Peter S Galbraith wrote:
I feel that GPL will be offered next in sacrifice to the sacred cow. Of
course, GPL is not *absolutely* free!
I agree with you. I'm also afraid that the next release of the GPL
[snip]
Maybe in your world it does. WE have managed quite well without
worrying
MJ Ray wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] There is a definition which says that documentation can be a
part of the software, but I failed to find a definition which makes no
difference between software and documentation.
This was a nice try to change the point under
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Sunday, Aug 10, 2003, at 18:41 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Specific differences from the DFSG should allow inariants in the
documentation [...] Probably also Cover Texts
BTW, are you aware that probably still wouldn't make the GFDL a free
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mer 13/08/2003 à 14:20, Sergey Spiridonov a écrit :
Yes, encrypted system will be a problem if I will try to sell encrypted
FDL books, so that one can read, but not copy or modify his copy.
That was probably the intention, but the wording makes it unclear.
Sorry
O Xoves, 14 de Agosto de 2003 ás 09:05:04 +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov escribía:
That was probably the intention, but the wording makes it unclear.
Sorry it was quite clear for me.
The GFDL, as it is worded now, would forbid me sending you a GPG-encrypted
mail containing a GFDL-licensed work,
Op di 12-08-2003, om 16:05 schreef Branden Robinson:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 11:45:12AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
No; also because I feel that there is a difference in purpose, which may
warrant a difference in license policy.
So name the difference.
It's hard to describe it, as you
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 02:36:36 +0200, Sergey V Spiridonov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Stephen Ryan wrote:
You have taken the one sacred cow in the entire place here, and
have suggested that it is merely a convenience, and that we should
have a barbecue next Friday afternoon. Free enough --
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I agree with you. I'm also afraid that the next release of the GPL
won't mean what the current one does. I'm also afraid that the FSF will
sacrifice it in the name of some exchange. If that happens I pity all
those that have license their with the words
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:08:10 +0900 (IRKST), Fedor Zuev
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
MS In the example I posted before, the, the documentation of the
MS probe lists the access methods and protocols that one can talk to
MS the probe; this is the documentation part. The sensor parses the
MS same bits
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
This was a nice try to change the point under discussion. It was not
claimed that software and documentation are homonyms, AFAIK. Instead,
Are you sure?
Yes.
Quote Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If we are to treat
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
I feel that GPL will be offered next in sacrifice to the sacred cow. Of
course, GPL is not *absolutely* free!
I agree with you. I'm also afraid that the next release of the GPL
[snip]
Maybe in your world it
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I agree with you. I'm also afraid that the next release of the GPL
won't mean what the current one does. I'm also afraid that the FSF will
sacrifice it in the name of some exchange. If that happens I
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 03:17 US/Eastern, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 07:51:56PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Because this isn't the forum for discussing the removal of non-free?
And
because the discussion about removing non-free has to wait until the
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
JKOn Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 07:50:32PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
JKAccording FDL, You may not use technical measures to
JK obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the _copies_
JK _you_ _make_ _or_ _distribute_. You has no obligations
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 08:20 US/Eastern, Sergey Spiridonov
wrote:
Yes, encrypted system will be a problem if I will try to sell
encrypted FDL books, so that one can read, but not copy or modify his
copy.
It seems that some people completely misunderstood FDL, or just don't
read
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 10:31 US/Eastern, MJ Ray wrote:
This is not my understanding of the word or in that sentence of
the FDL. Are you sure that you have it right?
Possibly there is a virus going around that changes all occurrences of
or to and in displayed license texts. That
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 13:51 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:
Of course, you can claim that the very special definition of
software
As an aside, I'd like to note that several reputable dictionaries agree
with the definition of software being the part of the computer that is
not
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 15:37 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov
wrote:
Freedom has a value because it is convenient and useful to be free.
Nothing else. There is no need to have a freedom which can't be used,
and sometimes we can agree to give away a bit of our freedom, which we
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 15:57 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov
wrote:
People wanting FDL in main want to distribute non-free stuff.
Hm... Can you prove it? Software in non-free is clearly non-free.
While FDL seems to be disputable on this list.
The question of GFDL with invariant
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 18:19 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov
wrote:
Note, there still can be special rare cases, where such a freedom is
really needed.
I'm calling you on this one: I say there are not, other than selling
software. Back it up or drop it.
A good example will be the
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 20:36 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov
wrote:
I feel that GPL will be offered next in sacrifice to the sacred cow.
Of course, GPL is not *absolutely* free!
Explain exactly how the GPL could possibly violate the DFSG considering
that the DFSG says we consider
On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 02:47 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov
wrote:
There are still problems with, e.g., transparent forms.
If you meant problem with encrypted filesystems, this question was
already answered.
a) I didn't. Check the archive for a long discussion.
b) As far as
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
But this is _GPL'ed_ software which seems to be doing quite well without
sacrificing its license for more market share. You can't possibly argue
GPL takes away some freedoms. Can you argue this point? If not, then why
are you using GPL? GPL makes barbecue from your
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
BRL* Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030812 22:56]:
BRL Because everyting is software declarations does not really
BRL serve for promotion of any freedom, but, contrary, only for stealing
BRL freedom existed under the law.
BRLPlease note that there
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
That's mostly correct. If only the GFDL did only that. But it also
forces derived works to include the unvariant sections. Also include
Of course it is, otherwise one can produce a derived work to exclude
invariant section. This would be a hole.
--
Best regards,
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
But this is _GPL'ed_ software which seems to be doing quite well without
sacrificing its license for more market share. You can't possibly argue
GPL takes away some freedoms. Can you argue this point? If not, then
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
That's mostly correct. If only the GFDL did only that. But it also
forces derived works to include the unvariant sections. Also include
Of course it is, otherwise one can produce a derived work to exclude
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
There are still problems with, e.g., transparent forms.
If you meant problem with encrypted filesystems, this question was
already answered.
a) I didn't. Check the archive for a long discussion.
Well, most of problems were on how people interpret You may not
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
WVOp wo 13-08-2003, om 14:20 schreef Sergey Spiridonov:
WV Yes, encrypted system will be a problem if I will try to sell encrypted
WV FDL books, so that one can read, but not copy or modify his copy.
WVWhat if you'd want to create a custom Debian
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
There are still problems with, e.g., transparent forms.
If you meant problem with encrypted filesystems, this question was
already answered.
a) I didn't. Check the archive for a long discussion.
Well, most of
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 03:15 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:
If the package gets extra input information as a part of using it
_and_ a result substantially[*] varies, depending this input
information _and_ these variations at least partially controlled by
statements in package[**] -
I am the original author of the manual page in question. I am
presently negotiating with CMP, who acquired the Perl Journal a few
years ago, to obtain complete and unambiguous copyright on the
article. If I succeed, I will release the original article and
'perlreftut', the derived manpage,
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 02:41:34PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
That's correct. I can't. I can't stop anyone from using a word however
they please. I can stop people from saying inflammable to mean
flammable either. That's one of those things about living in a
(semi-)free society:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 11:08:35AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
It's a /feeling/. Hence, I said 'I /feel/ that there is a difference'.
Yes; most proponents of the
less-freedom-for-documentation-than-for-software crowd appear to be
operating at the bellyfeel level.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 10:06:52PM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
There are still problems with, e.g., transparent forms.
If you meant problem with encrypted filesystems, this question was
already answered.
a) I didn't. Check the archive for a long
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
So, if those things were under strait GPL, by your usefulness
definition, they wouldn't be DFSG-free, because they don't grant the
freedom to create proprietary works?
My usefulness definition is not interpretation of DFSG.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 08:47:35AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
There are still problems with, e.g., transparent forms.
If you meant problem with encrypted filesystems, this question was
already answered.
I am not at all surprised that you do not provide a
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 09:47:00PM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
That's mostly correct. If only the GFDL did only that. But it also
forces derived works to include the unvariant sections. Also include
Of course it is, otherwise one can produce a derived
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 09:37:05PM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Are are implying that I am against the GPL? If so, read what I said
over again.
Are you implying that I am against the freedom? If so, read what I said
over again.
You are arguing that because (in the case of the GPL) we
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 02:23:39PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 10:31 US/Eastern, MJ Ray wrote:
This is not my understanding of the word or in that sentence of
the FDL. Are you sure that you have it right?
Possibly there is a virus going around that
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 01:51:06PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
It's rather hard to determine the sign when you don't have any values
to do arithmetic on!
Is can't distribute modified binaries a -10?; -1,000?; or -???
How exactly would this standard help us. It seems we'd just be
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
What's so weird about wanting to categorize software by license?
I'm speaking about distribution of the software.
Why is it so interesting that there are opinions between non-free in
main and kill non-free?
The main difference is that people who want FDL in main
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 02:27:31PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mer 13/08/2003 à 14:20, Sergey Spiridonov a écrit :
Yes, encrypted system will be a problem if I will try to sell encrypted
FDL books, so that one can read, but not copy or modify his copy.
That was probably the
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 07:50:32PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
ADSo, it appears that if I have a non word-readable home directory,
ADespecially if it happens to be over crypto-loopback, I can't
ADstore FDL documents in $HOME.
False, btw.
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 08:18 US/Eastern, Nick Phillips wrote:
You don't generally load the contents of an audio CD in before use,
They how, prey tell, do you do all the ECC corrections on the data and
feed it to your DA converter?
Not that this is too on-topic.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 01:27:19PM +0200, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
It's interesting that people who want Debian to move FDL to non-free at
the same time want Debian to distribute non-free stuff.
A false assertion, obviously made in abject ignorance.
Have you ever tried doing basic research
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 12:16:39AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
The same as for the backup of any other content: from
proprietary program to temporary files for which you do not have
explicit licences just because they are temporary files, for example
emails.
If you practise to made
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Repeating over and over FDL seems to be disputable on this list does
not make the FDL disputed, it just makes you contridictory.
Oh it is not disputed? Sorry...
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Computer is a single tangible medium, and any internal
technological process whithin it, you aware or even not aware about
[...] is completely irrelevant to
the copyright, and, consequently, licences.
I thought you posted the translation of German law
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Fedor Zuev wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
JKOn Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 07:50:32PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
JK According FDL, You may not use technical measures to
JK obstruct or control the reading or further
51 matches
Mail list logo
