On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:11:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I do stand behind my words; here are, chastizing the GFDL for
not being free, standing on the verge of the rowing GNU
documentation out of Debian, and yet, we blithely, though the
instrumentation of an annual Debian
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The same benefit that accrue from freedom of software still
remain if that software bits represent a presentation; the
software/presentation can be modified to suit a particular need, and
redistributed, excepts can be used in other
* Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-14 18:46:50]:
Hold on - does this mean I will or won't be able to do
apt-get install debconf6-doc
you will, and most likely it will be 100% complete. if someone
packages it.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Andreas Schuldei [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-14 18:46:50]:
Hold on - does this mean I will or won't be able to do
apt-get install debconf6-doc
you will, and most likely it will be 100% complete. if someone
packages it.
Uhhh, why would something
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andreas Schuldei [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-14 18:46:50]:
Hold on - does this mean I will or won't be able to do
apt-get install debconf6-doc
you will, and most likely it will be 100% complete. if someone
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 23:17:06 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
Well, it's not an inaccurate description (I think), but you would
use such a definition only if you think that charity is a stupid
thing to do...
So, if I'm parsing you right, you're saying that a person (such as
myself) would only
Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andreas Schuldei [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-14 18:46:50]:
Hold on - does this mean I will or won't be able to do
apt-get install debconf6-doc
you will, and most
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 05:38:10PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 11:17:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 04:56:37PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
It resembles describing charity as investment with no return.
Perhaps; though there are differences.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 04:56:37PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:28:41 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 07:26:55PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
I disagree with your calling licensing in a DFSG-free manner as
giving up rights: this seems to imply
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 06:59:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the best reason to ask or require contributors to licenses
their papers in a DFSG form is so that Debian can
Scripsit David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From reading the responses from Andreas, rather than people trying poorly
to interpret him, it's pretty apparent that they'll be giving freely
licensed talks a greater weight than non-free ones. They're also going to
make it easy to choose a free
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
In case you hadn't noticed, for the Debian project's purposes software
is a synonym for computer programs; if it weren't the reversion of the
social contract would have had no effect on the non-free documentation
in main question.
I case you
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 03:04:51PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From reading the responses from Andreas, rather than people trying poorly
to interpret him, it's pretty apparent that they'll be giving freely
licensed talks a greater weight than
On 11/14/05, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I case you hadn't noticed, there was a major _difference_ in opionons
about how software was to be interpreted. The editorial
clarification in 2004-003 removed the confusion by avoiding the
ambiguous word software
Unfortunately not. :-(
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 23:21:38 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 06:59:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the best reason to ask or require
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:04:51 +0100, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Scripsit David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From reading the responses from Andreas, rather than people trying
poorly to interpret him, it's pretty apparent that they'll be
giving freely licensed talks a greater weight
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 11:17:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 04:56:37PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
It resembles describing charity as investment with no return.
Perhaps; though there are differences. Charity does have returns: both
emotionally/psychologically,
* Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-12 23:40:57]:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 12:13:51 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:21:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
But instead, what I'm led to wonder is if this is really standing up
for our
On Nov 13, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do stand behind my words; here are, chastizing the GFDL for
not being free, standing on the verge of the rowing GNU
documentation out of Debian, and yet, we blithely, though the
instrumentation of an annual Debian Developer
On Nov 13, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Implicit in both your responses is that neither of you have any actual
reason to do so, other than ideology -- there's nothing you actually seem
to be itching to do that warrants a different license to the one I used.
I suppose that it's
On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the best reason to ask or require contributors to licenses
their papers in a DFSG form is so that Debian can distribute the
papers as part of Debian.
I think this is an awful reason, considering that Debian already
contains too
On Nov 13, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
I'm not sure anyone thinks we couldn't /function/ without non-free,
I used to think we could do well without it (or at least we could in a
couple of years) because free software made non-free software unneeded,
then I changed my opinion when
* Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-12 20:42:39]:
Well, a conference that is not affiliated with Debian, such a
requirement is not tenable, that is true. But if such a conference
uses the Debian trademark, we can indeed ask that our core values,
as enshrined in our social
Scripsit Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is a conference for Debian development. By definition,
Debian is 100%free. Am I mistaken in assuming that people
contributing to Debian are already familiar with the social contract,
and have decided to conform to it?
You are
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:32:50 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:24:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Several distros include non-free software, as long as it's
distributable.
Debian's one of them -- we just clearly separate out the non-free
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 13:59:08 +0100, Andreas Schuldei [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-12 20:42:39]:
Well, a conference that is not affiliated with Debian, such a
requirement is not tenable, that is true. But if such a conference
uses the Debian trademark,
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 13:43:07 +0100, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Scripsit Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is a conference for Debian development. By definition, Debian
is 100%free. Am I mistaken in assuming that people contributing to
Debian are already familiar with the
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 09:17:38 +0100, Andreas Schuldei [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
at the last debconf in Helsinki there were people from outside
debian giving talks, too. Hopefully we will have input from outside
even in the future.
Last time I looked, even our OS is full of contributions
Scripsit Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Our goal is to produce the best FREE operating system
possible; and a secondary goal is to convince people that when
information is free, all kinds of unintended collaboration occurs --
which may not even have been envisaged by the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the best reason to ask or require contributors to licenses
their papers in a DFSG form is so that Debian can distribute the
papers as part of Debian.
I think this is an awful reason,
On Nov 13, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Case in point: Thanks to Colin Walter's liberal licensing of
his Debian packaging talk, I was able to give my local Linux users
group an excellent introduction to Debian (with full attribution, of
course); a non-free license
On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that every package in Debian was
software. Are you confusing software and computer programs?
No, I just do not believe that this specious distinction is useful.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that every package in Debian was
software. Are you confusing software and computer programs?
No, I just do not believe that this specious distinction is
On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying that Debian has too much documentation? What is the
non-computer-program which we have too much of?
No, I am saying that debian has too many stuff which is not programs nor
their related documentation, like e-zines, books,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying that Debian has too much documentation? What is the
non-computer-program which we have too much of?
No, I am saying that debian has too many stuff which is not programs nor
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:21:46 +0100, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Nov 13, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Case in point: Thanks to Colin Walter's liberal licensing of his
Debian packaging talk, I was able to give my local Linux users
group an excellent introduction to
On Nov 13, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you explain exactly how a CC copyleft-like license would have
been an obstacle?
Because it is being incorporated in a larger work: My
So it looks like you have issues with all licenses not compatible with
the one you choose,
On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me that the papers at a Debian conference are almost all
related to programs in Debian.
This still does not generally make them documentation.
Personally, I'd like to read the papers. It's a shame that Debian
can't
It seems to me that we have some responsibility for the licenses used
on these presentations.
It also seems to me that we should structure our approach to these
licenses similarly to the way we approach other license issues.
That is: we should encourage people to use a DFSG license, and we
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:52:05 +0100, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Nov 13, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you explain exactly how a CC copyleft-like license would have
been an obstacle?
Because it is being incorporated in a larger work: My
So it looks like you have
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 12:28:07AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 10:01:48 +0100 Andreas Schuldei wrote:
Fine Print Publication Rights
Debconf requires non-exclusive publication rights to papers,
presentations, and any additional handouts or audio/visual materials
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
Personally, I'd like to read the papers. It's a shame that Debian
can't distribute them to me.
Debian does not want, it's quite a different issue.
Debian does not want what? To distribute them? Hogwash. I'd be
happy to upload them.
--
To
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 14:15:20 -0500, David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 12:28:07AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 10:01:48 +0100 Andreas Schuldei wrote:
Fine Print Publication Rights
Debconf requires non-exclusive publication rights to
Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It seems to me that the papers at a Debian conference are almost all
related to programs in Debian.
You expect no contributions about release procedures, bug report
management, the NM process, dealing with disappearing maintainers,
models for
Scripsit David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debconf requires non-exclusive publication rights to papers,
presentations, and any additional handouts or audio/visual materials
used in conjunction with the presentation. The authors have the
freedom to pick a DFSG-free license for the papers
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 10:13:31PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debconf requires non-exclusive publication rights to papers,
presentations, and any additional handouts or audio/visual materials
used in conjunction with the presentation. The
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:28:41 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 07:26:55PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
I disagree with your calling licensing in a DFSG-free manner as
giving up rights: this seems to imply that releasing DFSG-free
works is something wrong or
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It seems to me that the papers at a Debian conference are almost all
related to programs in Debian.
You expect no contributions about release procedures, bug report
management, the NM process, dealing
sorry for replying to this only today. i had been busy preparing
for a talk i was giving yesterday at a conf.
* Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-10 01:08:49]:
given your knowledge level of how debconf intents to handle
things and the way you escalate this issue gives me the idea
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:30:52 -0600 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:46:24 +1000, Anthony Towns
aj@azure.humbug.org.au said:
[...]
I don't believe I've seen anyone debate my use of the (aiui)
non-DFSG-free CC ShareAlike/Attrib clause on my debbugs paper this
year.
I did it,
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:36:39 +0100, Andreas Schuldei
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
do we limit personal freedom of speakers in favour of our own, when
we prescribe a license? debconf is about exchange of ideas (among
others). will we only permit ideas from people that already share
out view of
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:45:35 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
The conferences I usually publish at always demand an all-out
copyright _transfer_. However, in practice they will usually accept a
Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:45:35 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
The conferences I usually publish at always demand an all-out
copyright _transfer_. However, in practice they will usually accept a
non-exclusive license to print and distribute unmodified
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 02:39:52 +0100, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:45:35 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
The conferences I usually publish at always demand an all-out
copyright _transfer_. However, in practice they will
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:21:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Because sometimes one feels the need to fight for what is
right? Even if people feel far more comfortable with just sweeping
stuff under the carpet, and not brought out in the open?
You know, I was going to say
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 07:26:55PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
The conferences I usually publish at always demand an all-out
copyright _transfer_. However, in practice they will usually accept a
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 05:28:04PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:30:52 -0600 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:46:24 +1000, Anthony Towns
aj@azure.humbug.org.au said:
I don't believe I've seen anyone debate my use of the (aiui)
non-DFSG-free CC
I think the best reason to ask or require contributors to licenses
their papers in a DFSG form is so that Debian can distribute the
papers as part of Debian.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:36:36 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 05:28:04PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:30:52 -0600 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:46:24 +1000, Anthony Towns
aj@azure.humbug.org.au said:
I
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:28:41 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 07:26:55PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
The conferences I usually publish at always demand an all-out
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 12:13:51 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:21:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
But instead, what I'm led to wonder is if this is really standing up
for our beliefs and fighting the good fight, or actually just trying
to
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:24:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Several distros include non-free software, as long as it's
distributable.
Debian's one of them -- we just clearly separate out the non-free
stuff from the free stuff.
I am coming to the conclusion thst we do not
It's not all that unusual for conferences to require that the material
submitted for the conference be licensed in a specific manner; if you
plan on presenting, some DFSG free license of the material you present
should be expected so portions of the work can be utilized in main or
otherwise
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 03:26:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Why fight at all? If having a free license is so obviously correct, why
force people to do it? If some people are uncomfortable with it, why
fight that?
Even within Debian, it's become clear to me that, if we want DFSG-free
things,
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:26:58 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 07:49:36PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
FYI, a possible response might be: we care about freeness, but we
pick our battle, and our battle is Debian main. I care about
starving children, but I don't donate the
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 12:49:21AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
It's not all that unusual for conferences to require that the material
submitted for the conference be licensed in a specific manner;
OTOH, conferences usually ask for the minimal permission they actually
need to do their job.
if
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 08:00:55AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 03:26:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Why fight at all? If having a free license is so obviously correct, why
force people to do it? If some people are uncomfortable with it, why
fight that?
Even within
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 12:49:21AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
It's not all that unusual for conferences to require that the material
submitted for the conference be licensed in a specific manner;
OTOH, conferences usually ask for the minimal
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 10:46:24AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Of course, within Debian DFSG-freeness isn't mandatory or enforced: you
can upload to non-free instead of main just by tweaking your control file.
The response is predictable, but here it is anyway: non-free isn't within
Debian;
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:26:52 +1000, Anthony Towns
aj@azure.humbug.org.au said:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 12:49:21AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
[If this poses a problem,[1] you always have the option of not
presenting, or presenting your work in an informal session.]
*sigh*
Does this
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:26:58 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 07:49:36PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
FYI, a possible response might be: we care about freeness, but we
pick our battle, and our battle is Debian main. I care about
starving children,
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:46:24 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 08:00:55AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 03:26:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Why fight at all? If having a free license is so obviously
correct, why force people
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:02:22 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
[I tried to crosspost this between -legal and -devel, but apparently
it never arrived on -legal. Resending...]
Thanks.
Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don't you agree that seeing non-free or even undistributable (no
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:25:11 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's why I consider this issue as an important one: every DebConf
is an event through which we get public attention and can thus
spread our philosophy. The message really works better if
(FWIW, this is probably more of a d-project thing; d-legal is more about
figuring out whether licenses are free and safe.)
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 12:24:58AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
DebConf papers will not be distributed in main.
Why not (and says who)? If they're worth anything at all,
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 07:49:36PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
FYI, a possible response might be: we care about freeness, but we pick
our battle, and our battle is Debian main. I care about starving children,
but I don't donate the majority of every check to feed them: there are lots
of good
[replying to a message that was directed to debian-devel only, but
readding debian-legal in Cc:]
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 09:38:07 +0100 Andreas Schuldei wrote:
* Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-08 00:28:07]:
The authors have the freedom to pick a DFSG-free license means
that they *may*
* Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-08 00:28:07]:
The authors have the freedom to pick a DFSG-free license means that
they *may* do so, but are not required to. Am I correct?
IMHO, DebConf paper authors should be *required* to publish in a
DFSG-free manner, as a condition for
Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don't you agree that seeing non-free or even undistributable (no license
means All Rights Reserved, with current laws!) papers at a DebConf is
really a shame?
I don't.
Remember that non-free != evil, and that some of the arguments why
free software
On Monday 07 November 2005 11:28 pm, Francesco Poli wrote:
[Added Cc: debian-legal, because the topic may be of interest there,
I would say.]
[No need to Cc: me, as long as you keep Cc:ing debian-legal (just to
make things clear: I am subscribed to debian-legal, but not to
debian-devel)]
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
The way I read it was that the authors may pick any license, so long as it's
DFSG-free. Do you see how it could be read that way?
You sound just like Henry Ford.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:58 am, Adam Heath wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
The way I read it was that the authors may pick any license, so long as
it's DFSG-free. Do you see how it could be read that way?
You sound just like Henry Ford.
My goal was to do exactly
82 matches
Mail list logo
