Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
Stephen Frost escribió:
... And it has been proved that there are free editors for them. Problem
solved, we can keep our fonts :)
Except for transcompilation to textual form, PNGs and GIFs *are* the
preferred and only form for modification. JPEGs can not even be modified
without substantial change anyway ...
* Theodore Ts'o (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
That's what I'm contending. For compressed PCF or truetype fonts I'd be
more inclined to say that's the 'preferred form for modification'.
I have done quite some firmware programming, and i used just a plain
assembler (and just because the opcodes are a bit more tedious and
error-prone to write directly in hex).
Provided the instruction set for the particular /programmable device/ is
documented somewhere, the hex dump of the firmware can become the
"preferred form for modification", specially if no free assemblers are
available or the code snippet is small enough ( initializing some
registers and the like ).
less inclined to say the same about firmware and a hex editor though not
entirely opposed to it either. Especially if the firmware is just
assembled assembly for a specific processor that could be disassembled.
I'm not very familiar with firmware though, is virtually all firmware
compiled C code or is alot of it assembly or what?
People, please... ask for a clarification from the FSF or something if
necessary, but this "preferred form for modification" only applies to
*software* not *data* ( I am implicitly agreeing that firmware
constitutes software ).
BTW, IMHO it is yet to be proved that something which is distributed
under the GPL can't be distributed as it was received... probably
Debian-legal should get the FSF to provide an statement or something...
or maybe we *all* need to re-read the licenses we consider DFSG-free.
P.S.: Please keep in mind: our priorities are *our users* and *free
software*, in this order. And nothing in the latest GR changes this.