i need gettext help! xgettext can’t create multiple domains when using dgettext(‘domain’, ‘text’); ?
i need one .pot file per domain used in the code!

is it possible to get a copyright assignement for all gnu project at once ?

I wonder if it’s possible to fork the Linux kernel and change it’s copyright like that

You can only fork it because of the licence, which is enforced via copyright law.

ok
and I meant change the license, not the copyright

Mmm.

Plouj, it is not — you’d need to get persmission from all of gazillion copyright owners that are alive and throw away code from those who are dead.

heh
in other words, there is no point in forking

Still, according to rms, the FSF’s lawyers think that secure linux web hosting could be moved to GPLv3 if the authors wanted to move.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-system-discuss/2007-07/msg00012.html

if _all_ of the authors wanted to move?

Someone wrote a more detailed analysis of that, it doesn’t really need all of the authors

A lot of the code is under “GPLv2 or later”, so I’m led to believe.

hello everyone
i’m doing my first oss project and I’m looking for some help with automake
i have both layout/core.c and structure/core.c files and those two cause conflict
from debarshi I heard, that I should have Makefile.am for every subdir

Yes.

unfortunately it wasn’t mentioned in any tutorial I read – all code is kept in main dir

Say you are in directory foo/, which contains subdirectories foo/bar and foo/bar1

hello, I have a question about the GPLv2. As Example Max is downloading a iso image of ubuntu. His friend come to him and test his computer, he says he want a ubuntu CD. Max says he burn him one. In §3 of the GPLv2 are comments about the sourcecode. Should the source code given to the friend by Max? Thanks.

So foo/Makefile.am must have this line:
SUBDIRS = bar bar1
And there should exist foo/bar/Makefile.am and foo/bar1/Makefile.am
Helps?

yes, it does. just one thing concerns me

What concerns you?

inside subdirs i can’t put bin_PROGRAM
and then program_SOURCES

he should, but since ubuntu’s source is readily available the problem wouldn’t be very big
actually, only if max’s friend asks for source

Say there is foo/bar/hello.c.
So your foo/bar/Makefile.am should contain:
bin_PROGRAMS = hello
hello_SOURCES = hello.c
Helps?

what is when Max distribute ubuntu CDs with all his ebay auctions?

well, i added Makefile.am to the layout subdir, added SUBDIRS=layout but it didn’t
ok, it suddenly worked; still, inside subdirs it doesn’t use flags, that were set outside

The Makefile.am in the sub-directory need not have the SUBDIRS= thing. The one in the parent directory should have it.

do I have to set flags inside ich directory separetely?

thanks

his customers may ask for source, and he’s obliged to give source if asked

ok, with bin_PROGRAMS in subdir it nearly works
however, now make wants to create a program inside the subdir, which it shouldn’t

defectivebydesign.org/blog/BBCcorrupted
London on the 14, protest the BBC

will something happen elsewhere in .uk?

Welcome back from the most freedom-loving country in the world, Jocke!
Thanks!

stupid xchat sry ppl

Can we take Software under GNU GPL License and modify that and give that Software only to our clients alongwith Sourcecode and not open up our Source Code for every people?

your clients will have the right to redistribute the sourcecode

Is there any other license which restricts my clients right to reditribute the code?

no free licenses

So the FSF recommends against using Debian because there is non-free software in the precompiled Linux kernel package in the form of sourceless firmware… is there anything else in the ‘main’ section though? If the sourceless firmware was removed from the Debian Linux kernel package would it be 100% Free accoriding to both the DFSG and FSF (main section anyway)?

nothing else in main afaik, but the existance of ‘non-free’ is also an issue

True,but Debian doesn’t consider the non-fee and contrib sections to be part of it anyway.
That the Debian mirror servers also have packages that aren’t part of Debian and indeed simultaneously marked clearly as non-free does not bother me.

they reference it in their social contract, though

Ah, so it is.
Even so, that’s much less disturbing to me than having proprietary firmware in ‘main’

is there a page on fsf.org explaining the FSF’s position on sourceless firmware?

I couldn’t imagine the FSF favours it…
I certainly don’t.

I’m trying to release something I made under the GPL. I’ve followed the guide on the FSF website and included a copyright notice + the copy permission statement in the beginning of all my source files
is there anything else that I need to do?

well, it isn’t so clear. First off, that firmware is not executed on the main CPU, but some other device
second, that firmware would be on that other device and being executed there anyway, usually

But still the firmware is distributed with the kernel package so it can be loaded onto the device?

yes
though some of them are stripped out already, I think
mostly those which claim are GPL licensed along with the rest of the driver, but have no source

And it needs to be distibuted with the kernel because the device needs special firmware to be able to communicate properly with the otherwise Free Linux driver?

it’s distributed with the kernel, because it’s, well, distributed with the kernel, and Debian didn’t rip itout

How could the hw manufacturer claim GPLed firmware and not release source? Shouldn’t they have been nailed by now then?

Debian doesn’t add firmware to the kernel

So the proprietary firmware is merely part of the vanilla upstream Linux kernel even though no source is available?

firmware for Intel wireless is partly distributed in non-free these days, partly you need to get it from Intel’s website, depending on the version
sure

How can that be is fedora linux uses GPLv2?
Isn’t that illegal?

Linux people don’t care
and or do not consider it a problem, due to the two reasons I cited above

if a firmware manufacturer releases something under the gpl, then that is their problem
distributing a firmware together with the linux kernel however is not a gpl violation on the part of the linux kernel developers
nor of the distributor (Debian, or Ubuntu, or whatever)

you say that as if it was a fact

the firmware manufacturer might be in violation when releasing its work under the GPL 2
since it’s not the preferred source

that is also debated
some believe a hexdump /is/ the preferred for some of those devices

azeem, indeed
“what is preferred”
but if there is a corresponding source
the hexdump is surely not

usually, you would need a proprietary embedded development environment to compile the source anyway

it is

or it’s really just a sequence of register operation somebody coded up in assembler
according to the kernel people?

it’s a GPL violation to include nvidia binary drivers on your ISO

according to FSF lawyers?
according to you?

azeem, a firmware has nothing to do with the kernel source
so how is it a GPL violation to include it
you might violate another license, the firmware’s
see for example ipw2200
not free to distribute as per its license
still, it’s in debian non-free

eh
some firmware is embedded in the kernel driver
Debian (and others) people did some work to untangle that and use the load_firmware udev interface

ah
That complicates things perhaps a little bit, but it all depends on the fact if the firmware is a derived work from the kernel driver

in any case, my point is that this isn’t clear-cut at all, and I’d like to see an official FSF position on it

azeem, sure, i would too

because there was a lot of debate (and even a vote) on this inside Debian
and people were hand-waiving legally

“is the firmware is a derived work from the kernel driver”
GPL violation
does it fall under the gplv2 too, and is it the ‘preferred source’
probably not. the latter: debatable
azeem, all that apart from the fact i don’t particularly like binary stuff inside sources, which obscures the true ‘preferred source’
and ofcourse, the kernel people could care less about GPL violation
as they always do
well, not all kernel devs, but LT and friends
bbl

hii
does having a NES and game cartridges count as proprietary software

yes a NES is proprietary software, however, i don’t think you should worry about it as much as having say, Flash Player on your computer. You can change that, it’s unlikely you’ll be able to change things on the NES, now.
yes a NES is proprietary software, however, i don’t think you should worry about it as much as having say, Flash Player on your computer. You can change that, it’s unlikely you’ll be able to change things on the NES, now.