Don Armstrong wrote:
Obviously we should try to figure out if the author was lying or
making fun of -legal first, but if it was actually true and debhelper
was GPLed, then we can't do anything else.
Why? debhelper is also developed in vim[1], I don't have to ship vim with
it, why would I need
Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
I've asked the upstream to provide proper source code, but so far he
effectively refused to do that, although it seems to be a very simple
operation to perform.
I'm repeating this since it was buried in a footnote in a probably
pointless subthread. There's no
Yaroslav Halchenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
If I understood GPL license correctly, upstream author simply can't
release anything under GPL if he doesn't provide sources. Whenever I've
asked on mozilla's addons IRC I've got reply as
\afaik he codes himself, and so if he writes on his page
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm repeating this since it was buried in a footnote in a probably
pointless subthread. There's no particular reason why a development
environment for java or a similar language would need to include
whitespace in the source files it saves. The whitespace can
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
Obviously we should try to figure out if the author was lying or
making fun of -legal first, but if it was actually true and
debhelper was GPLed, then we can't do anything else.
Why?
Because it wouldn't be the prefered form for
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Yaroslav
Halchenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I've ran into a problem: given firefox extension released under
GPL as shipped (.xpi files) has obscured .js files -- all
formatting was removed.
I've asked the upstream to provide proper source code, but so far he
On Tue, 2007-30-01 at 03:30 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
The bright line is actually pretty straight forward: Do you modify the
file with syntactic whitespace or the file without? Is it preferable
to modify the file without the keyword expansion or with?
That's not a very good line at all. I
Thanks everyone for help -- I've got the point now ;-)
Well -- I postpone this ITP and will wait for source code release
It's been mentioned are you complying with the GPL if you distribute
obfuscated source?. I'd say yes,
because you're distributing it unmodified as per what the original
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Consider also a text editor that automatically calculates and
displays whitespace, while not bothering to save it to the output
files. That is a plausable explanation for the behavior of the
upstream author in the head of this thread.
For the record, at
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Evan Prodromou wrote:
On Tue, 2007-30-01 at 03:30 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
The bright line is actually pretty straight forward: Do you modify the
file with syntactic whitespace or the file without? Is it preferable
to modify the file without the keyword expansion or
This one time, at band camp, Don Armstrong said:
However, even removing the white space from a program can make it
signficantly more difficult to debug and comprehend, even though it
can be reversed with tools that are readily available.
I don't think anyone is arguing that this sort of
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Stephen Gran wrote:
Just pointing out that it doesn't break our ability to
redistribute under the GPL.
This refrain keeps getting repeated, but still no one has explained
how distributing a form of the work which is _not_ the prefered form
for modification satisfies section
Don Armstrong wrote:
The bright line is actually pretty straight forward: Do you modify the
file with syntactic whitespace or the file without? Is it preferable
to modify the file without the keyword expansion or with?
Preferable by whom? That is a matter of personal preference and taste,
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
The bright line is actually pretty straight forward: Do you modify the
file with syntactic whitespace or the file without? Is it preferable
to modify the file without the keyword expansion or with?
Preferable by whom?
The
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 12:48:15 pm Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
The bright line is actually pretty straight forward: Do you modify the
file with syntactic whitespace or the file without? Is it preferable
to modify the file without
On 31/01/2007, at 9:48 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
The bright line is actually pretty straight forward: Do you
modify the
file with syntactic whitespace or the file without? Is it preferable
to modify the file without the keyword
Le mardi 30 janvier 2007 à 09:49 -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko a écrit :
Thanks everyone for help -- I've got the point now ;-)
Well -- I postpone this ITP and will wait for source code release
This is your choice, but most people here agreed that you don't need to.
--
.''`.
: :' : We are
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Sean Kellogg wrote:
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 12:48:15 pm Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
The bright line is actually pretty straight forward: Do you modify the
file with syntactic whitespace or the file without?
Le mardi 30 janvier 2007 à 09:49 -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko a écrit
Thanks everyone for help -- I've got the point now ;-) Well -- I
postpone this ITP and will wait for source code release
This is your choice, but most people here agreed that you don't need
to.
I just don't want to release
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 13:48, Don Armstrong wrote:
The upstream maintainer. Whatever form(s) of the work the upstream
maintainer actually uses to modify the work is the prefered form for
modification.
You keep saying this over and over, but it's just your opinion, not the way
the license
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[If the argument is that figuring out whether or not the people is
lying is difficult and requires judgement, then I agree. I've been
trying to ignore that facet completely because it's not particularly
interesting to me. Please play along and ignore it
On Tue, 2007-30-01 at 11:54 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
This refrain keeps getting repeated, but still no one has explained
how distributing a form of the work which is _not_ the prefered form
for modification satisfies section 3 of the GPL:
So, I think we all readily admit that _some_
22 matches
Mail list logo