MJ Ray wrote:
Very roughly, losing lots in translation: Yes, Branden, different. :) Would you do that if most DDs were
Russians? (I see Yes, Branden, Debiana, russian and some other words
that I looked up.)
I'm impressed, MJ. The more exact translation will be:
Excellent, Branden. It is
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
But this is not useful to your argument, is it? This is because you
are wrong.
Saying something useless does not poof something useful.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Saying something useless does not poof something useful.
s/poof/prove/
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Such point of view on freedom is dependent on the copyright law.
No, any given work may have slightly different restrictions in
different domains of copyright law, but from looking at a license to
see whether it tries to restrict the user or free the user, it's
still
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I'm going to proceed as if that's correct -- say so if it's not.
Thank you for taking time to correct my English.
The GNU FDL, like the proprietary licenses I mentioned as examples,
offers a trade. Unlike the MIT/X11 license or the GNU GPL, the GNU
FDL does not only
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Do you realize you are reasoning just like the proprietary software
folks the FDL is supposedly meant to fight ?
There is a basic difference between free software foundation folks and
proprietary software folks. But both try to use practical and ethical
reasoning. As
Josselin Mouette wrote:
GPL doesn't take away freedom. It is a copyleft, full stop. As long as
you respect the copyleft, you are free to do anything you want with the
software. There is no limitation in what you can do, the limitation is
on how you have to do it.
Sorry, but GPL have
Josselin Mouette wrote:
The work being proprietary has nothing to do with the contents of the
work itself, which is just what I stated above. Please don't answer to a
This is irrelevant. I do not really understand, why do you think it is
that important. Do you think that restricting is not
John Goerzen wrote:
This make no sence. It is the same as not to have invariant sections at
all.
That is the point. What makes no sense about it?
It is the same as allowing to modify invariant section. One can remove
existing invariant secion and insert his own.
BTW, I understand, FDL
John Goerzen wrote:
I suggest that even if the GFDL did not allow modification of the invariant
sections, if it at least allowed removal of them, we would be in much better
This make no sence. It is the same as not to have invariant sections at
all.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
John Goerzen wrote:
Before I reply, I should add I still see it as wrong and misleading to apply
*software* guidelines to *documentation*, which to me are fundamentally
different beasts. Thus, I see the question as rather misleading.
I completely agree.
However, with the question narrowly
Don Armstrong wrote:
However, you still have not brought forward a definition that
adequately draws a bright line to distinguish between software and
documentation. That is, at what point does software stop being
software and become documentation, and vice versa?
I see no need (but it is
MJ Ray wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please, read debian-legal archive since 2001, before you think you
understand what DFSG is about. DON'T RELY ON DICTIONARIES!.
Alternatively, ask someone who knows or rely on good dictionaries.
Also good addition. Of course
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 09:58, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
DFSG use word software which have several meanings. Because DFSG does
not specify which particular meaning it use, there is a way to speculate.
Actually it *does* define what it means. See Social Contract
Richard Braakman wrote:
I would recommend this book if the compiler were free :-)
I'm not claiming that the *book* is software; it's quite hard, as
I found out when I dropped it on my foot. But its source code
certainly is.
I agree, source code is still program, even if it is printed in the
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
In this case I buy nothing but freedom for this program.
I can also say: freedom for people to use this program on less
restrictive license.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Richard Braakman wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 04:43:41PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Please understand that the readers of -legal have been subject to no
less than half a year (or are we at a year now...?) of GFDL
discussions,
Almost two years now.
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
The GFDL alienates at least one of the freedoms we guarantee to our
users in our Social Contract; therefor, it can not go in main.
I understand this point.
There is a problem with this.
DFSG use word software which have several meanings. Because DFSG does
not
MJ Ray wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is quite clear that it is not the intended way to enforce FDL. Since
it is not fixed till now, I conclude there is no bug here.
Cool! Until there is a fix, a bug isn't a bug? Someone tell the RM.
Note, I meant bug in wording
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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...
MJ Ray wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You definitely want to get rid of the software in non-free section of
Debian, aren't you?
There is no non-free section of Debian. Go read the Social Contract.
You are right, but you understood, what I meant, aren't you?
I meant
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 16:00, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Let's imagine infinite scale with absolute freedom(liberty) on one side
and absolute non-freedom on another. The border between free and
non-free will be at 0.
This is a joke, right?
Would you care
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
You recommend that we assign values to all the pros cons of a
particular license, and call free any license in which the positives
outweigh the negatives. Am I understanding you correctly?
Yes, exactly.
The problem with this* is that what you're really describing is
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030813 13:36]:
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.
Is it accidental?
I think that is at most half true. The other direction is
Stephen Ryan wrote:
Unfortunately we do not live in the ideal world.
Freedom has a value because it is convenient and useful to be free.
[snip]
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
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Please give one reason for allowing this other than I want to allow
Manual(s) X, Y, and Z in Debian. Any one reason.
FDL is free enough.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mar 12/08/2003 à 08:23, Sergey V. Spiridonov a écrit :
Please give one reason for allowing this other than I want to allow
Manual(s) X, Y, and Z in Debian. Any one reason.
FDL is free enough.
Oh, great, so maybe I'll finally have answers to my generic questions
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mar 12/08/2003 à 20:47, Sergey V. Spiridonov a écrit :
It is wrong to pick up *some* inconveniences (and even negative aspects)
and call the license non-free. Correct way is to sum up all pros and
cons for the majority of people on the long terms.
I'm asking again
Branden Robinson wrote:
The people who want w4r3z for w4r3z's sake will always want w4r3z.
It is not reasonable to count on them learning to crave freedom instead.
You definitely want to get rid of the software in non-free section of
Debian, aren't you?
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
The Social Contract says why: As a service to our users. You'll find a
lot of people here (hi, Branden!) would like to change that and get rid
of non-free.
That's nice.
Oh, yeah, and how exactly is the existence of non-free an argument to
put not-quite-free
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
I think that Debian shouldn't distribute non-free software at all; this
Why clearly non-free things are in Debian? Is it because of Social
Contract? Why moving FDL becomes more important, than removing non-free?
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Sunday, Aug 10, 2003, at 18:49 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Such cases should pass both program and documentation DFSG restrictions.
I'm going to assume for a moment that if something is program-DFSG free,
it'll be documentation (DFDG, maybe?) free
Henning Makholm wrote:
At least it would seem to be nonsensical to spend a lot of effort on
this until and unless we reach a consensus on *specific* ways in which
our demands of documentation licensing should differ from the DFSG (in
its usual interpretation).
As far as I can see, none of the
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
And incidentally, what does all of this do the LaTeX issue -- TeX is
written using Literate Programming, remember, so the code and
documentation are tightly interwoven.
Such cases should pass both program and documentation DFSG restrictions.
--
Best regards, Sergey
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
There is a difference, even if someone doesn't want to see it.
Is documentation that is linked into a binary software? If not, how do
you tell which bits are documentation and which bits software? If so,
how is drawing a distinction
Branden Robinson wrote:
After all, what utility would this distinction serve beyond providing
one a means of routing around the DFSG's inconvenient restrictions?
Program (code) is not of great value outside computer, except examples
which usually belong to the documentation. I will not buy a
MJ Ray wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about
...not cutting out all the definition alternatives that don't support
your position?
Definitions do not support me :( ;) I can use another one to express my
position. There is a definition which says
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Then, even if someone does come up with a good delineation between
software and non-software bits, I still haven't seen any convincing
arguments that non-software doesn't need the same kind of freedoms as
software.
If one does not see the difference between program and
Don Armstrong wrote:
[snip]
If we are to treat documentation any differently than software, we
should first define a ruberic that distinguishes software from
documentation. In all previous discussions, we were unable to do this.
[I cannot do it, but perhaps someone else is able.]
[snip]
Hi,
It is clear for me, why FDL appears: it is needed to help technical
writers earn money by writing free documentation for free software and
to help publishers of free manuals make a profit from them [1]. It is
clear for me, why some debian members are not willing to have
documentation
49 matches
Mail list logo
