On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 03:07:37AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
Maybe. But there also another element in the picture. For
GFDL. This is a not a random package from the random source with the
random licence. This is a licence from Stallman, the inventor of the
term free software and creator
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
Nobody is claiming Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, or the King James
Bible, to be software. Quite a few of us are claiming that this MP3
over here, beethovens_ninth.mp3, is software. So is this file bible.txt.
I claim that the Ninth, and the text of
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Program (code) is not of great value outside computer, except examples
which usually belong to the documentation. I will not buy a book with
printed source code of Linux kernel, even if it will be very cheap :)
On my bookshelf are a number of
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's an overly-expansive view of software. You would include anything
that is digital in that description -- audio CDs, DVD movies, off-air TV
signals, books on disk, etc. I find it very hard to quantify Beethoven's
Ninth Symphony as software, even
Lynn Winebarger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh, but it is artificial. The common usage of software refers only
to programs.
From WordNet:
written programs or procedures or rules and associated
documentation pertaining to the operation of a computer system...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The KJV is not a program. But it is software. Software has a
different extension than programs.
An argument could even be made that the KJV is a program, only with a
set of ruless governing
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The KJV is not a program. But it is software. Software has a
different extension than programs.
An argument could even be made that the KJV is a program, only with a
set of ruless governing people,
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The point has already been made that the DFSG requirements *are*
just as necessary for documentation as they are for
programs. (The same motivations apply.)
The same motivations apply, but your argument ignores the fundamental
difference between
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The KJV is not a program. But it is software. Software has a
different extension than programs.
An argument could even be made that the KJV is a program, only with a
set of ruless governing people, rather than a set of rules governing a
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
So, if you find a definition which makes no difference between
software and documentation, please send it on this list.
There is a difference, even if someone doesn't want to see it.
There
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
I see no need (but it is still possible) to have a very exact line
between program and documentation.
There's no need for such a line if and only if we don't make a
distinction between the freedoms that documentation must have, and the
freedoms
First off, sorry for starting off an old discussion. I've been away
for the past two weeks. [If any one cares, there are pictures
available on my website.]
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
So, if you find a definition which makes no difference between
software and documentation,
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
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:06:49 +0300, Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:33:05PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
I will grant that these definitions are imperfect and improbable
arguments could be lodged against them; at the same time, I believe
that reasonable
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
On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 02:42 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov
wrote:
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
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no reason to think that Stallman is an idiot and can not
see these semi-trivial arguments, presented here against GFDL.
Contrary, in the past Stallman so many times was right, in very
pragmatical sense of right, whereas virtually everyone else was
Fedor Zuev said:
For example GFDL, unlike any free software licences,
specifically grant to user the rights for publicly display licenced
work and right to translate it. For the software, these rights not
exist as separate exclusive rights, or almost useless. But for the
documentation,
On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 19:02 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov
wrote:
Let's say there is documentation and programs which intersects in
software. Any documentation which is software differs from any
program which is also software.
Maybe, maybe not, it doesn't matter. Debian is free
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 03:07:37AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
For example GFDL, unlike any free software licences,
specifically grant to user the rights for publicly display licenced
work and right to translate it. For the software, these rights not
exist as separate exclusive rights, or
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
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:08:10 +0900 (IRKST), Fedor Zuev
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
MS In the example I posted before, the, the documentation of the
MS probe lists the access methods and protocols that one can talk to
MS the probe; this is the documentation part. The sensor parses the
MS same bits
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
This was a nice try to change the point under discussion. It was not
claimed that software and documentation are homonyms, AFAIK. Instead,
Are you sure?
Yes.
Quote Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If we are to treat
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 03:15 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:
If the package gets extra input information as a part of using it
_and_ a result substantially[*] varies, depending this input
information _and_ these variations at least partially controlled by
statements in package[**] -
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 08:18 US/Eastern, Nick Phillips wrote:
You don't generally load the contents of an audio CD in before use,
They how, prey tell, do you do all the ECC corrections on the data and
feed it to your DA converter?
Not that this is too on-topic.
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 18:38, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 22:39, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
That's an overly-expansive view of software. You would include
anything that is digital in that description -- audio CDs, DVD movies,
off-air TV signals,
(actually, off-air TV
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 18:38, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 22:39, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
That's an overly-expansive view of software. You would include
anything that is digital in that description -- audio CDs, DVD movies,
off-air TV signals,
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
Software is a set of statements primarily intended to
perform some operations on the some set of input information in
order to bring about a certain result with this information.
Regardless of the way it does so.
Data is a set of statements
Fedor Zuev wrote:
But let it be:
---
If the package gets extra input information as a part of using it
_and_ a result substantially[*] varies, depending this input
information _and_ these variations at least partially controlled by
statements in package[**] - package is a
On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 02:49, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 18:38, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 22:39, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
That's an overly-expansive view of software. You would include
anything that is digital in that description -- audio CDs, DVD
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 07:59:46PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
I should have put software in quotes, because I ask the question using the
definition of those that would define software as any bits of data that we
distribute, and thus place all bits of data we distribute, including RFCs
and the
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:25:27PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
To the extent that licenses should be considered software here, yes. I
do, however, disagree with your characterization of this as a double
...
But there is a bright line between requiring modifiability of a
package contents,
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
MS My suggestion:
MS Software is a set of statements primarily intended to perform
MS some operations on the some set of input information in order to
MS bring about a certain result with this information. Regardless
MS of the way it does so.
MS
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Keith Dunwoody wrote:
KDBut let it be:
KD ---
KD
KD If the package gets extra input information as a part of using it
KD _and_ a result substantially[*] varies, depending this input
KD information _and_ these variations at least partially controlled by
KD
Fedor Zuev wrote:
KDYour definition seems to differ from standard usage.
What is the standard usage?
I can't exactly define a standard usage, but in my experience most people
would consider all binary executables as software. What else is also
considered software is one of the
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 discussion. It
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:33:05 -0500, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:17:09PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 02:10:37AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov
wrote:
If one does not see the difference between program and
documentation, it is very
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 12:49:56 +0900 (IRKST), Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
JG Documentation consists of instructions primarily intended to be
JG human-readable regarding the operation of something such as a
JG program.
JG Programs consist of
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
JG Documentation consists of instructions primarily intended to be
JG human-readable regarding the operation of something such as a
JG program.
JG Programs consist of instructions primarily intended to be
JG machine-readable that either contain
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 03:35:02 +0900 (IRKST), Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
JG Documentation consists of instructions primarily intended to be
JG human-readable regarding the operation of something such as a
JG program.
JG Programs consist of
On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 22:39, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
That's an overly-expansive view of software. You would include
anything that is digital in that description -- audio CDs, DVD movies,
off-air TV signals,
(actually, off-air TV signals are partly analogue, FYI...)
Except for the newer
Apologies for the bad Orig:Quote ratio.
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Software is a set of statements primarily intended to
perform some operations on the some set of input information in
order to bring about a certain result with this information.
Regardless of the way it does
On Sun, Aug 10, 2003 at 06:20:32PM +1200,
Adam Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 68 lines which said:
In the meantime I'll be content with the definition of software that
WordNet (r) 1.7.1 (July 2002) provides:
n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or rules
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:33:05PM -0500,
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 102 lines which said:
I will grant that these definitions are imperfect and improbable
arguments could be lodged against them; at the same time, I believe
that reasonable people not engaging in a
That's an overly-expansive view of software. You would include
anything that is digital in that description -- audio CDs, DVD movies,
off-air TV signals,
(actually, off-air TV signals are partly analogue, FYI...)
books on disk, etc. I find it very hard to quantify
Beethoven's Ninth Symphony
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
There are cases, when we can easely distinguish, is it documentation or
program. For example, emacs info files are definitely documentation.
And what if a user wishes to link documentation into code? Do you
believe that it is acceptable to ship content within Debian
On Sun, 2003-08-10 at 16:32, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
There are cases, when we can easely distinguish, is it documentation or
program. For example, emacs info files are definitely documentation.
And what if a user wishes to link documentation into code? Do you
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 17:33, John Goerzen wrote:
language, programming (Or source, or rarely source
language) The form in which a computer program is written by
the programmer. Source code is written in some formal
programming language which can be compiled automatically
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 22:43, John Goerzen wrote:
I don't see the problem. 100% of the software Debian contains is Free.
Apparently, you have your very own private version of English you use to
read the Social Contract.
PARAGRAPH 1:
Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
- not free
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 07:46:19PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:00:02PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Actually, my goals are the opposite. I see it as intellectually and
logically dishonest to claim certain requirements for some types of
non-program data in
On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 01:25:21AM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 07:46:19PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:00:02PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Actually, my goals are the opposite. I see it as intellectually and
logically dishonest to claim
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
JGDocumentation consists of instructions primarily intended to be
JGhuman-readable regarding the operation of something such as a program.
JGPrograms consist of instructions primarily intended to be machine-readable
JGthat either contain machine language
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:25:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 09:44:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
What any sensible person would do in such a situation would be to go
through the trouble of writing and submitting a new RFC which is
distributed alongside the
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:25:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What if the IETF don't want to publish it?
Well, that's their right, although it's very unlikely the IETF would
not want to publish anything related to network standards. Even if they
wouldn't, you could
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
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 07:56:21PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:52:52PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
standard does not change the standard), the key difference is that we
can choose not to distribute the RFCs. Technically we /can/ choose not
to distribute copyright
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Not quite. I *do* think Debian should remove the GPL's
Invariant-but-removable Preamble, distributing only the legal text.
The FSF says
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOmitPreamble, but since
the requirement for future distribution is only under the terms
John Goerzen wrote:
Secondly, there are pending court cases right now in the U.S. alleging
copyright violations from legal papers filed in court cases.
Ugh. These people should be thrown out of court. Or perhaps just
shot out of hand. ;-)
If they actually win, Debian *will* have to be *very*
Can I take this, then, as an admission that we willfully distribute
non-free
software in main, and intend to continue doing so, because we
perceive
a
lack of alternatives? (In the form of, for instance, public domain
software)
I should have put software in quotes, because I ask the
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 09:53:28AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 04:01:59AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
(Now, I'm not going to claim that there are no good reasons for
documentation being under licenses that wouldn't pass the DSFG - I
haven't really made up my mind
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 05:12:55PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
John Goerzen wrote:
1. Would removing the manual for Emacs, libc, or other important GNU
software benefit our users?
Yep. I'm very unhappy with having non-free software (and
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 10:07:07PM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
We have not, to date, had any difficulty in interpreting the DFSG as
applied to documentation, excluding the lunatic fringe who appear,
stick their oar in, and cease to send mail when somebody points out
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 07:46:19PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
There is neither source code nor compiled code for my King James Bible in
free-form ASCII text.
This is an example of why they are guidelines, not rules. It is simple
for an intelligent person to interpret this in a
John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 02:16:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Documentation and some other kinds of data can be used without computer.
Documentation can be printed and sold as books. One does not need a
computer to read a printed
Nathanael Nerode said:
Adapt it to your needs is violated by the FDL Invariant Section
requirements. Notably, the 'embedded' and 'reference card' examples
apply (although RMS espoused a interesting theory involving multiple
volumes).
A (IMHO) stronger example would be creating a How to write
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nathanael Nerode wrote:
OK. How about a GR saying We will not accept anything non-free in
main, except for the preamble of the GPL. ...
...
I bet a lot of people would be satisfied by the following more general
statement as a GR. This seems to correspond to
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Lynn Winebarger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It can also be turned around - why claim everything is software except
to force DSFG restrictions where they are unnecessary or undeserved?
One good definition of software is the part of a computer that's not
hardware. Another is
This is probably my weekly restating of position. Don't be surprised if
I don't contribute much to this thread any more.
Lynn Winebarger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, but it is artificial. The common usage of software refers only
*Your* common usage. To me, software are the bits in the
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 05:27:45PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Lynn Winebarger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It can also be turned around - why claim everything is software except
to force DSFG restrictions where they are unnecessary or undeserved?
One good definition of software is the part of a
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 05:12:55PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
John Goerzen wrote:
1. Would removing the manual for Emacs, libc, or other important GNU
software benefit our users?
Yep. I'm very unhappy with having non-free software (and software means
0s and 1s -- so nearly
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:17:09PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 02:10:37AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
If one does not see the difference between program and documentation, it
is very hard to explain why they do not need the same kind of freedoms.
If one
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 01:29:12PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I wish to address a very narrow part of this point: because copyright
protects only creative expression of ideas, and because legal
terminology is intended to be strictly denotative and carefully
defined, contracts and similar
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:41:54PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
But the GPL itself starts with:
| GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
| Version 2, June 1991
|
| Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
| 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
compelling interest in being able to distribute a modified RFC822?
RFC2822, you mean? ;-)
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] I find it very hard to quantify Beethoven's
Ninth Symphony as software, even if it was recorded digitally, given that
the invention of software postdated its composition by a LONG time [...]
Similarly, do we regard a popular performance of it as a
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:33:05PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
I continue to suspect that people are indulging an Aristotelian
categorization fetish solely as a means to an end, that end being to
compel the Debian Project to ship their favorite w4r3z in main, heedless
of the negative
John Goerzen wrote:
Both are really poor. I think that it's very hard to call the King James
Bible software, even if it is encoded in ASCII stored on someone's hard
drive.
And (again, sorry to keep whipping a dead horse) what is a copy of the
King James Bible that's linked into a reader
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 01:29:12PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I wish to address a very narrow part of this point: because copyright
protects only creative expression of ideas, and because legal
terminology is intended to be strictly denotative and
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
Sergey V. Spiridonov said:
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
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:00:02PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Actually, my goals are the opposite. I see it as intellectually and
logically dishonest to claim certain requirements for some types of
non-program data in Debian, other requirements for other data, and do it all
under the
On Thursday, Aug 7, 2003, at 07:01 US/Eastern, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
Then the intellectually honest approach is to say the guidelines are
for both software and documentation, not to say the set of software
contains
the set of documentation.
I can only assume that it was easier for
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:52:52PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
standard does not change the standard), the key difference is that we
can choose not to distribute the RFCs. Technically we /can/ choose not
to distribute copyright notices and licenses, but as a pragmatic
concession to copyright
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 07:56:21PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:52:52PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
standard does not change the standard), the key difference is that we
can choose not to distribute the RFCs. Technically we /can/ choose not
to distribute copyright
Scripsit John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My comments are not limited to the FDL debate, but seek to address a more
fundamental question: Do software guidelines serve us well for non-software
items? My answer is no, but obviously it is being discussed.
You have yet not disclosed which
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:15:45PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
And while you may debate the enforcability of this in the US, it may be
enforcable elsewhere, and our preference has always been to assume licenses
are enforcable as written.
Indeed. And elsewhere, the FSF grants a license
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Documentation and some other kinds of data can be used without computer.
Documentation can be printed and sold as books. One does not need a
computer to read a printed documentation.
Is http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/scratch/ifupdown-0.6.4/ifupdown.nw
software or
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Thursday, Aug 7, 2003, at 07:01 US/Eastern, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
Then the intellectually honest approach is to say the guidelines are
for both software and documentation, not to say the set of software
contains
the set of documentation.
I'd like to know
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 03:06:11AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My comments are not limited to the FDL debate, but seek to address a more
fundamental question: Do software guidelines serve us well for non-software
items? My answer is no, but
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 02:16:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Documentation and some other kinds of data can be used without computer.
Documentation can be printed and sold as books. One does not need a
computer to read a printed documentation.
Is
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:49:28AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
John Goerzen wrote:
Both are really poor. I think that it's very hard to call the King James
Bible software, even if it is encoded in ASCII stored on someone's hard
drive.
And (again, sorry to keep whipping a dead horse)
Andrew Suffield wrote:
We have not, to date, had any difficulty in interpreting the DFSG as
applied to documentation, excluding the lunatic fringe who appear,
stick their oar in, and cease to send mail when somebody points out
why their argument is flawed (in every discussion, not just licensing
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:52:10PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
I'd like to know more about this intellectual honesty that compels
the word software to include documentation when used in the Social
Contract, but not when used a little further down the page[0] in the
guidelines.
I don't
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:12:20PM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
Nowhere did I suggest that Debian must or even should distribute
documentation! Indeed it would seem Debian in violation of the 100%
criteria if software is interpreted in the normal manner.
My point here is that redefining
John Goerzen wrote:
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:49:28AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
And (again, sorry to keep whipping a dead horse) what is a copy of the
King James Bible that's linked into a reader application?
It's just that. You haven't transformed the document into object code;
you've
Joe Wreschnig said:
On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 16:27, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I have to add a new section to my FDL FAQ. Here's a draft version:
Excellent job; you might want to consider adding how the GFDL *is*
about misrepresentation - If someone adds an invariant section contrary
to your
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 01:05:55PM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
[snip]
Well, *someone's* been reading their Derrida...
--
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux |Yeah, that's what Jesus would do.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Jesus would bomb
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Suppose you (Mr. Foo) write an essay: Why the BSD license is best, by
Mr. Foo. No matter what copyright license your essay is under -- even
if it's in the public domain -- nobody can modify it to Why the GPL
license is best, by Mr. Foo. That's fraud (misrepresenting
On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 16:27, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I have to add a new section to my FDL FAQ. Here's a draft version:
Excellent job; you might want to consider adding how the GFDL *is* about
misrepresentation - If someone adds an invariant section contrary to
your beliefs, or a plainly false
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have to add a new section to my FDL FAQ. Here's a draft version:
It may be worth more comment on it not being a free software licence.
Often, that page says it is non-free when it means not free software.
It is even qualified as not free in the GPL
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
