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, a
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 07:47:32AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
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
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian-legal really could use a FAQ. [...]
Shouldn't your list be merged into
http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html ?
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 12:47:40AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200110/msg00126.html
If it was decided, why DFSG and SC were not changed?
The DFSG and SC were not changed because there were and are pending
Constitutional questions
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 02:58:49PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op za 16-08-2003, om 13:55 schreef MJ Ray:
If we cannot rely on true meanings, then this is the thin end of the
wedge.
I don't think you ever can.
I propose that all post-structuralists be banned from this mailing list.
--
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 08:24:14AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op ma 18-08-2003, om 04:06 schreef MJ Ray:
I wasn't suggesting the *document* is ambiguous. I'm only suggesting the
meaning of *one* *specific* word *could* be ambiguous to some, and that
it's *our* job to make sure people
On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 05:51:15PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
1. Define software as everything which Debian distributes.
That's it.
It's important to remember that this is a contextual definition. The
context is license analysis so that we can know whether or not we are
upholding our
Op di 19-08-2003, om 19:09 schreef Branden Robinson:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 08:24:14AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op ma 18-08-2003, om 04:06 schreef MJ Ray:
I wasn't suggesting the *document* is ambiguous. I'm only suggesting the
meaning of *one* *specific* word *could* be ambiguous
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,
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 10:38:34AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
But now you're telling me it distributes Software,
Documentation... anything else in there?
Configuration files, templates, icons, menu entries, sound effects,
change logs, message catalogs...
Sheesh, that's complicated. I used
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.
Jimmy Kaplowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 01:02:44AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:30:48PM -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
It can buy freedom, depending on what exactly you buy, as Wouter said.
If you have bought it, what you have isn't
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.
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 09:11:18PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 10:38:34AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
But now you're telling me it distributes Software,
Documentation... anything else in there?
Configuration files, templates, icons, menu entries, sound
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.
Now, can this thread please die until there is new
On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 16:49, Fedor Zuev wrote:
And for Someone will be much harder to prove that document X
is not a software, if Someone two months earlier call X a software,
say, in the mailing list. :-)
Not really. First of all, I just checked: The word Software is used
once in US
On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 06:46, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
As Dutch is my native language, I don't think it's hard to understand
why I misinterpreted the DFSG at my first reading. I'm sure I'm not
alone, and I'm also sure Dutch is not the only language which is alone
in this.
Out of curiosity, what
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They are using definitions which are *different* to the normal.
If that were true, and if there actually *was* a 'normal' definition,
why would they be using a different definition in the first place?
Because it suits their purpose.
I say you're
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:30:48PM -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
It can buy freedom, depending on what exactly you buy, as Wouter said.
If you have bought it, what you have isn't freedom.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Why do we have to hide from the
Debian GNU/Linux
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 01:02:44AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:30:48PM -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
It can buy freedom, depending on what exactly you buy, as Wouter said.
If you have bought it, what you have isn't freedom.
I was talking about buying rights to
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 01:02:44AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:30:48PM -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
It can buy freedom, depending on what exactly you buy, as Wouter said.
If you have bought it, what you have isn't freedom.
I didn't say one could buy freedom. I
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:35:35PM -, MJ Ray wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know; I meant 'clarifying it for people who read the text'. That means
adding a note before or after the text of the DFSG and/or the SC which
says something along the lines of...
I look
On 2003-08-16 11:46:59 +0100 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bullsh[...].
I'm glad we agree on the appropriate title for your position in this
discussion. (If you meant that as an attack, then you really should
go reread the code of conduct. You're also CCing me and that word is
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
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, John Galt wrote:
JGJKOn Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 07:50:32PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
JGJKAccording FDL, You may not use technical measures to
JGJK obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the _copies_
JGJK _you_ _make_ _or_ _distribute_. You has no
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
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 03:34:22PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 20:36 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov
wrote:
You can buy a bit freedom for money,
Freedom is a birthright.
Given his surname, Mr. Spiridonov may come from a cultural background
where this
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 08:20:29PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
_MAI Systems v. Peak Computer_ (991 F.2d 511) says otherwise. To quote
part: The district court's grant of a summary judgment on MAI's claims of
copyright infringement reflects its conclusion that a 'copying' for
purposes of copyright
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
The GPL takes away the freedom to redistribute works as closed sources
or unmodifiable. But it enforces the freedoms we want. It protects the
This is what I name deal. You claim to resist it, because your cow
will be disappointed.
--
Best regards, Sergey
Steve Langasek wrote:
the point of it. The sacred cow in question is the *DFSG*, a set of
principles that form the basis for this list's decisions about what is
considered free enough for inclusion in Debian. Your notion that the
It is not only one-way. DFSG itself should be updated if it
On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 17:02, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
Ummm... stupid as it sounds, inflammable actually does mean roughly the
same thing as flammable. It's related to the verb to inflame.
Agreed. I just don't like it because it's an extra syllable and extra
two letters for no good reason. Sort
Op do 14-08-2003, om 23:46 schreef Branden Robinson:
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
Op do 14-08-2003, om 20:41 schreef Anthony DeRobertis:
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
Op vr 15-08-2003, om 08:55 schreef Sergey V. Spiridonov:
gotten with blood, sweat, and tears. Those who have paid for their
You can buy a bit freedom for money,
Freedom is a birthright. If you have to pay for it, you're not free.
Can you buy a closed proprietary code and than
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
You can buy a bit freedom for money,
Freedom is a birthright. If you have to pay for it, you're not free.
Can you buy a closed proprietary code and than realease it under GPL?
Yes. It probably depends on the amount of money you spend, and on what
exactly you buy,
O Venres, 15 de Agosto de 2003 ás 12:49:21 +0200, Wouter Verhelst escribía:
we should at the very least avoid confusion by clarifying the intended
meaning of the word 'software' in the context of the text of the DFSG.
Well, in that context, software means everything you can store in a CD,
or
* Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030814 21:42]:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
So while most jurisdictions may have different terms and some
may even state the term software in their laws (I guess most
will more likely take an more exact wording and only the
commentary refer to
Op vr 15-08-2003, om 13:57 schreef MJ Ray:
Jacobo Tarrio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
O Venres, 15 de Agosto de 2003 s 12:49:21 +0200, Wouter Verhelst escriba:
we should at the very least avoid confusion by clarifying the intended
meaning of the word 'software' in the context of the text of the
MJ Ray wrote:
Please explain, other than the FDL's creation, what has changed in the
nature of software and documentation that makes the DFSG outdated?
1. It seems that DFSG does not make clear which version of 2 possible
software definitions it mean. Probably there was only one definition
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know; I meant 'clarifying it for people who read the text'. That means
adding a note before or after the text of the DFSG and/or the SC which
says something along the lines of...
I look forward to seeing your copy of the SC and DFSG where every word
Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Please explain, other than the FDL's creation, what has changed in the
nature of software and documentation that makes the DFSG outdated?
1. It seems that DFSG does not make clear which version of 2 possible
software definitions it
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 12:44:47PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op do 14-08-2003, om 23:46 schreef Branden Robinson:
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
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 08:00:04AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
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
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 08:55:27AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
The problem is that GPL trades away some freedoms and some people
think it is inconsistent with Debian way.
Such people are free to join the NetBSD Project. Works licensed under
the GNU GPL have been embraced by the Debian
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:09:09PM +0200, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Can you buy a closed proprietary code and than realease it under GPL?
Yes. It probably depends on the amount of money you spend, and on what
exactly you buy, but it's very possible to do so...
Thank
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 12:25:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:09:09PM +0200, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Can you buy a closed proprietary code and than realease it under GPL?
Yes. It probably depends on the amount of money you spend, and
Jimmy Kaplowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It can buy freedom, depending on what exactly you buy, as Wouter said.
Imagine that you buy the right to relicense the work under a license of
your choosing. That would probably [depend] on the amount of money you
spend, [...] but it's very possible
Jimmy Kaplowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 12:25:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:09:09PM +0200, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Can you buy a closed proprietary code and than realease it under GPL?
Yes. It probably
On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 13:40 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:
JKHowever, if you _make_ a copy by using the cp command on your own
JKsystem, you are subject to the rule you quoted, and you can't put
it on
JKan encrypted filesystem.
Again. You demand from licensce to cure a
On Friday, Aug 15, 2003, at 05:30 US/Eastern, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
It is not only one-way. DFSG itself should be updated if it becomes
out of date.
No one so far has proposed any update. Some people has speculated that
maybe, just maybe there could be a change which would give
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
MRFedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MROf course, you can claim that the very special definition of
MR software should and will be used for the sole purpose of the
MR interpretation of DFSG and Social Contract. [...]
MRYes! We use that very special
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
What I was trying to say is: It does not matter at all how world is.
Some legislations may use the word software for something, but it does
not matter at all. And it does not matter which meaning we choose.
(As it does not matter if all newspapers of
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 02:31:28PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
So no, buying closed proprietary code and releasing it under the GPL
(e.g., Blender) does not give me any freedoms I didn't have before.
It merely gives me technical capabilities I hadn't had before.
You can't give me freedom.
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
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
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 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 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
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 10:00:55PM +0200,
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 27 lines which said:
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.
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
1 - 100 of 236 matches
Mail list logo
