Le mardi 11 novembre 2008 à 04:49 +0000, Ben Hutchings a écrit : > So far as I can see, the only significant difference between #5 and #2 > (or #3) is the requirement that upstream distributes "under a license > that complies with the DFSG". But it is surely irrelevant whether the > licence text says we can modify the source when the copyright holder is > deliberately withholding the source. Do we have means to tell whether upstream has some sources for their firmware or they are working directly in hex? If we don’t, we are forced to consider all of them the same, and that means hex has to be considered an acceptable form of modification. Just like we sometimes accept documentation compiled to HTML as being its own source. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `- our own. Resistance is futile.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=