enough" that we know of is "the preferred form for modification"
> -- generally the form preferred by the auth
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> How does the mechanism used to generate the text on the picture alter
>>> how modifiable the end result is?
>>
>> But we're not worried about how modifiable t
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:05:38PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Well, I'm a bit surprised, here.
> You were the proposal A proposer in GR 2004-004 and the rationale seems
> to state that your understanding of both versions of the Social Contract
> (the one previous GR 2004-003 and the new one as
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:16:44 +0100, Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>> No, for a photograph the source is the actual physical object you've
>> made a picture of, so a photograph can never be free. Either this, or
>> a photograph
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:11:38 -0800 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> It's good to encourage people to use sophisticated workflow when
> creating images, as when creating software. But we don't call
> software non-free when it isn't developed using Extreme Programming
> methodology or UML modeling, not l
MJ Ray wrote:
>I still feel that [nv] falls into a "free but not
very good" category, but I think I would be convinced
by an FSF position on this.
Here is the answer to my mail to the FSF, if you still
care:
>I think that debian-legal is asking the right
quesiton here: is this really what the NV
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:40:52 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 11:15:20PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:16:46 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
[...]
> > I think that these issues are sarge-ignore because of GR2004-004,
> > but will be release-critical bugs
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:04:36 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
> That's, uh, entirely insane.
Maybe it's insane, but could please explain why?
[...]
> No. Autogenerated C is not the preferred form for modification, but
> nor is it a practical form for modification (in most cases - this is
> not always
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 14:50:20 +0100 Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Suppose I hired an artist to create some artwork for my programs
> (logos, icons, etc.), and I was only given PNG files with the
> completed images. Would this make the entire package non-free? Of
> course I could as the artist for whatev
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:09:38 + Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > How about:
> >
> > If the author could change something but you can't, he probably
> > hasn't given you the source?
>
> That is a very good rule of thumb, and really should be everybody's
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:28:44 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Whether a PNG should be considered source or not depends on the
> > content. If I made a PNG consisting of a white background with a
> > black rectangle, I probably wouldn't bother to save a
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:16:44 +0100 Måns Rullgård wrote:
> No, for a photograph the source is the actual physical object you've
> made a picture of, so a photograph can never be free.
No, it's not. The actual physical object is not the preferred form for
making modifications to the work (i.e. the
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:16:44 +0100, Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> No, for a photograph the source is the actual physical object you've
> made a picture of, so a photograph can never be free. Either this, or
> a photograph should be considered as source.
I really, really hope t
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> How does the mechanism used to generate the text on the picture alter
>> how modifiable the end result is?
>
> But we're not worried about how modifiable the end result is.
I think we have very, very d
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How does the mechanism used to generate the text on the picture alter
> how modifiable the end result is?
But we're not worried about how modifiable the end result is. We're
worried about how the author would prefer to make modifications. Thus
how i
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "This is a photograph" is not sufficient information to determine
> whether something might be source. Extreme examples: a photograph of
> the text of a C file is not source. A photograph of a lightning bolt
> isn't directly source, but it's the best t
Scripsit Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> How about:
>
> If the author could change something but you can't, he probably hasn't
> given you the source?
That is a very good rule of thumb, and really should be everybody's
first test for deciding whether something is source or not.
However, it s
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:36:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Requiring layered formats for
> > source is also going to result in PNGs being non-free in many cases.
>
> This sort of mindless sophistry accomplishes nothing. Requiring source
> does not make programs
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:36:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Requiring layered formats for
>> source is also going to result in PNGs being non-free in many cases.
>
> This sort of mindless sophistry accomplishes nothing. Requiring source
> does
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whether a PNG should be considered source or not depends on the
> content. If I made a PNG consisting of a white background with a
> black rectangle, I probably wouldn't bother to save any other format.
> If the image were made up from many elements with
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:16:44PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> >>> What freedom
Daniel Stone wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:51:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
No, not really. I can't reasonably alter the text to fix your spelling
mistake, for example. We should not be forced to put up with a
spelling error just because you couldn't be bothered to provide
source. It's not
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:36:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Requiring layered formats for
> source is also going to result in PNGs being non-free in many cases.
This sort of mindless sophistry accomplishes nothing. Requiring source
does not make programs non-free. Failing to provide source
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Right. If I create an image and only save it as a JPEG (say I've taken a
>>> picture with a digital camera and then overlayed some text on top of
>>> it), is th
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:51:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> No, not really. I can't reasonably alter the text to fix your spelling
> mistake, for example. We should not be forced to put up with a
> spelling error just because you couldn't be bothered to provide
> source. It's not like there'
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:16:44PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >>> What freedom are you trying to protect by claiming that JPEGs ar
David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 March 2005 12:28, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Right. If I create an image and only save it as a JPEG (say I've taken a
>> picture with a digital camera and then overlayed some text on top of
>> it), is that sufficient to satisfy DFSG 1?
>
>
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Right. If I create an image and only save it as a JPEG (say I've taken a
>> picture with a digital camera and then overlayed some text on top of
>> it), is that sufficient to satisfy DFSG 1?
>
> No, for a pho
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 11:28:35AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> What freedom are you trying to protect by claiming that JPEGs are not
> >> adequately modifiable? Do you wish to ap
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 12:28, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> What freedom are you trying to protect by claiming that JPEGs are not
> >> adequately modifiable? Do you wish to apply this
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> What freedom are you trying to protect by claiming that JPEGs are not
>>> adequately modifiable? Do you wish to apply this argument to al
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> What freedom are you trying to protect by claiming that JPEGs are not
>> adequately modifiable? Do you wish to apply this argument to all JPEGs?
>
> The freedom to modify the images to
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:53:34AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> (Mostly cut, because this is the fundamental argument:)
>
> > Yeesh, this is like the documentation thing all over again. Are we
> > going to have to go through the litany of months o
43 matches
Mail list logo
