Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I agree that the DFSG should also be applied to non-software. However, I
also think that Debian's infrastructure shouldn't be burdened with lots
of data whose principal applications have nothing to do with software.
Perhaps, but the current rules for
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:18:08PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
Please read what the FSF has to say about this:
When should a section be invariant? First of all, keep in mind that a
section that treats technical material cannot be invariant. Only a
secondary section can be
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 07:32:21PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:01:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Licensing aside, why would (and should) Debian distribute famous novels?
An installer for famous novels (c.f. gutenbook), sure, but why the
novels themselves?
Many of you are already aware (me included but I have not participated/read all
the relevant threads) that this horse might have been beaten to death in as many
threads over the years. However there is not a single place that summarises all
this information and shows the official (Debian's as
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
Then please remove the GPL from all debian packages, and make non-free
all those that include it. Or can the GPL be modified, can it be changed
at will? No. Does it make it non-free: NO.
Could you do us all a favour and save our time by not dragging
On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 02:32, Herbert Xu wrote:
Why are we distributing the bible then?
bible-kjv-text - King James Version of the Bible - text and concordance
Because we have bible-kjv, a program that browses it. The bible, besides
being a excellent source of statistical information about the
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 09:15:42AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Why are we distributing the bible then?
bible-kjv-text - King James Version of the Bible - text and concordance
- It's been argued that this particular text is useful as data employed
by programs
So all you need is to
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 07:20:59AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
- No one's gotten worked up enough about having *one* such text in the
archive to request its removal. Abusing this precedent by uploading
dozens of books to the archive is much more likely to result in a
response.
You
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 02:32, Herbert Xu wrote:
Why are we distributing the bible then?
bible-kjv-text - King James Version of the Bible - text and concordance
Because we have bible-kjv, a program that browses it. The bible, besides
That's
On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 14:41, Herbert Xu wrote:
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 02:32, Herbert Xu wrote:
Why are we distributing the bible then?
bible-kjv-text - King James Version of the Bible - text and concordance
Because we have bible-kjv, a
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That sentence existed within the context of a paragraph that explained
why the particular text of the bible was important (which is, IMO, the
reason that there was such a program designed around it and not some
other book). If someone wants to adapt a
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 11:52:29AM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Because we have bible-kjv, a program that browses it. The bible, besides
being a excellent source of statistical information about the languages
it has been translated into, is often used as a reference book, like an
encyclopedia
distributing documentation that does _not_ apply to documentation? Sample:
- the Project gutenberg texts (not that their license is currently free)
Actually, you can turn a gutenberg text into a free text merely by
stripping the gutenberg prefix.
On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 15:22, Herbert Xu wrote:
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If, on the other hand, Debian developers don't have the common sense to
realize what would be useful with such a program and what isn't, then
I'll support removing it. But I'd like to give the project
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:01:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Licensing aside, why would (and should) Debian distribute famous novels?
An installer for famous novels (c.f. gutenbook), sure, but why the
novels themselves?
Because people might
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 02:54:30PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:01:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Licensing aside, why would (and should) Debian distribute famous novels?
An installer for famous novels (c.f. gutenbook), sure, but why the
novels
On Thursday 05 December 2002 02:52 pm, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Advocating a policy of don't upload every piece of data that exists is
not censorship, it's common sense. Yes, I think it would be cool if I
could do 'apt-get install alice-in-wonderland'. I also think it would be
a waste of resources
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:55:43AM +, Martin Wheeler wrote:
And to those who would say: There's no difference between software and
documentation I would reply -- sorry, but you really know nothing about
writing; specifically, _why_ writers write.
To those who would say Creating software is
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 09:25:58PM -0600, Eric Baudais wrote:
The GFDL does not limit any changes to the body of the text.
It can prevent you from removing or modifying attached bodies of
text, in some uses. This is non-free. Deal with it.
The reason for documentation guidelines because the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3 Dec 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Documentation *must* change to adapt to software, if the software can
change.
Well, if we're going to be as strongly judgmental as that, I'ld much rather
it were expressed the right way round -- software
Eric Baudais [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you have an interest in a flame war please keep it in debian-legal.
We have our share; we don't need any more. ;) Especially on this
particular subject.
If a section does not fit the above definition of Secondary then it
is not allowed to be
Eric Baudais wrote:
The only text which can be an invariant section is the text pertaining
to the author's relationship to the document.
[...] Even entire sections that may not be deleted or changed are
acceptable, as long as they deal with nontechnical topics (like this
one). [...]
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 09:25:58PM -0600, Eric Baudais wrote:
The reason for documentation guidelines because the DFSG and GPL only
protects code. The code is not the same as published text and published
text has a longer and more established legal history than code does. If
a person would
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:31:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Martin Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And to those who would say: There's no difference between software and
documentation I would reply -- sorry, but you really know nothing about
writing; specifically, _why_
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 06:20:29PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
Forking a project is not the same as putting words in my mouth I
didn't say and that's what Invariant sections are for.
It's no more (nor less) putting words in your mouth than it is
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:18:08PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
Then please remove the GPL from all debian packages, and make non-free
all those that include it. Or can the GPL be modified, can it be changed
at will? No. Does it make it non-free: NO.
It's a license, and
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 16:58, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:31:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Martin Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And to those who would say: There's no difference between software and
documentation I would reply -- sorry,
- the Project gutenberg texts (not that their license is currently free)
Their license is moot in sane countries -- the texts are in the public
domain. Er, modulo the small percentage of life+50 texts. And modulo
Australia, which seems to have rejected Feist, although the case is on
appeal to
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 18:41, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 06:27:29PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
- the Project gutenberg texts (not that their license is currently free)
Their license is moot in sane countries -- the texts are in the public
domain. Er, modulo the small
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 15:58, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:31:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Documentation *must* change to adapt to software, if the software can
change.
*When* documentation applies to software. Gosh, has nobody thought of
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 21:49, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 15:58, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:31:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Documentation *must* change to adapt to software, if the software can
change.
*When*
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:01:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Licensing aside, why would (and should) Debian distribute famous novels?
An installer for famous novels (c.f. gutenbook), sure, but why the
novels themselves?
Because people might want them. Because apt-get install
Please don't CC me on list mail.
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 21:01, David Turner wrote:
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 21:49, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Licensing aside, why would (and should) Debian distribute famous novels?
An installer for famous novels (c.f. gutenbook), sure, but why the
novels themselves?
(first: the cross posting _is_ necessary, see why below, but please keep
discussion at debian-doc since it belongs there IMHO)
I'm curious, why the heck is not debian-doc consulted (or CCed) whenever
debian-legal starts discussing documentation licenses. It could be nice,
if only to ask for
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(first: the cross posting _is_ necessary, see why below, but please keep
discussion at debian-doc since it belongs there IMHO)
I'm curious, why the heck is not debian-doc consulted (or CCed) whenever
debian-legal starts discussing
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
(first: the cross posting _is_ necessary, see why below, but please keep
discussion at debian-doc since it belongs there IMHO)
Or keep it crossposted, as there are very strong opinions on debian-legal
as well about this topic.
I'm
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 02:16:22PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
PS: From my point of view, Invariant sections are perfectly ok when you
are talking about non-technical related issues (example: author's opinions
in an article)
Strongly disagree. Freedom to fork a project is the basic right
Nothing contained herein can or should be construed as legal advice.
IANAL. YPANAL. IHL.
On Wed, 04 Dec 2002, Richard Braakman wrote:
And even if you lift only a single chapter from a GFDLed document,
you have to copy all of its Invariant Sections verbatim.
That should most likely read
PS: From my point of view, Invariant sections are perfectly ok when
you are talking about non-technical related issues (example: author's
opinions in an article)
Mark Rafn wrote:
Strongly disagree. Freedom to fork a project is the basic right that
Debian guarantees its users, and
On Tue, 2002-12-03 at 18:55, Martin Wheeler wrote:
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
It is my opinion that Debian should produce the Debian Free
_Documentation_ Guidelines which need not be related to the current DFSG
(but could use some tips from it, obviously).
On Tue, 2002-12-03 at 20:50, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Martin Wheeler wrote:
And to those who would say: There's no difference between software and
documentation I would reply -- sorry, but you really know nothing about
writing; specifically, _why_ writers write.
It would be
Martin Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And to those who would say: There's no difference between software and
documentation I would reply -- sorry, but you really know nothing about
writing; specifically, _why_ writers write.
Documentation *must* change to adapt to software, if the software
42 matches
Mail list logo
