-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 22 September 2003 08:49, Andreas Barth wrote:
If the whole docu would be DFSG-free, than there would be no cause to
remove polical statements.
On Wednesday 24 September 2003 01:12, Richard Stallman wrote:
According to Don
[RMS not CCed]
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 07:13:31PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
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.
Hmm. By
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 07:13:30PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
I would not release a reference card under either the GFDL or the GPL,
because both of them are long enough that the requirement to
distribute them along with the reference card is burdensome.
But surely this doesn't imply they
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
[RMS not CCed]
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 07:13:31PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
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
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 07:13:13PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
In the compiled form of a manual, as long as there is no DRM to stop
you from reading it, everything that matters is plain to see. You see
the contents, and you even see the fonts and indentation that were
selected by the
This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections
to be unremovable as well as unmodifiable.
To serve the ends of GNU, perhaps. But it doesn't seem to serve the
needs of the larger Free Software community.
It serves the free software community by resisting
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:25:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
If it's licensed under the GPL, and no source is provided, then it can
not be distributed at all, not even in non-free, unless there never was
source to begin with. (I assume this isn't the case, as you said no
source code is
[ If you do not reply to d-openoffice, too, lease CC me.
However, Reply-To: is set to all three lists ]
Hi,
On releases@openoffice.org recently was announced [1] that there is now
the Sun logo embedded into the OOo splash screen and that vendors are
encouraged to add their logos to the screen
On releases@openoffice.org recently was announced [1] that there is now
the Sun logo embedded into the OOo splash screen and that vendors are
encouraged to add their logos to the screen instead of the Sun
things
So, we want to add the Debian Logo there.
On 2003-09-23 20:20:41 +0100 Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It is also known that undesirable stunts limiting freedom, such as
Invariant sections, are allowed under the FSF's definition of free.
FSF do not claim that FDL-covered works are free software, use a
particular odd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 26 September 2003 08:48, Florian Weimer wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:25:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
If it's licensed under the GPL, and no source is provided, then it can
not be distributed at all, not even in non-free,
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 08:34:26AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 07:13:31PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
FYI, that's not going to convince anyone.
We could all speculate about what might or might not convince
Software is not a controversial word in English (roughly inverse of
hardware in one sense). Some people advocate a bizarre definition of
it in order to further their agenda. If you're going to define common
words just because someone objects to the normal meaning being used,
you'll get some
I value freedom in documentation just as much as I do for programs. I
value it so much that I designed the GFDL specifically to induce
commercial publishers to publish free documentation.
You don't value the freedom to modify the whole book. You value
freedom in
I don't think that section titles are a problem--it would not be
hard to put them in a program. But it is true that you cannot take
text from a GFDL-covered manual and put it into most free programs.
This is because the GFDL is incompatible with the normal free
software
While superficially
ironic, this is in fact quite fundamental: you cannot truly build a
free society without granting its participants the freedom to reject
the very notion of freedom itself.
The idea that people should be free to reject freedom is a
fundamental philosophical
I am seeing a persistent pattern where you accuse me of dishonesty
based on little except supposition. Here are several examples from
the mail I received last night.
Thomas Bushnell proposed another interpretation, in which certain
things that are included in the Debian package files
Not long ago, people were trying to reassure me that if invariant
sections were removable, nobody would remove them. I guess not.
This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections
to be unremovable as well as unmodifiable.
You have misunderstood.
1) Because the borders between the cases are ambiguous and uncertain.
I sent a message a day or two ago (perhaps after you sent this one)
which addresses that issue.
2) Because we want to be able to combine works from different sources,
As I explained, this desire is usually impossible
You should probably read the whole thread before replying.
Prior to this message, I must have read half-a-dozen or more messages
saying...
I can't do that. Those messages probably did not arrive on my machine
until after I sent my message out.
I do mail transfers in batches,
As has been pointed out before, such a proposal doesn't belong here. The
function of -legal is to interpret the DFSG and vet the free-ness of
software[1] licenses in accordance with said interpretation. It is *not*
its role to decide which parts of Debian the DFSG should adhere to
If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer
would remove the political statements one could find in it.
Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot
be modified.
Notice that the first person said DFSG free, and you
I don't think
it needs to be possible to use text from manuals in a program.
A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals.
And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as
text editors -- not as manuals or tetris games or
Your casual suggestion to pick whichever seems better leaves out the
object: better for whom? For the Free Software community? For the
Free Software Foundation, whose goals are quite different?
That is a cheap shot, because it reflects only your decision to be
nasty. I could make
You have previously suggested we should consider whether documentation
is free, based on the four basic freedoms as specified on
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/ . That includes 'the freedom to run the
program, for any purpose'. Since a manual can't be run, I'll interpret
that as
We want to have freedom over what we distribute in binary packages.
We are willing to tolerate noxious restrictions like the TeX ones only
because they do not impact what we can distribute in the binary
package: they only restrict the hoops that the source package must go
Everything in Debian is software; the official logo is not free, and
therefore is not in Debian.
Fortunately it is not necessary for me to understand this.
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't agree that the latter is the important question. I think the
former is the question that matters. I am not sure if the GFDL is a
free software license, but I don't think the question matters.
When people said the GFDL is incompatible with
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This has been explained to you enough times that your attempt to
pretend it hasn't can no longer be attributed to ignorance.
I am not pretending anything--I consider the issue a red herring. So
I have addressed the issues I think are
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Everything in Debian is software; the official logo is not free, and
therefore is not in Debian.
Fortunately it is not necessary for me to understand this.
Many things are on Debian servers which are not part of the Debian
system. The
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) Because the borders between the cases are ambiguous and uncertain.
I sent a message a day or two ago (perhaps after you sent this one)
which addresses that issue.
By saying everything has ambiguous and uncertain borders. But hey!
We don't
The reason why he does not want to talk with you have nothing to do
with your arguments/point of view.
Oh, well, that's a relief. It's much better that he dislikes me due to
my height or the color of my skin or something.
Did I said that?
I'll give you a hint, Mathieu, since you have
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I value freedom in documentation just as much as I do for programs. I
value it so much that I designed the GFDL specifically to induce
commercial publishers to publish free documentation.
You don't value the freedom to modify
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GFDL is doing its job by guarding against this. Debian may label
our manuals as non-free, an appelation I disagree with and will
criticize, but at least it cannot remove them.
Sure it can. It can move them to non-free. (Or perhaps you mean the
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 06:58:28PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Apparently you need an hint too: this is about your harsh and
aggressive attitude.
...which is irrelevant to the cogency of my arguments, or lack thereof.
But in actual fact I've been unfailingly polite to RMS, as far as I can
[RMS not CCed]
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 07:09:20PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
Perhaps I misundertood those messages a few months ago. Or perhaps
you misunderstood them, or misunderstood my reference to them, or you
forgot about them. As human beings, we cannot avoid the risk of
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 04:25, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Stephen Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, you're not the only one with that impression. Personally, I'm ready
to killfille [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a bunch of trolls. The only reason I
haven't is that I think there are some people
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 03:45:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
My girlfriend photography sitting on my computer is not free
software. That's not something I think important to be shared.
And it can't be part of Debian as long as it's not free.
I'm not saying there should never
On 2003-09-24 23:12:06 +0100 Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Software is a controversial word in English.
Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the
automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes. --
Monty Python's Flying Circus.
In an informal
[Followups set.]
Compare:
http://web.archive.org/web/20021128102620/http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html
with:
http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=Newsfile=articlesid=260
This change was quite recent (since 14 August 2003), if we are to accept
as true the assertion in the first comment on the
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 02:23:37PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Compare:
http://web.archive.org/web/20021128102620/http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html
with:
http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=Newsfile=articlesid=260
You know, I just love how screen is always forgetting what the X
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
I am not saying that the DFSG is evil, just that it isn't free (and
our logos aren't either), and therefore can't be in a free OS (and so
also our logos can't).
Of course I meant GFDL where I said DFSG. Sorry for the
confusion.
Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Software is not a controversial word in English (roughly inverse of
hardware in one sense). Some people advocate a bizarre definition of
it in order to further their agenda. If you're going to define common
words just because someone objects to the normal
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the whole document would be DFSG-free, than there would be no cause to
remove political statements.
According to Don Armstrong, a non-modifiable text cannot under any
circumstances be considered DFSG-free,
It *might* be possible to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Software is not a controversial word in English (roughly inverse of
hardware in one sense). Some people advocate a bizarre definition of
it in order to further their agenda. If you're going to define
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Adobe has patents which it claims apply to PDF and has licensed them only
for the purpose of creating compatible implementations.
http://partners.adobe.com/asn/developer/legalnotices.jsp
If you modified an application which implements PDF so that it
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 09:58:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 03:45:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I'm not saying there should never be non-free stuff--only that the
DFSG manuals are not free.
(Because they fail the GFDL, of course.)
/me does a double
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
I have occasionally received requests in private mail for some links to
a document summarizing Debian's position on the GNU FDL as it relates
to the DFSG.
As we know, there isn't any one canonical document, but I think we've
reached the point where a few mailing list messages and existing essays
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Software is not a controversial word in English (roughly inverse of
hardware in one sense). Some people advocate a bizarre definition of
it in order to further
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Adobe has patents which it claims apply to PDF and has licensed them only
for the purpose of creating compatible implementations.
http://partners.adobe.com/asn/developer/legalnotices.jsp
If you modified an application which implements PDF so
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have, therefore, updated my FDL webpage:
http://people.debian.org/~branden/fdl/
Many many many thanks for doing this!
Peter
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:25:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
If it's licensed under the GPL, and no source is provided, then it can
not be distributed at all, not even in non-free, unless there never was
source to begin with. (I assume this
On 2003-09-26 21:48:48 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Is this MP3 file software or hardware?
This is one is definitely worse: you explicitely point out which
definition of the word software you think is the most usual, by asking
to refer to this definition.
ITYM implicitly.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:25:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
We should allow it if source code once existed but no longer exists (all
the copies of the source code were wiped accidentally at some time in
the past). (This has happened with old games and firmware fairly often,
and the
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
We reject the GFDL because it is not merely incomptability of
licenses.
Here's the test. I want to write a brand new program. I insist it be
free software, but I am otherwise entirely agnostic about which free
software license I use. I will use any license.
I
Richard Stallman wrote:
I don't think
it needs to be possible to use text from manuals in a program.
A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals.
And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as
text editors -- not as manuals or
I will both consent and interests of users and unoriginal. You
can believe that personally You do not use any more abstract important
cases, this list software is not be counted copyrightable. Please for
the document by European copyright regime; which, can be; governed by
here, in GPL
From: Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As a matter of principle, the RMS and, I assume, the FSF want
invariant sections.
Actually, I am not convinced that FSF _as_an_organization_ wants
invariant sections. It appears so far that when they are coupled to
_software_documentation_ that they
* Richard Stallman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030926 01:00]:
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
It seems to me that the GFDL conflict is a conflict between the
needs of political speech, and the needs of of software documentation.
None of the parties disagree about the needs of software documentation.
Nobody is seriously proposing to allow the actual part of the text
that documents software
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Roland Mas wrote:
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet, 2003-09-22 20:40:07 +0200 :
Given the amount of discussion this topic has started, perhaps
it might be a good idea to do it anyway, if only to reduce
the confusion for those who are not native speakers of English.
In the
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
We should allow it if source code once existed but no longer exists (all
the copies of the source code were wiped accidentally at some time in
the past).
So it's okay to ignore the DFSG in this case?
It's not ignoring the DFSG; it's interpreting
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is why the GFDL does not require complete corresponding source
code for a published manual. It's easier to change the manual if you
have this, but no disaster if you don't: you just have to write your
own mark-up, which is pretty straightforward. The
Le mer 24/09/2003 à 16:43, Simon Law a écrit :
Now, we wonder if we are allowed to use the official logo (because it
is a Debian-product, the Debian-Pakete of OpenOffice.org) or if we
should use the open one?
The official one is not acceptable for this use.
The open use
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have never considered the question of whether the GFDL is a free
software license. The question seems purely academic, since it is (1)
not meant as a license for programs, and (2) clearly an annoying
license to use for programs. So I don't know
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We are talking about two different kinds of packaging. When I speak
of a packaging requirement I'm talking about a requirement that
applies to the form of a program or other work, but not the substance.
This a different kind of packaging from the
Stephen Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, you're not the only one with that impression. Personally, I'm ready
to killfille [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a bunch of trolls. The only reason I
haven't is that I think there are some people worth listening to who are
part of gnu, but you'd never know it
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think that nontechnical invariant comments do not make a program
non-free, but not for those reasons. The reason is that this is a
packaging requirement that doesn't really restrict you from making the
program substantively behave as you want it
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:25:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
We should allow it if source code once existed but no longer exists (all
the copies of the source code were wiped accidentally at some time in
the past).
So it's okay to ignore
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have, therefore, updated my FDL webpage:
http://people.debian.org/~branden/fdl/
If you have additional links to suggest, please do so in reply to this
message (replying to the list is fine).
There's also:
73 matches
Mail list logo
