On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:37:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You are of course assuming that there is some way of making an absolute
determination as to the DFSG-compliance of a license, when there is not.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that when
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:37:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
whether something is in compliance with them. If a majority say that
that is the case,
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm glad you enjoyed. It was a great fun. But, you know, since I'm not
subscribed to -legal, I had to find another way. There was a choice between
simply closing the silly bug, or playing a bit with extremists for free (as
beer!!!)
Yeah, um, if
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:20:36PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:43:30 +0200, Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The interpretation that I hold is the following:
The license must give us permissions to modify the work in
order to adapt it to various needs
On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns stated:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 03:22:28PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Anyway, I've got better things to do, so I'll see you all in
another two weeks, when this vote will've been in discussion for
two months.
Actually, there's one other possibility:
Branden,
On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns told this:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:08:32PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
That view, namely other people may propose ballots that aren't
good enough, and it's my job to stop that, is precisely a
supervisory one.
On 9 Feb 2006, Marco d'Itri told this:
On Feb 10, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Surely it does. People who say I was deceived; and I didn't
bother to take elementary steps to avoid deception have chosen to
be deceived.
Well, at least now you agree that the GR title was
On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns outgrape:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:34:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On 8 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns stated:
Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are
honourable enough to note vote for a proposal they think
contradicts the social contract or
On 9 Feb 2006, Marco d'Itri spake thusly:
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely
honorable, this is not true of everyone. Now that this is the *third*
time we are being asked to vote on essentially the same
On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 05:47, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns verbalised:
It might be better at setting people's expectations: where they
might expect the secretary to be unbiassed, or at least to pretend
to be, presumably they wouldn't expect that of people proposing
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 9 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant spake thusly:
The only people it made happy are extremists.
Oh, so I am extremist now. By believing that all bits
modifiable by the computer are software? And the overwhelming
Yes, I think it is an extreme
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Certainly looks like you think that there is some absolute way to
determine that the license is not DFSG-compliant to me. If there
isn't, then the if in the first part of your sentence is never
satisfied, and the rest is completely hypothetical.
Wrong.
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:30:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
But that isn't my point. My point is that you can't include the
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you want your binary to use pieces from the manual for help
strings, then your binary has to read these pieces from auxiliary file
which would be (speaking in the terms of GFDL) an opaque copy and
would be covered under GFDL.
Likely not. In all
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would you please tell me how necessary it is to modify RMS essays, the
GNU Manifesto, and so on, and how removing them from Emacs will make
Debian more free? I'm afraid it sounds ideological.
Actually, I'd rather we could keep them.
And we do have an
On 11 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant outgrape:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 9 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant spake thusly:
The only people it made happy are extremists.
Oh, so I am extremist now. By believing that all bits
modifiable by the computer are software? And the overwhelming
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 09:48:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you want your binary to use pieces from the manual for help
strings, then your binary has to read these pieces from auxiliary file
which would be (speaking in the terms of
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the binary doesn't even depend on the auxiliary opaque copy for its
work then there is no reason to consider them combined works. Many
GPL-covered programs can print the text of GPL but this doesn't mean
that the text of GPL is part of these
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would you please tell me how necessary it is to modify RMS essays, the
GNU Manifesto, and so on, and how removing them from Emacs will make
Debian more free? I'm afraid it sounds ideological.
Actually,
At Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:33:54 +0100,
Frank Küster wrote:
Yavor Doganov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact that people expressed the opinion that Debian doesn't
consider non-free software as antisocial and unethical scares me a
lot.
There are several reasons why people are for Free
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 10:42:19AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
We're talking about a binary which is so integrated that it snarfs
bits of documentation and prints them as docstrings
The integration is not very tight. The binary can work without the
auxiliary file so it can not be
On 11 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant stated:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would you please tell me how necessary it is to modify RMS essays,
the GNU Manifesto, and so on, and how removing them from Emacs
will make Debian more free? I'm
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 11 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant outgrape:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 9 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant spake thusly:
The only people it made happy are extremists.
Oh, so I am extremist now. By believing that all bits
modifiable by the
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:54:04 +0200, Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:07:00AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
The Emacs Manual requires rather more than one additional sheet of
paper. If a small footnote could handle it, that would be fine.
You can not
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 06:19:28AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:21:57PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
whether something is in
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:34:28 +0200, Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:20:36PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
Leaving aside the (seemingly) highly charged issue of the Emacs
manual and the GNU Manifesto, let's go into the fantasy world. Let's
say that I write some
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:53:33 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au said:
(It would also mean that any interpretation is done when the code's
being written; so the decisions are predicatable in advance, and if
any of them appear to be wrong, they can be debated in advance, rather
than
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 10:07:23AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. If it makes part of the
constitution look silly or pointless to you, then there are at least
two other possible sources of that silliness.
I think this circling argument is silly, not the
On 2/10/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:37:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
And, likewise, you can't argue that the secretary must treat an option
as accepted when preparing the ballot. Treating controversial
general resolution proposals as if they'd
On 2/10/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
I didn't say anything about the ballot options being ignored -- I said the
constitution doesn't say anything about ignoring foundation documents --
ie the social contract or the DFSG. We're actually doing that right now
in a sense, by
On 2/11/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:21:57PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
whether something is in compliance with them.
On 2/10/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as possible,
even to the point where votes would be run without any human intervention.
I've thought about that before, but I don't have the inclination to
write any code for it.
On 2/11/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Branden, under 4.2(4) you're empowered to vary the minimum discussion
period of 2 weeks for this vote by up to one week; given the discussion
The minimum discussion period is a lower bound on the time for the
discussion. It's not an upper
On 2/11/06, I wrote:
Casting a discussion about when the voting should begin in terms of
changing the minimum discussion period seems misleading.
P.S. I also think that the minimum discussion period is the minimum
discussion period for a resolution or an amendment.
P.P.S. I also think the
Hi,
I second Adeodato Simó's proposal but at the same time I consider it
still leaves some spaces for the absolutism interpretation which tends
to plague Debian. I consider we should have reasonable space for
judgment for many things in life.
Let's consider a documentation written in the SGML
Hi,
Raul Miller schrieb:
This is silly. It seems like the constitution effectively says if the
resolution passes it required a simple majority; if it failed, it needed 3:1.
The only silliness is the verb tenses. Once some concept passes
supermajority it doesn't need to pass again, because
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:22:11 +0900, Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[...]
GFDL blah, blah,...
Invariant section being following comment section in SGML
!--
chapter 1: author1_name [EMAIL PROTECTED]
chapter 2: author2_name [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
[...]
This cannot be an invariant
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 07:14:22PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:22:11 +0900, Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[...]
GFDL blah, blah,...
Invariant section being following comment section in SGML
!--
chapter 1: author1_name [EMAIL PROTECTED]
chapter 2:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 11:58:14AM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 07:14:22PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:22:11 +0900, Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[...]
GFDL blah, blah,...
Invariant section being following comment section in SGML
!--
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:20:36 -0700, Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Leaving aside the (seemingly) highly charged issue of the Emacs manual
and the GNU Manifesto, let's go into the fantasy world. Let's say
that I write some software, and some documentation for it. Suppose
that I license
On 2/11/06, Simon Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem case is where the option has majority, but fails
supermajority.
Another problem case is where we pass a GR that expresses
some judgement about past events.
For example, imagine a GR that says we have never received any spam.
If
41 matches
Mail list logo
