On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 03:46:53PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. Software is a collective noun, like information or stuff.
No, software is a mass noun, like information or stuff.
A collective noun is a word like committee, which is
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2003-09-22 15:14:45 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does the DFSG definition of freedom that applies to program
(nobody question that) help us to draw the line at the correct place
also for documentation?
Trivially, all Debian developers who
David B Harris writes:
However, I'm not one who believes that just because a file format only
has non-Free editor implementations that the file format itself is
non-Free. There are many ways one can edit PDFs with Free tools, but
this is beside the point for me. It's not (to my knowledge)
On 2003-09-23 02:38:44 +0100 Remi Vanicat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whoa. You don't agree with me/the majority, so go away... I don't
like the way you say this.
That's probably because I didn't write that at all. Feel free to put
whatever words you want into my mouth if you want to be sure
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections
to be unremovable as well as unmodifiable.
Well in that case you can rest assured that they will be removed from
Debian together with the documentation to which they are attached!
* Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030923 08:51]:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Now, then next question is very clear for debian-legal: The Social
Contract (and the DFSG) say that all software in Debian must be 100%
free. So, the answer for Debian is: Every software.
I think
Le mar 23/09/2003 à 08:31, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On 2003-09-22 15:14:45 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does the DFSG definition of freedom that applies to program
(nobody question that) help us to draw the line at the correct place
also
O Luns, 22 de Setembro de 2003 ás 10:57:37 -0400, Richard Stallman escribía:
Not long ago, people were trying to reassure me that if invariant
sections were removable, nobody would remove them. I guess not.
If they were both removable and modifiable (so not invariant), they would
be
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The DFSG lists three specific licenses that are meant to satisfy its
criteria. Nowadays some Debian developers tend to say that these
three licenses are listed as exceptions to the rules of the DFSG, but
I think that is a
On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 20:44, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:51:14PM +0200, Roland Mas wrote:
- un logiciel can even be used to mean a software program, whereas
the phrase a software sounds awkward to me in English (but then
again, I'm not a native English speaker,
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 09:24:12AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
PS: Am I the only one with the impression every single thing must be
repeated to RMS AND yeupou AND Fedor Zuev AND Sergey foobar and any
other blind GFDL advocate who is told Debian is BAD, because they want
to drop FREE (it is
On Tuesday, Sep 23, 2003, at 03:30 US/Eastern, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
Well, in that case they'll make the document DFSG-nonfree. If they
were
removable and modifiable the document would be DFSG-free (except for
the DRM
clause, of course).
The DRM clause isn't all. There is also the
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The DFSG lists three specific licenses that are meant to satisfy its
criteria. Nowadays some Debian developers tend to say that these
three licenses are listed as exceptions
On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 01:15 US/Eastern, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I'd like to nail it as open as humanly possible, so I'd like to apply to
to anyone receiving a derivative work based on the work as well, unless
there's a legal complication in that.
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Well, that's
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 20:13, MJ Ray wrote:
That is intersection, not equation. It is known that undesirable
stunts limiting freedom, such as software patents, are allowed under
most definitions of open source.
It is also known that undesirable stunts limiting freedom, such as
Invariant
RMS wrote:
A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals.
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as
text editors -- not as manuals or tetris games or news-readers or web
browsers?
This is absolutely a *critical* point.
Brian Sniffen:
Thanks for the response -- I hadn't noticed that phrasing before.
But if I give *you* a copy of Sniffmacs under the Sniffen GPL,
wouldn't you then be bound only to give others the SGPL, not the GGPL
with its Preamble?
Now we get into a subtle point of copyright law. This is how I
I am not sure that it is, but the FSF seem to be suspicious of the
free press movement.
I don't know what that message said, or who wrote it, but it does not
speak for the FSF. If the free press movement means indymedia, I am
sympathetic to it, but the FSF has no opinion about it.
If the whole docu would be DFSG-free, than there would be no cause to
remove polical statements.
According to Don Armstrong, a non-modifiable text cannot under any
circumstances be considered DFSG-free, so it would have to be removed
from the manual. Others have (it appears) said the
The main difference between a program and documentation is that a
program does something, while documentation is passive;
By this argument, source code to a program (of the sort which must be
compiled to run) is not a program.
That's a pedantic approach to the issue. I'd say a
While you are free to state the terms by which the GFDL should be
interpreted for GNU documentation, this is not always the case. We have
in the past seen cases where copyright holders have interpreted
seemingly unambiguous statements in a pathological fashion (see Pine,
for
But what if an Invariant Section was the only part of the document that
fell foul of the law?
I guess nobody could distribute that version, so it might be
non-free.
However, all free software and free documentation licenses share this
problem. You could simply add code for a DeCSS
FYI, that's not going to convince anyone.
We could all speculate about what might or might not convince certain
other persons, but doing so is attempting to speak for them, so let's
not do it.
But I think
that would not be free, because this behavior is substantive, not mere
packaging. It's not the same as just printing an informative message
about something nontechnical.
You often refer to the inclusion
It's annoying but it can be dealt with. The distinction I, personally,
was trying to make is that that's a finite, known, limited amount. You
didn't respond to the point that the amount for the GFDL is not a
maximum amount at all, just a current amount.
I see the distinction,
My point is precisely that a GFDL manual *cannot* be incorporated into
*ANY* free software project. And this is *different* from the old
documentation license, which did not have that problem.
I have never considered the question of whether the GFDL is a free
software license. The
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The text in the manual is usually not suitable for a doc string, and
vice versa. I don't copy text from the Emacs manual into a doc
string, even though the FSF as copyright holder for both could do so.
The problem is that you can't even re-edit it
Richard Stallman wrote:
The main difference between a program and documentation is that a
program does something, while documentation is passive;
By this argument, source code to a program (of the sort which must be
compiled to run) is not a program.
That's a pedantic
Richard Stallman wrote:
Being able to use some of the text for something of a different kind,
such as an essay about the funding of free software, is something above
and beyond the call of duty for a license.
This is clearly the key point where Debian and the FSF diverge. I think
there is
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:47:26AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
IBM distributes the Linux driver and the binaries in a tarball that
it says is licensed under the GPL.
http://oss.software.ibm.com/acpmodem/
No source code is provided for the DSP binaries. (N.B., past
Do you have numbers to back the claim that it is more widespread? I
thought only English had the free/free ambiguity enough to create a
market for the more ambiguous term open source.
Most of the computer-using world uses English, and the English-language
press is most influential.
31 matches
Mail list logo
