Re: Proposed addition to Debian web pages re: GNU FDL
* Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030829 00:05]: Andreas Barth wrote: I don't think it's good manners to try to push a certain view by putting it on the web sites. No, first finish the discussion in d-l, and the you _might_ put additions on the web site. (Though I think it's even then not the right place for that; but that's a different point of view.) The discussion *is* finished. Please allow me three remarks: 1. I always said it's usefull to remove GFDL-invariant/cover texts from main. That's _not_ the point of discussion here. 2. It's certainly undue to make such a proposal just a moment before the end of a poll. Wait for the poll-result. 3. It's IMHO never good to make any too formal statement in the heat of a discussion, if it can be avoided. That's valid for making a DFDG, and also for changes of web sites. Settle a discussion first, and when everyone has cold blood again, make the official statements. (That also means that though I would consider a DFDG usefull, it's now not the proper time to make it.) Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: Proposed addition to Debian web pages re: GNU FDL
Andreas Barth wrote: I don't think it's good manners to try to push a certain view by putting it on the web sites. No, first finish the discussion in d-l, and the you _might_ put additions on the web site. (Though I think it's even then not the right place for that; but that's a different point of view.) The discussion *is* finished. Virtually nobody believes that the GFDL with Invariant Sections or Cover Texts passes the DFSG. A majority believe that the GFDL doesn't pass the DFSG even *without* Invariant Sections or Cover Texts, thanks to the overbroad technical measures clause. (Ask around if you don't know what's wrong with it; nobody has given any argument for why this isn't a problem besides Oh, that's not what they *meant* to say, which is no good.) Bruce Perens has confirmed that when he wrote the DFSG he intended it to apply to everything on the Debian CD, including documentation. The English-language meaning of the Social Contract requires that Debian will remain... software (this has also been discussed to death). So if you believe that documentation isn't software and the DFSG shouldn't apply, then you must conclude that Debian shouldn't generally distribute documntation (at least without a General Resolution). So in fact there is consensus, and it's just a matter of explaining the reasons to people arriving late. Which is *precisely* why I was proposing an easy-to-find location explaining the consensus which has been reached after over two years of discussions.
Re: Proposed addition to Debian web pages re: GNU FDL
On 2003-08-29 15:09:53 +0100 Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The discussion _has_ been finished for quite a while. All we are seeing now is people who haven't bothered to read the last few years of debian-legal. Apologies for my part in that. I think it does take some effort to see past the jargon differences between FSF and Debian, though. I do still think the FAQ at http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html should differentiate more explicitly between free documentation and free software to help others understand before they climb that learning curve.
Re: Proposed addition to Debian web pages re: GNU FDL
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030829 00:05]: Andreas Barth wrote: I don't think it's good manners to try to push a certain view by putting it on the web sites. No, first finish the discussion in d-l, and the you _might_ put additions on the web site. (Though I think it's even then not the right place for that; but that's a different point of view.) The discussion *is* finished. Please allow me three remarks: 1. I always said it's usefull to remove GFDL-invariant/cover texts from main. That's _not_ the point of discussion here. 2. It's certainly undue to make such a proposal just a moment before the end of a poll. Wait for the poll-result. The poll is just telling us what we already know. This is not a new topic that people are still trying to figure out. 3. It's IMHO never good to make any too formal statement in the heat of a discussion, if it can be avoided. That's valid for making a DFDG, and also for changes of web sites. Settle a discussion first, and when everyone has cold blood again, make the official statements. (That also means that though I would consider a DFDG usefull, it's now not the proper time to make it.) The discussion _has_ been finished for quite a while. All we are seeing now is people who haven't bothered to read the last few years of debian-legal. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed addition to Debian web pages re: GNU FDL
* Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030828 08:35]: I propose something like the following as an addition to the Debian web pages, at the bottom of http://www.debian.org/intro/free. I offer this up for revision and use by the Debian community, or anyone else. [ put on the web pages GFDL is not free ] I don't think it's good manners to try to push a certain view by putting it on the web sites. No, first finish the discussion in d-l, and the you _might_ put additions on the web site. (Though I think it's even then not the right place for that; but that's a different point of view.) Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: Proposed addition to Debian web pages re: GNU FDL
* Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-08-28 02:10]: Motivation: some people seem to wish to remain in denial about the project's decision on this matter. This will help their psychological problem. ;-) It is no good for the (what I know) still unfinished discussion on that topic if want to spread even more FUD as there is already about it. ,--- Cite from the last DWN --- | Members of the FSF have approached us to give them some more time to | come up with a GNU FDL which is DFSG-free before we move packages in | question to non-free and experience bigger controversies. `--- Cite from the last DWN --- We would definitely experience bigger controversies if we put this online at this stage of the discussion. Definitely the wrong time for the suggestion currently, thanks for trying to resolve the issue in a sensible way... So long, Alfie -- Der Ton im Usenet ist häufig kürzer angebunden als im täglichen Leben, denn Tippen geht langsamer als Reden. Daher fallen Höflichkeitsflos- keln leichter unter den Tisch als anderswo. Deshalb sind die Aussagen aber weder oberlehrerhaft noch böse gemeint. (Thomas Hochstein) pgp8tnBLWHvxv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposed addition to Debian web pages re: GNU FDL
Gerfried Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is no good for the (what I know) still unfinished discussion on that topic if want to spread even more FUD as there is already about it. For what it's worth, I think the discussion on d-l will end only when the participants die of exhaustion. I believe Brandon will announce the results of the d-l poll today (unless he has already and I haven't gotten to it). If it's the landslide it looks like it will be, I think it's reasonable to take that as the decision, at least as far as d-l is concerned. We've been discussing this here for years (literally); if we wait for unanimity we'll wait forever. Unfortunately, we have a few folks here who are continuing to make the same poorly thought out arguments over and over again. They've been asked (by myself and others) to either take the time to make a coherent case or shut up, but so far have failed to do so. My personal advice is not to expect anything fruitful from that sector. ,- Cite from the last DWN -- | Members of the FSF have approached us to give them some more time | to come up with a GNU FDL which is DFSG-free before we move | packages in question to non-free and experience bigger | controversies. `- Cite from the last DWN -- We would definitely experience bigger controversies if we put this online at this stage of the discussion. Definitely the wrong time for the suggestion currently, thanks for trying to resolve the issue in a sensible way... This probably should be resolved, because it seems to contradict statements from RMS on d-l when he was asked about that: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01323.html Unfortunately, the statement in the DWN is third or fourth hand information (unless it was the DWN folks which where approached...?), and consequently it's very hard to know precisely what was said. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: Proposed addition to Debian web pages re: GNU FDL
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 09:00:12AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: For what it's worth, I think the discussion on d-l will end only when the participants die of exhaustion. I believe Brandon will announce the results of the d-l poll today (unless he has already and I haven't gotten to it). Who? What bastard is this, trying to pre-empt my work? I erred in a previous message. The polls have closed as of Thursday, 28 August, 0500 UTC, which is now in the past. I'll try and prepare my summary this evening. Someone else may want to perform their own count (don't forget to check developers' GPG signatures) since I'm tallying by hand. The margins look large so I don't expect a minor tabulation error to affect the outcome, but it's still good to be accurate. -- G. Branden Robinson| Organized religion is a sham and a Debian GNU/Linux | crutch for weak-minded people who [EMAIL PROTECTED] | need strength in numbers. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Jesse Ventura pgpXC5tM03sCG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposed addition to Debian web pages re: GNU FDL
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 09:00:12AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: For what it's worth, I think the discussion on d-l will end only when the participants die of exhaustion. I believe Brandon will announce the results of the d-l poll today (unless he has already and I haven't gotten to it). Who? What bastard is this, trying to pre-empt my work? Sorry. s/Brandon/Branden/g I must have been thinking of your evil, differently spelled twin. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: Proposed addition to Debian web pages re: GNU FDL
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 04:22, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: * Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-08-28 02:10]: Motivation: some people seem to wish to remain in denial about the project's decision on this matter. This will help their psychological problem. ;-) It is no good for the (what I know) still unfinished discussion on that topic if want to spread even more FUD as there is already about it. ,--- Cite from the last DWN --- | Members of the FSF have approached us to give them some more time to | come up with a GNU FDL which is DFSG-free before we move packages in | question to non-free and experience bigger controversies. `--- Cite from the last DWN --- We would definitely experience bigger controversies if we put this online at this stage of the discussion. Definitely the wrong time for the suggestion currently, thanks for trying to resolve the issue in a sensible way... DWN is wrong. Members of the FSF approached Martin, who approached AJ, who offhandedly mentioned it. The only times the FSF (in the form of RMS) have approached us as a project, is on debian-legal, and he has made it very clear that he has no intention of changing the GNU FDL. -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
