The Debian project clearly is inventing what is `free' by
extrapolating the rights for `Free Software' to all branches of
digital content.
As I'm sure I've written before, Debian does not do that.
ftp.debian.org/.../non-free seems to disprove this claim quite well.
I'm sure this thread is killfiled/filtered by most by now, so I'll
keep to points of information:
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Did I claim that you did? No. You implied it on the other hand.
I am not to blame for what you read between the lines of my emails.
Only if you stop
Under his logic, that someone else would even be allowed to claim
that you wrote the program shooting Shia Muslims.
Please stop pretending you know what my logic is. You have
repatedly resorted to insults, and now you try to put words into my
mouth.
Exactly, that's absurd. And if it
Let's say I write a shoot-em-up game, where you're shooting aliens
(similar to, say, Doom). I release that under GPL.
Now, someone else comes along and changes the game (which they're
perfectly entitled to do under GPL, obviously). Instead of shooting
at aliens, you're now shooting
Please ask the Savannah hackers for issues concerning Savannah.
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Yes, the corrections *happened* after it was posted.
And the corrections didn't happen because of the postings
So you claim. Without proof. Again. (I didn't claim the contrary.)
Did I claim that you did? No. You implied it on the other hand.
So no, you can't/won't support your
As I said, here we come to the area of definitions. If you
want to make your own, that's your right. But please do not
contradict people in a way like their definition is wrong and
your non-standard definition is the only way to truth.
The only part that is
Requiring a certain license is just a stupid thing to begin
with. The requirement should be that it's free (or you can add the
extra requirement that it should be GPL-compatible like gna.org
has, that's also useful because you then share all code).
The GFDL is a free license, so your
I think you are trying to put documentation and programs into one
box.
No, I'm telling that you cannot put programs and documentation
shipped electronical in different boxes.
If they are different, then they should be in different boxes. Maybe
you are speaking about physical
I'm sorry to contradict you, but this is completely wrong:
There is no law in the world that will protect you from slander if you
explicitly allow for the right to modify a work. You cannot sue a
person for using a free software program in a manner that you consider
bad since you explicitly
Hi Alfred,
El mié, 22-02-2006 a las 22:44 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt escribió:
Este mensaje ha sido analizado y protegido contra virus y spam
Requiring a certain license is just a stupid thing to begin
with. The requirement should be that it's free (or you can add the
extra requirement
You fail to knowledge that GFDL is a free license in your opinion,
and also in opinion of others, but there *is* people that does not
think the same.
Some people consider the GPL a non-free software license. I fail to
see your point. The GPL is a free software license, and the GFDL is
On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 23:52 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Some people consider the GPL a non-free software license. I fail to
see your point. The GPL is a free software license, and the GFDL is a
free documentation license (not because it is a documentation license,
but because of the
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
You are confusing a already written work, and a work that doesn't yet
exist where one invents something from scratch. The later is infact
protected by libel, slander, and other such laws. The former is not.
Yet another unfounded claim. Can you back it up with some
You are confusing a already written work, and a work that doesn't
yet exist where one invents something from scratch. The later is
infact protected by libel, slander, and other such laws. The
former is not.
Yet another unfounded claim. Can you back it up with some arguments
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The corrections happened after it was posted to many lists.
No, they didn't. The savannah hackers knew about this before it
happened, and where working on a fix before it. [...]
Yes, the corrections *happened* after it was posted.
I have no info about
The corrections happened after it was posted to many lists.
No, they didn't. The savannah hackers knew about this before it
happened, and where working on a fix before it. [...]
Yes, the corrections *happened* after it was posted.
And the corrections didn't happen because
At Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:09:48 +,
MJ Ray wrote:
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
So, was this a mistake? And if so, has it be corrected?
May this be a lesson to all.
In case anyone missed it, the lesson was: publicise problems.
The corrections happened
Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It isn't. What they require is that the documentation be released
under the GFDL or a compatible license. You can dual (or triple)
license it under GFDL|GPL or GFDL|BSD or ...
However, you'll not be allowed to copyleft it under GPL alone.
Savannah seeks to
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You have not programmed an analogue computer. Your statements show
this. If you claim that you have, then you are a categorical liar.
The above shows how fallible you are and how unsafe your logic is.
[...] Learn some math.
This suggests that you're a
* Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060215 20:41]:
Now variable names we better forget and look at comments, they are
clearly documentation in every sense I can think of.
I disagree strongly with this.
[...]
The main difference between comments and documentation is really to
whom they
* Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060215 20:41]:
Nor is FDL-licensed documentation removed, it is _moved_ to the
non-free section. Which is part of Debian, desite whatever
claims people will make.
Well, here we come back to names and definitions. [...]
[...]
Debian GNU/Linux
Nor is FDL-licensed documentation removed, it is _moved_ to
the non-free section. Which is part of Debian, desite
whatever claims people will make.
Well, here we come back to names and definitions. [...]
[...]
Debian GNU/Linux (main) is 100% free software, yes. But
Now variable names we better forget and look at comments, they
are clearly documentation in every sense I can think of.
I disagree strongly with this.
[...]
The main difference between comments and documentation is really to
whom they are directed. Comments are
Yes, since the output is static. The output of a program isn't.
Then a program to generate the prime numbers or calulate
the digits of pi or whatever similar is documentation.
I think this is getting boring, although some interesting point have
been made in the past days. Actually, you agreed
Yes, since the output is static. The output of a program isn't.
Then a program to generate the prime numbers or calulate the digits
of pi or whatever similar is documentation.
No, since the output, i.e. program, isn't static. You'd have a
point[0] if you dumped the listing of prime
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 22:02 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Yes, since the output is static. The output of a program isn't.
Then a program to generate the prime numbers or calulate the digits
of pi or whatever similar is documentation.
No, since the output, i.e. program, isn't
What about starting looking beyond these defects and go to the
substance ?
If the defect is so grave as in this case, it is hard to look at the
substance.
So what do you call a spreadsheet with macros ? Is it a document?
Is it a program ?
It is a spreadsheet. Is a poem a document?
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
I wouldn't call troff/latex files for `program source. They all spit
out a static file, one could compare it to a file with values in it,
that you give to a program, which then spits out a fractal image. Is
the file with the values, just numbers, source code? Or even
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A program is binary data that is executed by a computer. An analogue
computer does not have binary data. Software is anything that can be
converted into a a program.
Ergo, truth of those definitions would mean that analogue computers
have no programs,
Gareth Bowker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Would it not be fairer to compare ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/ with
ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/gnu/ ? I see there's
ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/stable/non-free/ under the debian
directory. I don't see such a directory under gnu.
Are those two comparisons
1. GNU doesn't label things not meeting its standard for free
software so clearly - they are mixed into many tarballs;
Because GNU doesn't need to label it, they don't include, distribute,
or promote any non-free software.
[...] no complete operating system distribution (since the
A program is binary data that is executed by a computer. An
analogue computer does not have binary data. Software is
anything that can be converted into a a program.
Ergo, truth of those definitions would mean that analogue computers
have no programs, which is absurd, so they
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since you obviously have never actually written a program for an
analogue computer, you might want to try doing that before you start
stating silly things like this.
Do not lie about me.
Programming an analogue computer is like programming a digital
Since you obviously have never actually written a program for an
analogue computer, you might want to try doing that before you start
stating silly things like this.
Do not lie about me.
You have not programmed an analogue computer. Your statements show
this. If you claim that
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Program ::= binary data that can be executed by a computer.
Source code ::= Something that can be converted to binary data that
can be executed by a computer (either in one, or
several steps)
Software ::= Any of these two.
Program ::= binary data that can be executed by a computer.
Source code ::= Something that can be converted to binary data
that can be executed by a computer (either in
one, or several steps)
Software ::= Any of these two.
Data
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Program ::= binary data that can be executed by a computer.
Source code ::= Something that can be converted to binary data
that can be executed by a computer (either in
one, or several
* Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060213 21:27]:
FDL licensed documentation isn't non-free software, it isn't even free
software. It is documentation.
Here we differ. There are just different definitions of what
software means. But this does not change the fact that freedom matters.
There
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 23:28 +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
Here we differ. There are just different definitions of what
software means. But this does not change the fact that freedom matters.
There are of course different forms of freedom needed for different
things.
I think you're probably
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 23:28 +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
This acknoledges that world is not perfect. That while 100% free
software is important, some people have to make compromises to
get as much free software as possible.
Bernhard, I must say that your message impressed me.
It was clear
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [skip much]
Ok. Then the sentence makes even less sense, since manuals are
not software, they cannot be classifed as non-free software, or
free software.
So, we agree they are not free software, but for different reasons.
To be precis, I'm
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 04:44:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Does or does not ftp.debian.org carry non-free software? Does or does
not ftp.gnu.org carry non-free software?
Clearly, the answer is `Yes. No'. You are jumping into the realm of
itsy bitsy semantics.
Nonsense. You're playing
Debian delivers on its promise: To get a 100% free software
distribution from debian, get the official distribution by download
or from any of the places listed on www.debian.org.
Then please explain what ftp.debian.org contains, I consider that a
broken promise. That you simply state
A license like the GPL grants freedom to perform acts on something.
Given your definitions so far, what category of thing do you
believe a license like the GPL applies to? Software? Programs?
Data? Manuals? Some combination? Some other set? Please inform us,
so we know what you're
The only person playing willynilly games is you who cannot accept
the plain truth that Debian does infact include non-free
software.
Of course it contains non-free software. Removal of FDL-only
licensed stuff was scheduled for the next release.
FDL licensed documentation isn't
Differentiating software and hardware is not always possible:
hence, /firmware/ covers one grey area.
If it requires a soldering iron to be changed, then it is hardware.
Firmware simply clouds, and in a bad way. People can claim that since
it is firmware, you do not need the four freedoms,
On 12-Feb-2006, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
To be clear, are you saying that source code is *not* a program?
Yes.
If the preferred form for modification of a manual is not
human-readable, and is not a program, what is it? Software? A
manual? Something else -- if so, what?
Good
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So what would you call the expanded credit clause that seeks to
entice legacy publishers to use FDL rather than a free software
licence?
What do you mean? What `credit' clause?
Clause 4.
I don't see any `credit' clause
I'm not sure what you mean, `non-free software manuals' to me reads as
`non-free software manuals', i.e. manuals for non-free software. If
MJ meant something else, he is free to clarify.
Please do not use latin on an English-language list, especially
incorrectly. I meant
Even if you have to bite your tongue - don't be provocative.
And my tounge is bleeding quite badly right now.
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
So what would you call the expanded credit clause that seeks to
entice legacy publishers to use FDL rather than a free software
licence?
What do you mean? What `credit' clause?
Clause 4.
If you are going to quote the license, do it properly.
I don't see any
I'm easy to deal with, as long as:
- you don't lie about me, my views or my work;
- you don't mind a spade being called a spade;
- you're willing to be constructive;
- you are tolerant and have a sense of humour.
None of which you apply to others; so there is no reason why I or
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean, `non-free software manuals' to me reads as
`non-free software manuals', i.e. manuals for non-free software. If
MJ meant something else, he is free to clarify.
Please do not use latin on an English-language list, especially
It's clear from the context that he means gfdl manuals. You should
have learnt that software to you means program, while to him it
means everything except my desk. [...]
That's a lie about me. I guess that's why you think I'm difficult
to deal with. Stop lying about my views and all will
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[MJ Ray wrote:]
If one tried to include part of the Emacs manual in a work about GNU
in general, one could not follow the licence: the GNU Manifesto and
the GPL would be about the main topic, so no longer Secondary, so
could not be included as Invariant,
As you claim to understand the FDL much better than others, could
you explain whether or not the FDL would allow this case at all,
and if so, what it would mean for the mentioned sections (of
course, backing this up with references to the FDL text).
I didn't make such a claim, or even
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
As you claim to understand the FDL much better than others, could
you explain whether or not the FDL would allow this case at all,
and if so, what it would mean for the mentioned sections (of
course, backing this up with references to the FDL text).
I
As you claim to understand the FDL much better than others,
could you explain whether or not the FDL would allow this case
at all, and if so, what it would mean for the mentioned
sections (of course, backing this up with references to the
FDL text).
I
I now fail to see why I should continue this discussion with you. I
was hoping for a level headed one and you seemed to want the same
thing, but now you have resorted to the same low level tactic as MJ.
___
Discussion mailing list
simo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 13:10 +, MJ Ray wrote:
As an example, I suggest all FDL manuals, none of which are free
software, whether programs or otherwise.
Do I understand it correctly that you view any digital authorship work
as software ?
Not quite.
Is it
On 12-Feb-2006, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
A computer can run a PostScript or LaTeX program; indeed, most of
them are practically unreadable by a human until a computer has
done so.
But a computer cannot run the output that those generate (ps and
latex should really be classifed as
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
I now fail to see why I should continue this discussion with you.
I was hoping for a level headed one and you seemed to want the
same thing, but now you have resorted to the same low level
tactic as MJ.
I asked some clear questions. You do not
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You are starting a snowball effect without knowing the story.
No, I only describe what's happened, to the last place I read
good news about the FDL problems.
First of all,
did it occur to you maybe that someone simply made a simple mistake?
Yes, and if
http://savannah.gnu.org/faq/?group_id=5802question=Project_-_How_to_get_it_approved_quickly.txt
Have you actually read that? There are no requirements that
documentation must be licensed under the GFDL.
Sebastian Wieseler seems the keenest promoter of FDL among the
project reviewers,
I think MJ is well within his rights to raise this as a problem
though - whether or not you believe the GFDL is a free licence or
not,
It is a free license (one can modify, use, distribute works licensed
under the GFDL). It isn't a free _software_ license. Classifying all
licenses as
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://savannah.gnu.org/faq/?group_id=5802question=Project_-_How_to_get_it_approved_quickly.txt
Have you actually read that? There are no requirements that
documentation must be licensed under the GFDL.
For documentation, we are currently clarifying
For documentation, we are currently clarifying exactly what
licenses we accept and the recent edits to that FAQ are evidence
that it is changing, which is what you asked for (although you cut
your please back that up demand).
So once again, there is no requirement that documentation
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It is a free license (one can modify, use, distribute works licensed
under the GFDL). It isn't a free _software_ license.
The restrictions on modification (particularly the obnoxious
advertising clause and the encyclopedia problem) and distribution
are too
It is a free license (one can modify, use, distribute works
licensed under the GFDL). It isn't a free _software_ license.
The restrictions on modification (particularly the obnoxious
advertising clause and the encyclopedia problem) and distribution
are too heavy in the opinions
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
I think this is a bad week.
You are starting a snowball effect without knowing the story. First
of all, did it occur to you maybe that someone simply made a simple
mistake?
So, was this a mistake? And if so, has it be corrected?
Regards,
Joey
--
It is usable for free software. The GFDL has no `advertising
clause',
So what would you call the expanded credit clause that seeks to
entice legacy publishers to use FDL rather than a free software
licence?
What do you mean? What `credit' clause? I don't see any `credit'
mjray clearly hinging at fdl manuals:
vanished) and still includes non-free software manuals.
alfred smizd not getting the hint (or showing not to):
It includes manuals for non-free software? That seems silly.
Could you point out which manuals so that they can
I would say more, regardless of the discussion itself the reaction
of Alfred is really unacceptable if he is really representing
GNU. And I am saying this as a real Free Software supporter who has
trouble justifying it many times due to the way our own people
present themselves.
If
I don't have anything private against you, I have it in the sense that
you are representing gnu and/or fsf-europe (or not? Georg?), that is why
I make my criticism public. If I had a private insult for you I would
send it privately...
On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 01:04 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
75 matches
Mail list logo
