On Nov 08, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So while I am personally of the DFSG only makes sense for executable
> *software* that runs on the host CPU, previous GR's have shown that
> this position has a distinct minority. So why not let the DFSG
> hard-liners win this one completely?
On Sat, 2008-11-08 at 14:11 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 12:47:01PM +, David Given wrote:
> > In which case things have changed within the past couple of years ---
> > after all, the whole purpose of the Atheros HAL was to inforce those FCC
> > limits. Do you have any re
Hello,
I am Arshavin Igor Andreevich, I work with a company that is into oil and gas
distribution here in Russia, we are looking for a trustworthy representative in
the united states that will aid as a link between our company and our clients
over there in United states,Canada and Germany respe
2008/11/9 Martin Meredith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Or, put the rar file in a tarball, and it qualifies for non-free if it's
> REALLY important to have it available.
Wow, it's really interesting idea :) Hopefully, I'll have no need in this.
--
Best wishes,
Velichko Vsevolod
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, em
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 01:23:03PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> ,[ Proposal 4 ]
> | Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade
> | them against each other. However during getting an release out of the
> | door, decisions need to be done how to get a rock
Hi,
At this point, the following people have sponsored and seconded
the proposals detailed below. As best I can tell, the final proposal
(4) to get enough sponsors got it at Sun, 9 Nov 2008 14:38:41 UTC.
So, we now have a discussion period of two weeks, though I would
prefer to
Joey Hess wrote:
> http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/d-i_firmware_loading
> http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/firmware/
>
> I'm not sure what to do about both the Debian project being generally
> unaware of functionality already present in Debian. Document it better?
It's al
http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/d-i_firmware_loading
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/firmware/
I'm not sure what to do about both the Debian project being generally
unaware of functionality already present in Debian. Document it better?
Wet fishes applied to anyone who st
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 09:25:18AM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> So the only option for "Ben" ist, to send the corrected source back to
> the manufacturer and ask him to test and relicense it...
>
> The problem is, that certifying cost up to 40.000 Euro and re-certifying
> arround 10-15.000 E
Steve M. Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have two systems. Both track unstable, and have package
> locales at version 2.0.16.
> On one system, package locales owns /etc/default/locale, on the other,
> it doesn't. Should the file be owned by locales or not?
> Could the situation arise b
Frank Lin PIAT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[]
> I have question which is directly related: shouldn't a package own and
> declare all the configuration files that it uses, even if it doesn't
> install or modify it?
[...]
No. Not all configuration files can be managed as dpkg conffiles.
cu andre
On 2008-11-09 16:43 +0100, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> I have two systems. Both track unstable, and have package
> locales at version 2.0.16.
>
> On one system, package locales owns /etc/default/locale, on the other,
> it doesn't. Should the file be owned by locales or not?
It shouldn't, but on
On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 09:43 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> I have two systems. Both track unstable, and have package
> locales at version 2.0.16.
>
> On one system, package locales owns /etc/default/locale, on the other,
> it doesn't. Should the file be owned by locales or not?
I have quest
On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 17:24 +0100, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Всеволод Величко wrote:
> > May be, you can help me with the following?
> >> which CC licenses are treated as DFSG compatible now? Could someone read
> >> this license:
> >> http://pastebin.com/m4ba1c5ed and say, can I packag
Hello,
Всеволод Величко wrote:
> May be, you can help me with the following?
>> which CC licenses are treated as DFSG compatible now? Could someone read
>> this license:
>> http://pastebin.com/m4ba1c5ed and say, can I package smile pack, which uses
>> this license,
>> for the non-free section
2008/11/9 Vincent Fourmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This makes it look like it is not possible to switch from the original
> archive to any other kind of archive. So you cannot distribute it as a
> Debian package. Drop it ;-)...
Thank you. That's a pity, but I have to deal with it. :)
--
Best wis
On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 06:55 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> Because according to you, Debian isn't allowed to ship any non-free
> bits, right?
No, not right. Please pay attention.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROT
I have two systems. Both track unstable, and have package
locales at version 2.0.16.
On one system, package locales owns /etc/default/locale, on the other,
it doesn't. Should the file be owned by locales or not?
Could the situation arise by upgrades? One system is 4 years old
(upgraded weekl
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 08:28:16PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Being in favor of open-sourcing firmwares (including those controlling
> > critical security devices in cars) does not mean being in favor of
> > letting anyone ship their own version. In such cases,
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Package name: bioperl-run
Version : 1.5.2.100
Upstream Author : Bioperl Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
URL : http://www.bioperl.org/wiki/Run_package
License : Same as Perl
Programming L
Hi,
On Sunday 09 November 2008 13:37, Paul Wise wrote:
> The images don't include non-free stuff, but they do allow loading
> non-free firmware. Joey Hess blogged about how it works here:
>
> http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/d-i_firmware_loading/
So all we need is just a download location for
Hi there!
On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 13:37:24 +0100, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If the proposal is to delay the release to make sure that **all** bits
>> are moved into the non-free section, what about the debian
>> installation CD itself
2008/11/7 Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Another approach is to find out what files are necessary for compiling
> plugins. Theoretically, you don't need the C++ sources, only the headers
> and maybe some static libraries. Then, you can ship all of this in a
> qutim-devel package, and modify
tag 504758 + help
thanks
Raphael Geissert, 2008-11-06 15:42:52 -0600 :
> Package: gforge-plugins-extra
> Severity: serious
> Version: 4.7~rc2-5
> Tags: security
>
> Hi,
>
> By taking a look at the list of files shipped by
> gforge-plugins-extra I can easily see several scripts which are
> already
Le Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 10:34:48PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> This is a short note to tell you all about what kind of events are
> happening in Japan. Please tell me if there is a more suitable list or
> alias to send this to.
Hi Junichi,
how about [EMAIL PROTECTED] Although it do
Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
>> Open sourcing certain firmware might make it easier for 'random script
>> kid' to just try some things out and accidentally causing problems to
>> innocent bystanders.
>
> How is this different from open source software? This sounds a bit li
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the proposal is to delay the release to make sure that **all** bits
> are moved into the non-free section, what about the debian
> installation CD itself? If it is true that __Debian__ never includes
> any DFSG bits, I w
* Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081109 09:31]:
> Now the original soucre is "worthless" and can be distributed WITH the
> firmware blob. The license for the source and the blob must say clearly
> that ONLY the blob is certified und permited to use on the device.
>
> If now there is a hac
On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 10:24:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Neither does it (currently) contain an exception for debian.org
> > machines, or very popular Dell machines with Broadcom ethernet
> > firmware. Great! Cut them off!! Let's see how quickly we can get
> > users moving to non
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's an interesting problem with DFSG-free firmware such as those
> created by the FreeMAC project (for prism54 cards): if they never get FCC-
> certified, is it legal for Debian to distribute them?
That would be something
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd prefer to see firmware in a separate section, because it will be
> easier to get that section enabled by default for new installs. This will
> mean that the installer, or something hooked up to udev/hal, etc., will
> be ab
On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 00:39:26 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> So if people think that they are going to be able to get firmware in
> source form so that popular wireless chips can be driven using 100% DFSG
> pure firmware, I suspect they will have a very long wait ahead of them.
> The issue is that s
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 22:24:16 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 00:39 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
>> > And none of this is really relevent: the DFSG and the Social Contract
>> > do not contain an exception for dishonest or scared hardware
>> > manufacturers, or stupid FCC pol
Le samedi 08 novembre 2008 à 18:55 -0500, Theodore Tso a écrit :
> And as I said, I think we should let the DFSG hard-liners win. Let's
> yank all of the binaries that require a firmware, and release Lenny
> as-is. If that causes some users switch to some fork that actually
> has a kernel that wo
Am 2008-11-06 01:45:47, schrieb Faidon Liambotis:
> That's also false. You can easily jam cellphones using equipment bought
> from your local radio shop.
> There are even (perfectly legal) commercial products that do exactly that.
Maybe in the USNA, but not in Europe... (at least Germany and Franc
Am 2008-11-08 00:20:52, schrieb Ben Finney:
> Are you saying that EU law makes the vendor liable *only* in the case
> where the copyright license to the firmware permits the recipient to
> modify and redistribute, but *does not* make the vendor liable if the
> license doesn't allow this?
It seems
Ben Finney (2008-11-09 10:54 +1100) wrote:
> We don't distribute non-free *anything* in Debian. That's what our
> users are promised, at any rate.
Yes, this claim has been repeated many times, but as a thought-exercise
let us be more concrete: who exactly are those users who have been
promised? I
Am 2008-11-08 07:35:02, schrieb Robert Collins:
> On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 20:01 +, David Given wrote:
> > 2. For at least some of these devices, even if the source code was
> > available it would add no value, because of legal restrictions
> > governing
> > which firmware blobs can be used on tha
38 matches
Mail list logo
