Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The point I am making is that Debian might indeed remove the political
essays from our manuals if they could be removed. A few months ago,
some people said here that if only the invariant sections could be
removed (even though they could not be
This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections
to be unremovable as well as unmodifiable.
To serve the ends of GNU, perhaps. But it doesn't seem to serve the
needs of the larger Free Software community.
It serves the free software community by resisting
While superficially
ironic, this is in fact quite fundamental: you cannot truly build a
free society without granting its participants the freedom to reject
the very notion of freedom itself.
The idea that people should be free to reject freedom is a
fundamental philosophical
Not long ago, people were trying to reassure me that if invariant
sections were removable, nobody would remove them. I guess not.
This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections
to be unremovable as well as unmodifiable.
You have misunderstood.
You should probably read the whole thread before replying.
Prior to this message, I must have read half-a-dozen or more messages
saying...
I can't do that. Those messages probably did not arrive on my machine
until after I sent my message out.
I do mail transfers in batches,
If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer
would remove the political statements one could find in it.
Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot
be modified.
Notice that the first person said DFSG free, and you
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GFDL is doing its job by guarding against this. Debian may label
our manuals as non-free, an appelation I disagree with and will
criticize, but at least it cannot remove them.
Sure it can. It can move them to non-free. (Or perhaps you mean the
[RMS not CCed]
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 07:09:20PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
Perhaps I misundertood those messages a few months ago. Or perhaps
you misunderstood them, or misunderstood my reference to them, or you
forgot about them. As human beings, we cannot avoid the risk of
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections
to be unremovable as well as unmodifiable.
Well in that case you can rest assured that they will be removed from
Debian together with the documentation to which they are attached!
O Luns, 22 de Setembro de 2003 ás 10:57:37 -0400, Richard Stallman escribía:
Not long ago, people were trying to reassure me that if invariant
sections were removable, nobody would remove them. I guess not.
If they were both removable and modifiable (so not invariant), they would
be
On Tuesday, Sep 23, 2003, at 03:30 US/Eastern, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
Well, in that case they'll make the document DFSG-nonfree. If they
were
removable and modifiable the document would be DFSG-free (except for
the DRM
clause, of course).
The DRM clause isn't all. There is also the
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections
to be unremovable as well as unmodifiable.
To serve the ends of GNU, perhaps. But it doesn't seem to serve
the needs of the larger Free Software community.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:58:27AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer
would remove the political statements one could find in it.
Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot
be modified.
And what were
In chiark.mail.debian.legal, you wrote:
If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer
would remove the political statements one could find in it.
Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot
be modified.
If the *whole* doc was DFSG free, we would
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you are aware of the existence of unmodifyable essays and logos in
debian main, please file an RC bug against the package in question.
You seem to be saying that if our political statements, which are
included as invariant sections,
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A few weeks ago someone was trying to argue that nobody would do
this, and that invariant sections were designed to solve a
nonexistent problem. Now we know the problem is not just
theoretical.
No, it's still a theoretical
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But if they were only removable without being
modifiable, then yes, removing them would be the only way to include the
accompanying documentation while still ensuring that all bits in Debian
guarantee the freedoms that we require.
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer
would remove the political statements one could find in it.
Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot
be modified.
DFSG prohibits such unmodifiable
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer
would remove the political statements one could find in it.
Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot
be modified.
Notice that the first person said DFSG
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Don Armstrong wrote:
They're not Free under the 5 freedoms
Yes, that should be 4 freedoms in case anyone was wondering.
My freedoms are currently undergoing rapid inflation, which,
ostensibly, is a good thing.
Don Armstrong
--
DIE!
-- Maritza Campos
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
If you are aware of the existence of unmodifyable essays and
logos in debian main, please file an RC bug against the package
in question.
You seem to be saying that if our political statements, which are
included as invariant
* Richard Stallman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030922 00:50]:
If you are aware of the existence of unmodifyable essays and logos in
debian main, please file an RC bug against the package in question.
You seem to be saying that if our political statements, which are
included as invariant
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
No, it's still a theoretical problem.[1] The above has nothing to
do with the content of the statements themselves, merely the fact
that they are not free under the DFSG.
The problem is that our non-modifiable political essays might be
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
But if they were only removable without being modifiable, then
yes, removing them would be the only way to include the
accompanying documentation while still ensuring that all bits in
Debian guarantee the freedoms that we require.
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
But if they were only removable without being modifiable, then
yes, removing them would be the only way to include the
accompanying documentation while still ensuring that all bits in
But if they were only removable without being
modifiable, then yes, removing them would be the only way to include the
accompanying documentation while still ensuring that all bits in Debian
guarantee the freedoms that we require.
Not long ago, people were trying to reassure me
A few weeks ago someone was trying to argue that nobody would do
this, and that invariant sections were designed to solve a
nonexistent problem. Now we know the problem is not just
theoretical.
No, it's still a theoretical problem.[1] The above has nothing to do
with
If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer
would remove the political statements one could find in it.
Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot
be modified.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:58:27AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer
would remove the political statements one could find in it.
Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot
be modified.
These two
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:58:27 -0400
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer
would remove the political statements one could find in it.
Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot
be modified.
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A few weeks ago someone was trying to argue that nobody would do
this, and that invariant sections were designed to solve a
nonexistent problem. Now we know the problem is not just
theoretical.
No, it's still a theoretical
[RMS not CCed]
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:57:37AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
Not long ago, people were trying to reassure me that if invariant
sections were removable, nobody would remove them. I guess not.
This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections
to be
If you are aware of the existence of unmodifyable essays and logos in
debian main, please file an RC bug against the package in question.
You seem to be saying that if our political statements, which are
included as invariant sections, could be removed from our manuals, you
would make a
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 06:33:28PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
If you are aware of the existence of unmodifyable essays and logos in
debian main, please file an RC bug against the package in question.
You seem to be saying that if our political statements, which are
included as
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you are aware of the existence of unmodifyable essays and logos in
debian main, please file an RC bug against the package in question.
You seem to be saying that if our political statements, which are
included as invariant sections, could
On 2003-09-21 23:33:28 +0100 Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You seem to be saying that if our political statements, which are
included as invariant sections, could be removed from our manuals, you
would make a point of removing them.
Please do not extrapolate wildly from his words.
36 matches
Mail list logo
