In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kevin B. McCarty
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Don Armstrong wrote:
Unfortunatly, there's not much that can be done to protect us from
this latter case. If upstream wants to lie about which is the prefered
form for modification, our choice is either to stop
Don Armstrong wrote:
Unfortunatly, there's not much that can be done to protect us from
this latter case. If upstream wants to lie about which is the prefered
form for modification, our choice is either to stop distributing or
pony up when they sue us for violating their license and prove
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
If upstream sued Debian for violating their license for this reason,
wouldn't the onus of proof then be upon upstream to prove that they
were lying about what was their preferred form of modification?
Given that, I'm not sure a judge would be very
On 01/30/07 11:54, Don Armstrong wrote:
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
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Jeff Carr wrote:
On 01/30/07 11:54, Don Armstrong wrote:
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
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_
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
effectively refused to do that, although it seems to be a very simple
operation to
Yaroslav Halchenko 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
effectively refused to do that, although it seems
On Mon, 2007-29-01 at 14:06 -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
I've ran into a problem: given firefox extension released under
GPL as shipped (.xpi files) has obscured .js files -- all
formatting was removed.
So, if I read your comments correctly, the .js files aren't
intentionally obfuscated.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 04:25:56PM -0500, Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, 2007-29-01 at 14:06 -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
I've ran into a problem: given firefox extension released under
GPL as shipped (.xpi files) has obscured .js files -- all
formatting was removed.
This one time, at band camp, Mike Hommey said:
I was able to run the JavaScript code through GNU indent
(http://www.gnu.org/software/indent/ ) and get readable and modifiable
output. I think there are some special-purpose JavaScript beautifiers
out there that could give even better
So, if I read your comments correctly, the .js files aren't
intentionally obfuscated. Whitespace has just been removed in order to
speed up download. It may be misguided, but it's also pretty common
among JavaScript programmers.
Except the javascript file is zipped in a .xpi file, making
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This one time, at band camp, Mike Hommey said:
However, the GPL requires the prefered form for modification to be
provided. And what the author uses to modify is definitely not the
whitespace-free version.
Given that the only difference between the
Mike Hommey wrote:
However, the GPL requires the prefered form for modification to be
provided. And what the author uses to modify is definitely not the
whitespace-free version.
The same could be true of any secret modifications to any program made
by its upstream author. Perhaps the debhelper
On Tue, 2007-30-01 at 08:59 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
The point is that the recipient isn't getting the preferred form of
the work for making modifications to it and can't therefore fulfil
the terms of the GPL when distributing the work.
It's obvious that some transformations are acceptable
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
The same could be true of any secret modifications to any program
made by its upstream author.
They'd have to be publicly knowable, though, so secret modifications
don't really work.
Perhaps the debhelper that I actually develop is written in a very
37 matches
Mail list logo
