Joel Aelwyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 03:15:23AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I think most of those are just aggregation on a medium of
distribution. Only the tree of dependencies has to be checked.
So what you're saying is that Depends: java2-runtime is fine
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Fortunately, the sentence beginning A program using... is not
relevant to my argument. I'm not talking about derivative works. I'm
talking
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How Kaffe, the GPld interpreter, goes about loading GPLd parts of
*itself* into memory, whether it uses JNI, KNI, dlopen, FFI, libtool,
or other bindings
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should this be considered free? I can't see it as free. It's very
clear that recipients are being charged for the ability to modify the
software. They aren't on a plane with the original author
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your implementation creates a huge loophole in GPL, that I do not
believe is there. Let's continue your way of seeing interepter
features and see what would be the consequences.
An example. I am writing an app. A GPL-incompatible or even
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is compiled against an interface, not an implementation. Which
particular implementation was used while compiling is irrelevant.
Can you support this assertion? The program
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How Kaffe, the GPld interpreter, goes about loading GPLd parts of
*itself* into memory, whether it uses JNI, KNI, dlopen, FFI, libtool,
or other bindings, or whether it asks the user to tilt switches on
an array of light bulbs is irrelevant to the
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How Kaffe, the GPld interpreter, goes about loading GPLd parts of
*itself* into memory, whether it uses JNI, KNI, dlopen, FFI, libtool,
or other bindings
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should this be considered free? I can't see it as free. It's very
clear that recipients are being charged for the ability to modify the
software. They aren't on a plane with the original author
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If there actually is something going wrong, I'd really like for someone
to spell out what it is in some fashion which addresses the above points.
Everything you said there seems reasonable to me (at first glance).
It's fine for the Kaffe developers and
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
But what ends up on the user's Debian system when he types apt-get
install eclipse; eclipse is a program incorporating a JVM and many
libraries. Debian's not just distributing Eclipse or just
distributing Kaffe
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:02:52 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Why are copies OK, and derivative works not? I see GPL 2b talking
about any work that in whole or in part contains the Program.
Eclipse+Kaffe contains Kaffe
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your implementation creates a huge loophole in GPL, that I do not
believe is there. Let's continue your way of seeing interepter
features and see what would be the consequences.
An example. I am writing an app. A GPL-incompatible or even
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When I instruct my computer running the Debian OS to load and run
eclipse, the code from some JVM package and the code from the Eclipse
package and from dozens of others are loaded into memory. The process
on my computer is mechanical, so we should
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
in different ways. I'm not referring here to the work done by ld, but
to the process of
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
in different ways
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Eclipse authors do not tell you which JVM to use.
But Debian does, when it says:
Depends: j2re1.4 | j2re1.3 | java2-runtime
So the eclipse-platform distributed by Debian *does* call on a
particular JVM. And it isn't kaffe, it's Sun's. We do
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:08:59 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which Eclipse packages? The old ones we have in SID now? Irrelevant.
There would have been nothing whatsoever to discuss in such case.
The *new* Eclipse packages that are being prepared now and which we've
been discussing (I already said it in
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 15:58 -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:19:36PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
However, when the interpreter is extended to provide
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
These facilities include class loading, class instantiation,
synchronization, garbage collection (ie. you can trigger GC from within
your program), reflection (ie. you can ask VM what are methods that
this class have?).
Those are features of
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[no longer relevant to debian-java, I think]
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:28:57 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
You are ignoring
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
in different ways. I'm not referring here to the work done by ld, but
to the process of
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
in different ways
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Eclipse authors do not tell you which JVM to use.
But Debian does, when it says:
Depends: j2re1.4 | j2re1.3 | java2-runtime
So the eclipse-platform distributed by Debian *does* call on a
particular JVM. And it isn't kaffe, it's Sun's. We do
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:21:51 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
So in answer to your direct question: the unlinked binary isn't
derived from any of them. The complete binary, including its
libraries, included whichever
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:08:59 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time
It is not hard: Some distribution of Eclipse is only encumbered by the
GPL if it requires a GPLed work to correctly operate. You may have
some odd version of Eclipse, but the standard releases have no such
requirement.
While most of what you said seemed perfectly reasonable, this does
not.
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
To: Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:35:31 -0800
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which Eclipse packages? The old ones we have in SID now? Irrelevant.
There would have been nothing whatsoever to discuss in such case.
The *new* Eclipse packages that are being prepared now and which we've
been discussing (I already said it in
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 15:58 -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:19:36PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
However, when the interpreter is extended to provide
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[no longer relevant to debian-java, I think]
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:28:57 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
You are ignoring the
creative act performed by the programmer who arranged calls to
functions within libc
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:35:09AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
(c) some DD cares enough to maintain or sponsor the package.
It's incredibly disappointing that some DD desires to see copies of
other people's designs as original clip art.
It is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Claus Färber) writes:
Hallo,
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be
changed. That's well beyond DFSG#4, since it impacts compatibility.
DFSG#4 was probably introduced to allow the distribution of
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 12:35:09AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
(c) some DD cares enough to maintain or sponsor the package.
It's incredibly disappointing that some DD desires to see copies of
other people's designs as original clip art.
It is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Claus Färber) writes:
Hallo,
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be
changed. That's well beyond DFSG#4, since it impacts compatibility.
DFSG#4 was probably introduced to allow the distribution of
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's
hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website.
How are these different?
They're not. Look! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1312774.stm
There's one now. It's perfectly
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:10:26PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
clearly what it is. Duracell has no right in law to stop others from
depicting black oblongs with copper ends. They *do* have a right to
I dare you to package the golden arches
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why not include the McDonald's logo or a picture of a McDonald's
hamburger? I'd like to include that on my website.
How are these different?
They're not. Look! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1312774.stm
There's one now. It's perfectly
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:44:13AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
He might violate their trademarks -- say by proclaiming that he is
selling Humvees when actually selling Pintos. But that's got nothing
to do with Debian, and he'd be doing so
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:10:26PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
clearly what it is. Duracell has no right in law to stop others from
depicting black oblongs with copper ends. They *do* have a right to
I dare you to package the golden arches
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I say in kindness and not hostility: put your money where your mouth
is. Distribute the Golden Arches as a piece of clipart.
File this as an RFP; you are unlikely to find a maintainer.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen
Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I should admit that I don't know anything about such copyright law,
however I think that as long it is just a drawing without any
copyrighted logo, it's not a problem.
A quick look over these pictures suggests no *copyright* problems.
They look like
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am in sympathy with the Mozilla Foundation's wish to exercise
quality control and to stay on the good side of contributors. I'd
still like to see guidance for maintainers that says that bugs filed
by the upstream don't get downrated. But in my
Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I should admit that I don't know anything about such copyright law,
however I think that as long it is just a drawing without any
copyrighted logo, it's not a problem.
A quick look over these pictures suggests no *copyright* problems.
They look like
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am in sympathy with the Mozilla Foundation's wish to exercise
quality control and to stay on the good side of contributors. I'd
still like to see guidance for maintainers that says that bugs filed
by the upstream don't get downrated. But in my
While interesting to read, what you've written is not applicable to
the issue of moving code from program to manual or vice versa. If I
submit a new emacs-mode to the FSF, and assign copyright to them as is
their practice, they can have somebody else document it line-by-line
and distribute it
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, 8.2b terminates rights when you sue a Participant alleging that
*anything* infringes any patent.
As far as I know, *nobody* thinks that is OK. For instance, it could be
over
Participant's use
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 10:19:33AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
As far as I know, *nobody* thinks that is OK. For instance, it could be
over
Participant's use of your patent for extracting aluminum from ore.
It terminates a right we don't require
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The only form in which the GPL can be read as requiring any conduct
from licensees (such as the provision of copies of source code on
demand and the extension of the GPL to the licensee's copyright in
derived works) is as an offer of (bilateral)
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The reality is that we do *not* require authors to extend us a license to
patents as part of their software license in order to consider it free. We
merely opt not to distribute software that's covered by patents that are
actively being enforced. The
There are two issues here: the DFSG-freeness of the CC SA-A license
and the GPL-compatibleness of that license. I can't speak to its
freeness right now, since I don't have time to read the 2.0 version in
its entirety. But it's clearly not GPL compatible. To be clear, by
not GPL compatible I
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So would a web-based firmware loader, that never saved the firmware to
disk allow the drivers to be in main?
Of course not. It's fetching software, then using that software.
ICQ software merely mentions messages, but doesn't use them.
ICQ uses the
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We're happy to say that Debian doesn't tend to ship software that
sucks - but you want the freedom to do so, and let others do so. And I
understand that. :-)
Here's an idea: a source package that builds either Thunderbird for
Debian or
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, I don't want to get too far into this conversation until
we've established whether you will need new names. Ideally, I want to
get a good understanding of the Debian position on trademarks in
general, and then go to Chris Beard and Mitchell
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That would, however, cover firmware and wind up sending X to
contrib. So maybe: ... iff it is stored on the local machine's file
system.
That would be my *intuitive* understanding
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gojira - Web browser and mail suite derived from Mozilla
Oughtn't that be godsaic?
My understanding of this is a bit shaky, but I'm told by trustworthy
sources that the name of the atomic firebreathing
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 02:12:28PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Alexander Sack:
Florian Weimer wrote:
They are not entirely unrelated. The DFSG explicitly mentions
mandatory renaming clauses in licenses, and deems them to be
DFSG-free.
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's not the Mozilla authors' decision; confusingly similar is a call to
be made by a judge, and common sense is a strong indicator for this. If the
Mozilla authors try to claim that freebird and thunderbird are
confusingly similar, they should be
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mike Hommey wrote:
Note that this name change requirement gets interesting to name
Mozilla...
Mozilla Thunderbird can be Thunderbird for Debian or Debian
Thunderbird
Mozilla Firefox can be Firefox for Debian or Debian Firefox
What can be Mozilla ?
Juergen Lueters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We are not shipping any devices.
The plan is to provide some debs and to get them into main.
I'm not sure that makes a difference. The mark Debian is a
trademark of SPI. You'd like your software to be Free, so why not
avoid the trademarked name?
--
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
freebird - ...thunderbird
freefox - ... firefox
freezilla - ... mozilla
Naming the packages like this would emphasize that we want to be free
and not reigned by trademarks.
That's a really good idea. I'm not sure, but it looks from previous
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
If the emulators were extended to be able to fetch some basic ROM images
off the internet by themselves (eg via HTTP), could they go in main?
As an interesting additional point, this isn't just a hypothetical
scenario: the ZSNES
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't want to negotiate on the names (again) unless we find a
solution that has the backup from debian, from the current package
maintainers (eric, takuo et al) and maybe from other free
distributions. The last group is not accessible to me, since I
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lots of people cannot write or modify C code, but we accept as free
many programs that include C code. The user being inexpert in some
technique does not render
[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
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
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
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
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
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Dec 25, 2004 at 04:08:38PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eh? The contents of EEPROMs are software just as much as the contents of
CD-ROMs and hard disks. They are just different media for storing
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
That's not software. That's firmware, at best -- you can look at it
as software, but then you don't get to distribute any drivers
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 10:55:04PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
Great. Then the driver operates differently depending on the presence
of additional software -- it needs a Linux kernel and the firmware
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
That's not software. That's firmware, at best -- you can look at it
as software, but then you don't get to distribute any drivers. It is
also internally consistent to think of chips as hardware and
distribute drivers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Dec 20, Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
differently depending on the presence of additional software -- the
kernel, for example, or the firmware.
I'm not doing this either.
Great
Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Excluding a singleton name is fine. I'd even go so far as to say any
excluding any countable set is fine. Excluding an uncountable class of
names is not.
First of all, let me first say that I agree that DFSG4 can lead to
permitting rather
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
differently depending on the presence of additional software -- the
kernel, for example, or the firmware.
I'm not doing this either.
Great. Then the driver operates differently depending on the presence
of additional software -- it needs a Linux kernel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Dec 19, Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No: it's reporting that the card did activate correctly, but it's not
the driver's fault. The driver is complete and does not lack anything
needed to operate the device.
...except
Alexander Schmehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi!
* Jan Minar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [041219 20:04]:
AFAICT, the only non-free section is:
quote href=http://www.xdebug.org/license.php;
4. Products derived from this software may not be called Xdebug, nor
may Xdebug appear in their name, without
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Dec 18, Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. It's a driver for an ipw 2100; it has an ipw2100 and can't drive
it. It's not functional -- it failed to power on the adapter. In the
No: it's reporting that the card did activate
Peter Van Eynde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Some firmware is part of the hardware. Some isn't. It's easy to tell
-- either it's in the hardware or it isn't. Of course, the name
firmware should make it clear that this is an often ambiguous line.
But this does seem
Peter Van Eynde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Peter Van Eynde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And now you consider it software just because the method of storage is
different? How can the nature of the bytes change because they are
stored on a disk?
The nature of the bytes do
Peter Van Eynde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think I'm starting to understand your point of view. So _any_ use of
the software without using non-DFSG data makes it free, right?
Any reasonable use. Printing out a firmware not found message
doesn't count!
But what if loading the firmware is
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But what if loading the firmware is not required?
That if the device was
warm-booted in another OS? (I know there are technical limitations
here) Would the driver-firmware relation still be a depends?
No,
Peter Van Eynde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
No; the hardware is damaged. No driver can drive that. The driver
you have is a driver for Foomatic Quxer cards. You don't have a
Foomatix Quxer; you have a broken pile of junk.
So here you argue that because
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 10:17:14PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The issue isn't whether the conversion itself creates a derivative work,
though. The issue is whether the preferred form for modification is
that C code, now that I've converted it, stuck
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen said:
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The preferred form for the Original work is Pascal. The preferred
form for the new (combined/derived) work is C. I think you would need
to distribute both to comply with the GPL.
No. You
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
A more likely scenario: you write a program in Pascal, and give it
to me. Pascal is a useless language, so I programmatically convert
it to C (a fairly simple task), and then spend a few weeks improving
the program in C. The Pascal
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The issue isn't whether the conversion itself creates a derivative work,
though. The issue is whether the preferred form for modification is
that C code, now that I've converted it, stuck the Pascal code in cold
storage never to be touched again, and
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's true, but it seems pretty unlikely that an embedded system would
have any documentation installed.
Lots of embedded systems would like to be able to use the Debian
packages more or less whole -- and then remove things like
/usr/share/doc if they
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But in the case of the DFSG and the GPL it does. Saying You may not
distribute this work along with a frame designed to hold it violates
DFSG 1.
But saying You may only distribute this work with a frame designed
to
hold
Christopher Priest [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why should anyone but the source be required to keep or distribute source
code when it is freely available from Debian. The web was not
available when
Debian may not be around forever. Many embedded devlopers don't
publicize which distribution
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Chris
Very pragmatic reasoning. I wondered the same thing. From a
practical standpoint, why would someone ask us for source code (ie,
order it, pay for replication costs, then wait for it to be shipped)
Not everybody who will get ahold of your product has a
Compare, for example, a painting. If I make a painting with a 5' by
3' hole in it, that is not derivative of Starry Night.
Even if I paint in complementary art such that if you put SN in there,
it looks nice, that's probably not derivative. But if I bolt the two
paintings together, and ship
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Compare, for example, a painting. If I make a painting with a 5' by
3' hole in it, that is not derivative of Starry Night.
Even if I paint in complementary art such that if you put SN in
there,
it looks nice, that's
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Not sure if this is possible but would it be fine when modified to read:
3. Furthermore, if you distribute Elm software or parts of Elm,
with
or without additions developed by you or others
1 - 100 of 545 matches
Mail list logo
