On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 06:17:56AM -0800, Ben Johnson wrote:
After a quick search to try and find if the FSF ever
voiced an opinion on nv, I unfortunately only dug out
the well-known case against NVidia's binary kernel
module.
Will any of the X nVidia support work without that binary kernel
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 08:45:21PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
Actually, a simple email from the upstream author has been considered in
the past to be sufficient authorization for a license change. If
upstream were to send an email saying something to the effect of I
hereby relicense all
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 00:21:39 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
Do you think that figuring out the LaTeX markup by looking at the
resulting PDF is easy?
As a practical example of this, Python ships HTML documentation. This
is in a pre-built tarball in the Debian source package,
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 00:09:56 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote:
* latex2html is released under the GPL and moved to main.
The author has already said he would do this with the next version,
but that next version may be a long time off; the best solution would
be a permission statement.
Wow! :-)
I
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps a (wishlist?) bug should be file against the latex2html package.
What do you think?
Such a good idea that Roland Stigge already did it:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=221703
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
On 06 Mar 2005 14:41:23 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps a (wishlist?) bug should be file against the latex2html
package. What do you think?
Such a good idea that Roland Stigge already did it:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=221703
Well,
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 08:59:19AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050304 08:50]:
They do not have anything to add to the discussion. Particularly since
it's not even a discussion at present, but merely those of us who've
been thinking about this stuff for
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 06:10:21PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What on earth would be the point of that? It won't magically become
free just because the wider community doesn't want to make it
free. If you are seriously suggesting that we would
Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On the other hand, we must adopt a source code definition that allows it
to change form: see my Fortran-C example.
No, I specifically reject your claim that the source code of the
existing work magically changes from being C to Fortran simply because
On 04 Mar 2005 10:07:20 -0500 Michael Poole wrote:
Matthew Garrett writes:
[...]
Why does it depend on what the upstream author is using as source?
How does that affect the recipient's ability to modify the work?
One of the underpinnings of the Free Software movement is that users
of
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:13:06 -0500 Luke Schierer wrote:
assuming there is a meaningful definitionof source for that package.
I claim there is at least one: the one found in GPLv2.
But as this thread has amply shown, it is entirely possible to come up
with things that have no meaningful
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 00:21:39 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
Do you think that figuring out the LaTeX markup by looking at the
resulting PDF is easy?
As a practical example of this, Python ships HTML documentation. This
is in a pre-built tarball in the Debian source package, because the
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 10:51:11 + Henning Makholm wrote:
[please send replies to the list, as I'm a subscriber and didn't asked
to get replies twice; thank you]
Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On the other hand, we must adopt a source code definition that
allows it to change
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050305 11:50]:
You need to go talk to DWN and the anti-freedom advocates, who are the
Whom of your fellow co-developers do you consider as anti-freedeom
advocates?
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C
Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 10:51:11 + Henning Makholm wrote:
According to my statement, *if* we do get the special tool and all of
the intermediate forms, then the work is free. My statement does not
tell anything about the freedom if we don't - then
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the hand-crafted binary example, it would be *possible* to
do both of those. Notice that the freedom doesn't require it
to be easy. It's near the border, about where the nv driver was
accused of being: free but hard to hack. I don't really see how
you can
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First of all (and most telling, to my view) there's are a lot of
reasonably in this definition. I think you're using these to paper
over a lot of difficult cases. It doesn't work very well for our
purposes
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But how do you argue that a hand-crafted binary is sufficiently
modifiable without also admitting the possibility that the output
of a C compiler may be sufficiently modifiable?
I think it depends what the upstream
Andrew Suffield wrote:
Intermediate cases require the exercise of judgement, as always. A
photograph of the Eiffel Tower is probably the best we're going to
get; there's only one of them and it won't fit in the archive. A
photograph of a PCB layout, constructed by a secret program, is not a
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But how do you argue that a hand-crafted binary is sufficiently
modifiable without also admitting the possibility that the output
of a C compiler may be sufficiently
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But how do you argue that a hand-crafted binary is sufficiently
modifiable without also admitting the possibility that the output
of a C compiler may be sufficiently modifiable?
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 06:59:44PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 17:15:41 -0700, Joel Aelwyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Actually, we aim to throw out 100% of closed-source software. But I'm
assuming you were just being careless with trying to make a point.
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 06:52:07PM +, Brett Parker wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip /
I rephrase: how can you argue that a hand-crafted binary is not
sufficiently modifiable to offer the freedom to study and adapt?
How you can argue that a binary output by a
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 01:42:58 + Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But in the case of the photographer Laura, if she thinks (in good
faith) that she has the JPEG only, then JPEG is her preferred form
for modification. When she finds out that another
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Source code is any form of a work that allows any user who might be
reasonably expected to modify the work to perform any modifications
that they might be reasonably expected to perform. Occasionally a work
may have several forms that meet this
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:55:53AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
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
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:41:43PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
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
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 03:11:47PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
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
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:13:50AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
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
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:24:21AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
If we're going to have this debate,
then it ought to start by engaging in discussion with the wider
community rather than being another Debian takes on the world PR
disaster.
What on earth would be the point of that? It won't
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That example was carefully selected. You don't *get* another chance to
take a picture of a lightning bolt. They only last a second or two,
and every one is unique. That photo is the only one that will ever
exist. (jpeg-compressed is no good when a
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By this definition, procmail is non-free because it does not have any
forms that allow a reasonable person to modify it in reasonable ways.
The existence of two authors in the copyright statements suggests that
that's not true.
It is not the
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:51:47PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:55:53AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:36:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Requiring layered formats for
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:43:58PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That example was carefully selected. You don't *get* another chance to
take a picture of a lightning bolt. They only last a second or two,
and every one is unique. That photo is the
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First of all (and most telling, to my view) there's are a lot of
reasonably in this definition. I think you're using these to paper
over a lot of difficult cases. It doesn't work very well for our
purposes because different people will always have
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What on earth would be the point of that? It won't magically become
free just because the wider community doesn't want to make it
free. If you are seriously suggesting that we would compromise our
principles because the wider community doesn't like
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:41:43PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
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
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:49:18PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
There's a difference between most other people and no other people.
What use is the freedom to modify if nobody can make practical use of
that freedom?
Sounds to me like you are trying
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe Jeremy could have sprinkled a just or some
reasonablys into it to help you, but it looks fairly
clear from the original context what narrow aspect he was
looking at. Remember, your previous intervention Message-id:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] only considered one
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 18:23:21 +, Matthew Garrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've found several patches to procmail written by people who aren't the
original authors. This suggests that it's practically modifiable. But
you still haven't answered my question - what use is freedom to modify
if
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 03:11:47PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I think with these examples you're getting away from the preferred
form for making modifications definition of source.
Yes, I'm accepting or as close as is physically possible. Note that
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:15:33 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
Are you implying that a 2-clause-BSD licensed manual can be
distributed in main in PDF format, if the LaTeX source (preferred by
upstream for making modifications to it) is kept secret and not
available?
I think it's sucky and
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 11:59:18PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:15:33 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:
Are you implying that a 2-clause-BSD licensed manual can be
distributed in main in PDF format, if the LaTeX source (preferred by
upstream for making modifications to
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:11:38PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:16:44 +0100, Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In your case, your best bet would probably be to provide the
photograph without the text, or (even better) provide the image in a
more advanced
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why can upstream fix the typo the easy way, while I cannot (without
rewriting all the LaTeX markup by reverse engineering)?
Do you think that figuring out the LaTeX markup by looking at the
resulting PDF is easy?
As a practical example of this,
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 17:15:41 -0700, Joel Aelwyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Actually, we aim to throw out 100% of closed-source software. But I'm
assuming you were just being careless with trying to make a point.
Unfortunately, the point you're trying to make also misses.
Well, I was a
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
The odds are that we always have something that it is possible
to modify *somehow* by necessity of packaging, so why do you
think we need to worry about that and ignore upstream?
Because taking upstream's
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050304 08:50]:
They do not have anything to add to the discussion. Particularly since
it's not even a discussion at present, but merely those of us who've
been thinking about this stuff for a long time shooting down the FUD
of those who haven't thought
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 suit my
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 all JPEGs?
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 argument
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 are not
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 that sufficient to
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
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
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 are you trying to
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 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
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
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 still
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 it's
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 this
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, 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 any other
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 whatever
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, 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
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 should be
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
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 the end result is.
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 going
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 telling
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 it
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 never
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 strawman?
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 that
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,
Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
No, it doesn't. The lone JPEG is only non-free if the lossless
version is what the original author would use to make a modification
to the JPEG. If, for example, the original author threw out the
lossless
If people could prefer to code in that way back then,
I have no difficulty believing that there are people
today who honestly prefer a similar coding style when
they write device drivers.
Interesting point, yet maybe this coding style was
preferred because of much simpler hardware at the time
On Tuesday 01 March 2005 01:47, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The DFS_Guidelines_ don't need to hold up in court. Therefore they
are able to say that source which is unacceptable for modification
because of lack of documentation, poor programming
Ben Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In my understanding, for now source code in Debian could as well be
precompiled code or code that can only be compiled on a compiler
than only can be compiled by itself.
In fact, this is the case. Lots of code can only be compiled with
GCC, and GCC can
Scripsit Ben Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If the majority of the values is utilized no more than once or
twice, with only a handful that keep being used, it does not really
justify giving them human-friendly names, but what if the programmer
always needs a large number of them at hand ? Could
Scripsit Ben Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What I propose instead is that Debian considered a stricter
definition of source code such as that in the GPL.
The GPL's defintion of source is already the definition we use in
practice when applying DFSG #1 in cases of doubt. This has been the
case for
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we actually upheld this standard at present, it would result in us
removing a large number of packages from Debian.
Which packages? Without specific examples it's difficult to discuss
this point. In fact
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:16:46 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
If we actually upheld this standard at present, it would result in us
removing a large number of packages from Debian.
I think that these issues are sarge-ignore because of GR2004-004, but
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 10:16:46AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Yes, it's odd, but it's odd in the opposite direction to the one
you're coming at it from. The unexpected thing is that the binary, or
jpeg, can *ever* be considered free. Conversely, any
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Programs exist that allow you to read in JPEGs and produce new pieces of
artwork. People use them on a regular basis. No comparable programs
exist for ELF binaries. The obvious conclusion is that derived works can
(in general) be produced from JPEGs,
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 of fruitless debates
on the issue just to establish that special pleading
* Josh Triplett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050228 02:45]:
We do need some ability to determine if we have real source code
available; preferred form for modification seems like a
well-established definition, and far better than the alternatives.
The DFSG doesn't give any specific definition - so,
* David Schmitt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050228 23:55]:
On Monday 28 February 2005 02:43, Josh Triplett wrote:
acceptable form for modification will get you in even worse trouble
than (author's) preferred form for modification. The former is a
subjective criteria, and could raise issues with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By throwing hardware support out the window? Good plan!
We already did this with the firmwares decision.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ben Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] debian-legal is not *the* place
where it should be debated, where else could it be ?
Maybe debian-x, maybe debian-devel or maybe you need a new list.
[...]
Now, not everybody installing Debian on their belief
it is the distro most committed to
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 10:16:46AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What sorts of issues with JPEGs? We should have available and
distribute the prefered form for modification for them as well. That
is, whatever form upstream actually uses when
* Daniel Stone:
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.
After a
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
No, it doesn't. The lone JPEG is only non-free if the lossless version
is what the original author would use to make a modification to the
JPEG. If, for example, the original author threw out the lossless
version immediately on making the JPEG,
Maybe debian-x, maybe debian-devel or maybe you need
a new list.
Ok, debian-wankers, got it. If some people feel the
topic is so absurd, why do they waste their time
answering rudely ? I expect contradiction, but if
gratuitously insulting others is some game, let them
play with their
Ben Johnson wrote:
Maybe debian-x, maybe debian-devel or maybe you need
a new list.
Ok, debian-wankers, got it. If some people feel the
topic is so absurd, why do they waste their time
answering rudely ?
I really don't know the answer to that question. I don't think MJ Ray
was answering
--- Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think MJ Ray was answering rudely there
My sincere apologies to MJ Ray if I misunderstood what
he was saying.
Please don't let a few people spoil your outlook
on debian-legal as
a whole.
- Josh Triplett
Thank you, this is refreshing.
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:05:16 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote:
What sorts of issues with JPEGs? We should have available and
distribute the prefered form for modification for them as well. That
is, whatever form upstream actually uses when upstream wants to modify
the JPEG. In some cases, this will
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:16:46 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
If we actually upheld this standard at present, it would result in us
removing a large number of packages from Debian.
I think that these issues are sarge-ignore because of GR2004-004, but
will be release-critical bugs post-Sarge.
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
