olive [EMAIL PROTECTED]
However the DFSG is there to juge if a license is free or not and these
guidlines must be used to juge the freeness of a software. A lot of
zealots in this list just invent way to reject licenses they don't like
even if these complies with the DFSG; or invent some
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 07:31:20PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
I don't recall the following example being brought up.
Thank you for this example. It was new and I liked it because it is
not as abstract as most of the other examples.
Let's assume a manual, written by in Japanese, with
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:32:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Craig Sanders:
there's nothing in the GFDL that prevents you from doing that. the
capabilities of your medium are beyond the ability of the GFDL (or any
license) to control.
Uhm, the existence of the anti-DRM clause
On 2/14/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In every matter, it is virtually impossible to write a rule that can
mechanically be interpreted to give a suitable result.
I disagree.
It's impossible to cover all aspects of all cases, but obtaining
suitable results is entirely possible.
The
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 05:19:32PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 10:44:51PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
What if he wants to further distribute the stuff to other
people who are using a device like his? I mean, sharing stuff useful
to me is one of the prime
[Hamish Moffatt]
That Debian expects that simply providing the source alongside ...
does not appear to make this non-free. It might make be inconvenient
for us and/or require us to change the ftp-master scripts, but that
doesn't seem to affect its freeness.
One must remember, however, that
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:34:32AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Hamish Moffatt]
That Debian expects that simply providing the source alongside ...
does not appear to make this non-free. It might make be inconvenient
for us and/or require us to change the ftp-master scripts, but that
On 13 Feb 2006, Craig Sanders outgrape:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 10:44:51PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
What if he wants to further distribute the stuff to other people
who are using a device like his? I mean, sharing stuff useful to me
is one of the prime reasons I like free software -- if
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the GPL says you must include the full machine-readable/editable source
code, so if you can't do that in a given medium (say, a chip with 1KB
capacity) then GPL software is not free in any medium.
Of course, but that isn't an imposition on changes.
If
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
why are you obsessing with a convenience issue and pretending that it
has ANY BEARING AT ALL on freedom issues? it doesn't.
I think if you'll look at the header you'll see that this is about a
new practical problem. If you aren't interested in the
* Craig Sanders:
there's nothing in the GFDL that prevents you from doing that. the
capabilities of your medium are beyond the ability of the GFDL (or any
license) to control.
Uhm, the existence of the anti-DRM clause disproves this claim.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:19:32 +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
if there is a particular process which can shoehorn the document into
the limited device, then it's perfectly OK to distribute the document
along with with instructions (whether human-executable instructions or
a
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:37:07 +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
the GPL says you must include the full machine-readable/editable
source code, so if you can't do that in a given medium (say, a chip
with 1KB capacity) then GPL software is not free in any medium.
From the GPL:
,
|
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:32:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Craig Sanders:
there's nothing in the GFDL that prevents you from doing that. the
capabilities of your medium are beyond the ability of the GFDL (or any
license) to control.
Uhm, the existence of the anti-DRM clause
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:01:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
why are you obsessing with a convenience issue and pretending that
it has ANY BEARING AT ALL on freedom issues? it doesn't.
Err, because I do not see this as a matter of mere
convenience. If I spend a significant
you people love to recycle the same lies over and over and over again.
i'm becoming convinced that it is a deliberate strategy - repeat the
same lies and eventually everyone will just give up out of exhaustion.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 01:42:44PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
3a only says that a
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
bullshit. freedom, as used by Debian, is explicitly defined in the
DFSG. the DFSG has a number of clauses detailing what we consider
free and what we don't consider free. convenience is NOT one of those
clauses, and never was. in fact, convenience is
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:34:32AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
Nothing in the SC or DFSG requires Debian to accept any software that
comes along and adheres to the letter of the DFSG.
true.
the convention so far, though, has been if it's free and someone can
be bothered packaging it, then
Craig Sanders wrote:
don't be an idiot. you only have to keep the invariant sections if you
are DISTRIBUTING a copy. you can do whatever you want with your own
copy.
Well, creating modified versions of a copyrighted work requires the
permission of the copyright holder. In some countries
Craig Sanders wrote:
stop trying to pretend that convenience is a freedom issue. it isn't.
[snip]
it may be horribly inconvenient to not be able to usably install a
foreign language document on an english-only device, but that is UTTERLY
IRRELEVENT TO WHETHER THE DOCUMENT IS FREE OR NOT.
Craig Sanders wrote:
if there is a particular process which can shoehorn the document into
the limited device, then it's perfectly OK to distribute the document
along with with instructions (whether human-executable instructions or
a script/program) for doing so. i.e. this meets the
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:38:57 +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
the GFDL has a similar provision. you can provide a link to an
internet address containing the full document.
Please show me where the GFDL has such a provision. The passage that
i've shown it before. i have no
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:07:48PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:38:57 +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
the GFDL has a similar provision. you can provide a link to an
internet address containing the full document.
Please show me where the GFDL has such a
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:06:09 +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:07:48PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
You made the assertion that it was sufficient to just include a link
to the full document (including invariant sections) or to just the
invariant sections
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
once again: you *can* modify an invariant section by patching it. the
GFDL does not say you can not modify at all, it says you can not
delete or change these small secondary sections, but you can add your
own comments to them.
A patched version of the
Anton Zinoviev wrote:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:19:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
We have already discussed many examples, if you have some new example
you are welcome to share it with us. :-)
I don't recall the following example being brought up.
Let's assume a manual, written by
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 07:31:20PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Now, I'd like to download this (translated) manual and place it on a
portable device I own, so I can easily read it without killing a bunch
of trees. I think this is clearly a useful modification, and I think
that I should be
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
don't be an idiot. you only have to keep the invariant sections if you
are DISTRIBUTING a copy. you can do whatever you want with your own
copy.
Right, so you can't *distribute* a copy on an ASCII-only medium, even
of the English translation of a
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 05:19:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
don't be an idiot. you only have to keep the invariant sections if you
are DISTRIBUTING a copy. you can do whatever you want with your own
copy.
Right, so you can't
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
there's nothing in the GFDL that prevents you from doing that. the
capabilities of your medium are beyond the ability of the GFDL (or any
license) to control.
This is hardly true. The GFDL says you must transmit the original
Japanese text in the case
On 12 Feb 2006, Craig Sanders told this:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 07:31:20PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Now, I'd like to download this (translated) manual and place it on
a portable device I own, so I can easily read it without killing a
bunch of trees. I think this is clearly a useful
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 10:44:51PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
What if he wants to further distribute the stuff to other
people who are using a device like his? I mean, sharing stuff useful
to me is one of the prime reasons I like free software -- if stuff is
useful, I can share.
32 matches
Mail list logo
