Scripsit Paul Hedderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:33:50PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Scripsit Paul Hedderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> What you are showing here is that "code that can be compiled" is not a
>> working defintion of "source code".
> It not only works, but has
On Friday 04 March 2005 17:47, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Source code is source code. Obfuscated or not does not change that. It
> > > fullfills at least the letter of DFSG#2. For it to violate DFSG#2 you
> > > would have t
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:33:50PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Paul Hedderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > What we have is source code (yes code that can be compiled) which is
> > unencumbered, we can modify,compile, distribute etc... whether it is
> > _harder_ to modify or not because of
This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said:
> Scripsit Paul Hedderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > What we have is source code (yes code that can be compiled) which is
> > unencumbered, we can modify,compile, distribute etc... whether it is
> > _harder_ to modify or not because of choices the _
Scripsit Paul Hedderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What we have is source code (yes code that can be compiled) which is
> unencumbered, we can modify,compile, distribute etc... whether it is
> _harder_ to modify or not because of choices the _owner/author_ has
> made or not... is nothing to do with free
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 07:31:22AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Henning Makholm writes:
> > Yes, but we shouldn't act as if it was a _freedom_ problem.
>
> If it was deliberately made bloody horribly ugly and painful in order to
> make changing it difficult, it's a freedom problem.
Not really. How
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 08:31:18AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > I also think that it would be a very good thing if we were to use our
> > collective discretion more often -- to say, for example, "well, you could
> > call this source, but it's blo
* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050307 14:50]:
> Henning Makholm writes:
> > Yes, but we shouldn't act as if it was a _freedom_ problem.
> If it was deliberately made bloody horribly ugly and painful in order to
> make changing it difficult, it's a freedom problem.
>
> There are sure to be bor
* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050307 09:50]:
> Scripsit Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > I also think that it would be a very good thing if we were to use our
> > collective discretion more often -- to say, for example, "well, you could
> > call this source, but it's bloody horribl
Scripsit John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm writes:
>> Yes, but we shouldn't act as if it was a _freedom_ problem.
> If it was deliberately made bloody horribly ugly and painful in order to
> make changing it difficult, it's a freedom problem.
True. But in that case I would not ag
Henning Makholm writes:
> Yes, but we shouldn't act as if it was a _freedom_ problem.
If it was deliberately made bloody horribly ugly and painful in order to
make changing it difficult, it's a freedom problem.
There are sure to be borderline cases, but it usually isn't all that hard
to tell the
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> I also think that it would be a very good thing if we were to use our
>> collective discretion more often -- to say, for example, "well, you could
>> call this source, but it's bloody horribly ugly and pa
Scripsit Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I also think that it would be a very good thing if we were to use our
> collective discretion more often -- to say, for example, "well, you could
> call this source, but it's bloody horribly ugly and painful source,
> and we don't want that kind of crap
On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 12:40:53AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Maybe I'm too unclear. They are guidelines. As such they don't define
> what source is or what forms of 'source' are acceptable but use the
> broadest term saying just 'source'. If something is still acceptable
> as source (li
Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 05:08:36PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> In my eye even _deliberate_ obfuscation (which remains to be proven)
>> does not violate the letter of DFSG#2 while it does not follow its
>> spirit. There are other sources in Debian
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 05:08:36PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> In my eye even _deliberate_ obfuscation (which remains to be proven)
> does not violate the letter of DFSG#2 while it does not follow its
> spirit. There are other sources in Debian that are far more unreadbale
> or even compil
sorry, wrong posting
(I must switch to a better news reader!)
a.
A Mennucc wrote:
Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:47:32PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:25:48PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Obfuscated code does not satisfy DFSG#2. I hope nobody serious
* Kalle Kivimaa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050304 17:35]:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Source code is source code. Obfuscated or not does not change that. It
> > fullfills at least the letter of DFSG#2. For it to violate DFSG#2 you
> > would have to show that it is not source an
Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Source code is source code. Obfuscated or not does not change that. It
> > fullfills at least the letter of DFSG#2. For it to violate DFSG#2 you
> > would have to show that it is not source and the gcc already prooves
> > y
Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Source code is source code. Obfuscated or not does not change that. It
>> fullfills at least the letter of DFSG#2. For it to violate DFSG#2 you
>> would have to show that it is not source and the gcc al
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Source code is source code. Obfuscated or not does not change that. It
> fullfills at least the letter of DFSG#2. For it to violate DFSG#2 you
> would have to show that it is not source and the gcc already prooves
> you wrong there. If you use 'obf
A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
>>On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:47:32PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:25:48PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>>>
>>>
Obfuscated code does not satisfy DFSG#2. I hope nobody seriously
disagrees with t
Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:47:32PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:25:48PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Obfuscated code does not satisfy DFSG#2. I hope nobody seriously
disagrees with this.
Let's not be so fast with this. I haven't taken a
23 matches
Mail list logo
