Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
+ - The person who makes any modifications must be identified.
+ According to the Dissident Test this is an unacceptable
+ restriction on modification. (See the DFSG FAQ[1] for a
+ description of the
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
+ - The person who makes any modifications must be identified. According
+ to the Dissident Test this is an unacceptable restriction on
+ modification. (See the DFSG FAQ[1] for a description of the Dissident
+ Test.)
Maybe I understand the word
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Perhaps [Bruce Perens] has a turing-complete compost heap as well?
Way, way, OT, but it's pretty hard not to have a compost machine that
does not contain universal turing machines.[1] (Hint: Think bacteria
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 10:17:25AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
My fear is that, as Don seems to be showing, people will oversimplify
and miss the limitations. Getting people to think in terms of
modification instead of DFSG 3 seems useful.
Hmm, I
Chris Waters wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 10:17:25AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
My fear is that, as Don seems to be showing, people will
oversimplify and miss the limitations. Getting people to think in
terms of modification instead of DFSG 3 seems useful.
Hmm, I think I missed the
Humberto Massa said on Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 11:17:25AM -0300,:
I Disagree. If it's to be a reference, then cross-references get to
be more and more important. So, to *properly* cross-reference the
summary with the DFSG, a small note like (Viol DFSG #2, maybe #4)
is a nice thing.
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Essence of writing a good opinion is that we need to convey the
same message we have in mind.
The proof of this conclusion is that I did not understand what you had
in mind when you wrote the rest of this message. :-)
You simply cannot predefine how you are going
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just because a single section of the DFSG fails to enclose all of
the problems of a license doesn't mean that a a license does not
violate a section of the DFSG.
But my point is that it does more than just
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
But my point is that it does more than just leave something out.
It's orthogonal. You're saying that knowing the section of the DFSG
provides some, but not all, information about why we decided the
license is
On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 06:54, Branden Robinson wrote:
I think Jeremy's concerns about not reinforcing the meme of DFSG as
strict ruleset are quite valid, but I think it serves people well if we
cite the DFSG wherever applicable in our license analyses.
It is also common courtesy among lawyers
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
The interesting part of the claim in a summary isn't that
restrictions on modifying make a license non-free, but that the
license restricts modifying. The summary doesn't describe the DFSG,
it describes the
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If my opinion matters, I have to come down more on Don's side of this
disagreement.
Hrmph. ;)
I think Jeremy's concerns about not reinforcing the meme of DFSG as
strict ruleset are quite valid, but I think it serves people well if
we cite the
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
This is a serious question: how does (DFSG 3) tacked on to the end
of a sentence help to explain the issue?
In the same way that a footnote or reference does.
It's always appropriate to
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Perhaps [Bruce Perens] has a turing-complete compost heap as well?
Way, way, OT, but it's pretty hard not to have a compost machine that
does not contain universal
I wrote:
1) Draft summaries should clearly be marked.
2) The first sentence (which is a paragraph by itself) clearly states
the conclusion, and includes the full name, including version number,
of the license.
3) The reasons for the conclusion follow in list form.
4) Each reason
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Like caselaw, it's entirely appropriate to base our decisions on cases
that we've examined before, and the metrics we've used to make those
decisions. Of course, we probably should make an attempt to provide a
cite to the places where the metrics we are
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
4) Each reason should refer explicitly to the freedom that is
restricted, and how it is restricted. Including the DFSG section
number is not necessary.
I know you gave some time to discuss it, and I did not oppose, but,
looking at the edited summary below this, I
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
4) Each reason should refer explicitly to the freedom that is
restricted, and how it is restricted. Including the DFSG section
number is not necessary.
I know you gave some time to discuss it, and I did not oppose, but,
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
This is a serious question: how does (DFSG 3) tacked on to the end
of a sentence help to explain the issue?
In the same way that a footnote or reference does.
It's always appropriate to refer to the basis for a specific claim. In
this case, the claim
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
This is a serious question: how does (DFSG 3) tacked on to the end
of a sentence help to explain the issue?
In the same way that a footnote or reference does.
It's always appropriate to refer to the basis
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The interesting part of the claim in a summary isn't that
restrictions on modifying make a license non-free, but that the
license restricts modifying. The summary doesn't describe the DFSG,
it describes the
[snip]
If my opinion matters, I have to come down more on Don's side of this
disagreement.
I think Jeremy's concerns about not reinforcing the meme of DFSG as
strict ruleset are quite valid, but I think it serves people well if we
cite the DFSG wherever applicable in our license analyses.
One
Don Armstrong wrote:
It is defined somewhere.
See http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html question 8.
Do you think we should perhaps try to get a link from
http://www.debian.org/devel to this (and perhaps the various other
documents which have been assembled, such as Manoj's huge page on
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
It is defined somewhere.
See http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html question 8.
Do you think we should perhaps try to get a link from
http://www.debian.org/devel to this (and perhaps the various other
documents
* Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040309 16:40]:
Yeah, what would probably be best is to setup a
http://www.debian.org/licenses or http://www.debian.org/legal/ to both
archive our license decisions and provide a place to stick the FAQ and
links to relevant decisions|commentary.
I have the same objection as before. The average person who doesn't read
lists like these won't know what the Dissident Test is, and it's not defined
in the DFSG. If someone has to search Google or mailing list archives to
understand the summary, it's not clear enough.
The best solution is
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004, Ken Arromdee wrote:
The average person who doesn't read lists like these won't know what
the Dissident Test is, and it's not defined in the DFSG. If someone
has to search Google or mailing list archives to understand the
summary, it's not clear enough.
Like caselaw, it's
27 matches
Mail list logo
