On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 08:13:36PM +, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Dear Debian voters,
>
> I humbly submit to your elevated mass the following amendment
> to the latest General Resolution proposed by Sven Luther.
>
> =
> The Debian project resolves that:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 01:34:11PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well, we all know it is sourceless GPLed firmware, and we chose just
> > to say the contrary, because it is convenient to us.
>
> If we know[1] a work is a sourceless GPLed work, then we ca
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
>
> Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
> you're not a lawyer.
Yes, I'm not a lawyer. Do not rely on anything
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:35:26PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
> >
> > Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to ne
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
>
> Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention
> that you're not a lawyer.
That should be abundantly a
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
you're not a lawyer.
Cheers,
aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
>
> This is a matter of copyright law. If we do not have permission to
> distribute, it is illegal to distribute. GPL grants permission to
> distribute *only* if we dist
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
This is a matter of copyright law. If we do not have permission to
distribute, it is illegal to distribute. GPL grants permission to
distribute *only* if we distribute source. So, GPLed sourceless == NO
PERMISSON.
I will list the usua
Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
I want to amendment the following proposal:
=== START OF PROPOSAL ===
Definition: For the purpose of this resolution, the "firmware" mentioned below
designates binary data included in some of the linux kernel drivers, usually as
hex-encoded variables and whose purpose is t
9 matches
Mail list logo
