On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:12:06 -0400, Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I understand that debian-legal acts in an advisory capacity, and is
>> very useful to maintainers who need advice on licensing issues. And
>> I shall stipulate that the
as you wish.
>
> I fully support your position on this.
>
> When a law makes the majority of the population guilty of a crime,
> one should not obey it without careful deliberation.
...except the majority of the Debian Developer population isn't "guilty"
of shippin
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I am closing the bug again. You can, or course, call for the
> tech ctte to override this, or a GR, or get me removed from the
> project, as you wish.
I fully support your position on this.
When a law makes the majority of the population gui
ete solution to the
problem. The FSF has been relicensing GNU Manuals that were previously
under DFSG-free terms under the GNU FDL, and adding Invariant Sections
to manuals that previously had none.
This fact has been documented several times on the debian-legal mailing
list. Examples include the GAW
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:39:01PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> This decision to exclude GNU documentation from Debian, given
> the sheer volume of GNU software in Debian, is likely to be
> controversial. And we need to have a common stance on this issue. If
> this is all so very obvi
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:40:07PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I did. I feel my packages are not buggy, lacking a position
>> statement by the project.
>
> So, what we ship in main shall not be a function of whether the works in
> it are D
On Friday, 26 Sep 2003 09:43:26 -0500, Steve Langasek
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:39:01PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:20:21 -0400, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> s
> >I understand that debian-legal acts in an advisory capacity,
>
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:40:07PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I did. I feel my packages are not buggy, lacking a position
> statement by the project.
So, what we ship in main shall not be a function of whether the works in
it are DFSG-free or not, but shall instead depend on whether o
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand that debian-legal acts in an advisory capacity,
> and is very useful to maintainers who need advice on licensing
> issues. And I shall stipulate that there is a rough consensus on
> debian-legal about the GFDL.
Right. There is co
reopen 212525
tags 212525 sarge-ignore
thanks
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:39:01PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:20:21 -0400, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
> I understand that debian-legal acts in an advisory capacity,
> and is very useful to mainta
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:20:21 -0400, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hi, On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 02:00:42 -0400, Nathanael Nerode
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> This package contains material licensed under the GNU FDL (th
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:41:53 -0400, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Don't bother reopening these reports, they shall be just as
>> summarily closed.
> Feel free to modify the severity; I simply set it according to
> policy to start with. :-P
I di
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Don't bother reopening these reports, they shall be just as
summarily closed.
Feel free to modify the severity; I simply set it according to policy to
start with. :-P
There's nothing wrong with asking upstream to change its license (and I
wish you luck). The si
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 02:00:42 -0400, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
This package contains material licensed under the GNU FDL (the
manual) installed in usr/share/info/make.info*.gz. Debian-legal has
determined that the GNU FDL is not a free so
* Branden Robinson
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
> by the Free Soft
On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 12:43, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> Witness the response to Jeroen.
I don't think we can draw any conclusion from the response to Jeroen
other than "a lot of us think rudeness is a bad thing". (Including even
Jeroen himself, per his apology a few flames back in that thread.)
-
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The membership also seems
> to have shifted towards a more radical^H^H^H^Henthusiastic support of
> _only_ free software, and helping people use whatever they wish on
> Debian, while providing them with free alternatives, seems to be on
> the wane
>>"Steve" == Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Steve> I'd be happy to hear clarifications from the author and
Steve> contemporaries, then; to be honest, my memory of Debian
Steve> history isn't good enough to even know who to approach. (The
Steve> debian-doc package is conspicuously
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is a document, and what is a program? How can Debian even begin
> to distinguish what makes free documentation different from free
> software when we can't distinguish whether a particular piece of
> data is software or documentation in the first pla
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:52:52PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> Just look at the new and interesting stories being told by Hollywood about
> everyone from Mr. I. Crane, to Peter Pan. All possible by the expiration
> of those copyrights on the original books.
As a point of fact, Peter Pan is still
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:52:52PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> While I'm not sure that M. Mouse should be owned by anyone but Uncle Walt,
> I understand the fear of the current copyright holder, given that I am in
> direct contact with the spirit of the original Mr. Disney. He has some
> very clea
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:57:32PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 14:39, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >
> > I'd be happy to hear clarifications from the author and contemporaries,
> > then; to be honest, my memory of Debian history isn't good enough to
> > even know who to approach
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:52:52PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:03:11PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > > The history section in my book, which is declared invarient in the
> > > license, was written by Ian M. and has no technical bearing on the rest of
> > > the book's
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:03:11PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > The freedom of expression of the author is what is being
> > protected by this clause. The freedom to express opinion without having
> > those statements twisted into something complete
On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 14:39, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> I'd be happy to hear clarifications from the author and contemporaries,
> then; to be honest, my memory of Debian history isn't good enough to
> even know who to approach. (The debian-doc package is conspicuously
> lacking of the relevant c
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:03:11PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > The history section in my book, which is declared invarient in the
> > license, was written by Ian M. and has no technical bearing on the rest of
> > the book's content, but has every re
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:24:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Steve" == Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Steve> As a developer, I am by no means in a position to try to
> Steve> interpret what the phrasers of the Social Contract /really/
> Steve> meant to say. They wrote w
>>"Steve" == Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Steve> As a developer, I am by no means in a position to try to
Steve> interpret what the phrasers of the Social Contract /really/
Steve> meant to say. They wrote what they wrote, and I agreed to it
Steve> as written; as did many other d
(followups to -legal, please)
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:17:48PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Excerpting is allowed by copyright law under the fair use principle, and
> one need not accept any license governing a work to exercise that right
> to fair use.
Australia, for example, doesn't have a
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:22:07PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> indeed, I would not like to see people modifying my points of view and
> redistributing saying that's what I think, you see
So if I rewrite charsets (7) (which I'm considering), I should make sure
that it's under an invarian
begin Gustavo Noronha Silva quotation:
> Em Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:26:39 +0300, Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> escreveu:
>
> > If the GFDL were a "free to use and modify" license, then we would not
> > be having this discussion. The problem is that the GFDL specifies
> > parts that we are
Em Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:26:39 +0300, Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
escreveu:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:02:47PM -0400, Thomas Hood wrote:
> > While I don't regard the DFSG as already applying to
> > documentation, the spirit of it is naturally extended to cover
> > documentation. I would
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:26:11PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:17:48PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > As a small example, consider that someone might wish to condense part of
> > > your book into a reference card that can be mounted on a mousepad.
> > > Unfortunatel
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:17:48PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > As a small example, consider that someone might wish to condense part of
> > your book into a reference card that can be mounted on a mousepad.
> > Unfortunately, the license will requires that Ian M's history of Debian
> > be repr
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:04:15AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Using my book as an example, there have been many patches submitted either
> > for spelling or content. I have included all those that were correct ;-)
> > I have never seen the book published with changes that were not made by
>
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:51:27PM -0400, Thomas Hood wrote:
> Richard Braakman wrote:
> > What you're advocating is the evil twin of censorship,
> > namely forced speech.
>
> I don't think that placing restrictions on an otherwise
> completely liberal license amounts to using any kind of
> "force
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:03:11PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> The history section in my book, which is declared invarient in the
> license, was written by Ian M. and has no technical bearing on the rest of
> the book's content, but has every reason to be "protected" from
> modification. These par
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:03:11PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:53:54AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > > > > DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines".
> > > > Yes, and since Debian is 100% Free Software, that applies
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:03:11PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> The history section in my book, which is declared invarient in the
> license, was written by Ian M. and has no technical bearing on the rest of
> the book's content, but has every reason to be "protected" from
> modification. These par
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> How about correcting a supposedly historical document, for
Anthony> example, taking a document that describes Windows as the
Anthony> progenitor of the trend for GUIs, and adding some
Anthony> explanation about Apple and Xerox and suchlike?
Joey Hess wrote:
>> Protecting the freedom of this form of speech requires a somewhat
>> different strategy from the one used to protect the freedom to copy
>> source code.
> Freedom of software and freedom of speech are two entirely
> different animals, and attempting to confuse them as you do
>
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:53:54AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > > > DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines".
> > >
> > > Yes, and since Debian is 100% Free Software, that applies to everything
> > > in Debian.
> >
> > Documentation isn't sof
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:02:47PM -0400, Thomas Hood wrote:
> While I don't regard the DFSG as already applying to
> documentation, the spirit of it is naturally extended to cover
> documentation. I would suggest that the GFDL is a reasonable
> license to use for free documentation --- free as in
Followups to -legal.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:07:02AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> I mentioned Thoreau in another thread, and the Bible in another; though
> they are free in every sense, perhaps that would be a place where we
> would need to be careful about modifications. I'm sure John Stuart
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 00:55, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 01:42, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > > DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines". IMH
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 01:42, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines". IMHO we ave to create a
> > > DFDG, "Debian Free Documentati
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:34:57AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Not necessarily. Imagine part of the README for "licquix", the hot new
> free kernel that everyone's raving about:
>
> Copyright (c) 1991 Linus Torvalds.
>
> The Finn gets the copyright because he started it, even though it
>
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 15:21, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > > Why? What freedoms are important for software that aren't for
> > > documentation?
> >
> > Revisionist history, for one. I'm sure the FSF wouldn't appreciate the
> > GCC docum
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 19:03, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
> >I wrote this up last night after getting fed up with this thread, then
> >modified it this morning after reading the thread on -legal that was
> >referred to. Flame away.
> >
> >http://peo
Thomas Hood wrote:
> Several people said that they didn't want Debian documentation to be
> full of political rants. They would like to reserve the right to
> delete the parts they don't like from the manuals they package. But
> what is this but censorship? And how is censorship compatible with
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg7.html
> Off to read about 100 messages ...
... and a tedious experience it was.
I would like to make the following points which I didn't
see mentioned in the hundreds of messages (many of them
snipes and flames).
1. Document
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 04:17:28PM -0400, Thomas Hood wrote:
> I asked:
> > Were there any other important debates about the GFDL
> > that should be read?
>
> To answer my own question:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg7.html
>
> Off to read about 100 message
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 03:09:11PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > > Documentation isn't software. Neither are conffiles, icons, etc.
> >
> > When I buy software, all of that is part of what I buy. Foldoc says
> > that one definition of software is "programs plus documentation though
> > this do
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:53:54AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > > DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines".
> >
> > Yes, and since Debian is 100% Free Software, that applies to everything
> > in Debian.
>
> Documentation isn't software. Neither are conffiles, icons, etc. So,
> if we'
This one time, at band camp, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 03:57:42PM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
>> http://people.debian.org/~jaq/jfdg.html
>
>Well written. Thanks.
>
>One issue though:
>The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
> --^^^
>
>Should
This one time, at band camp, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
>I wrote this up last night after getting fed up with this thread, then
>modified it this morning after reading the thread on -legal that was
>referred to. Flame away.
>
>http://people.debian.org/~jaq/jfdl.html
Of course, I meant
http://people
definitions are only about
> software. The GNU FDL is about documentation, which is a totally
> different.
>
> Besides that, are our definitions right?
That's not for me to decide. Debian has one definition - software. We
define Debian as entirely software and specifically ent
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:30:18AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 09:01, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > On the other hand, by taking action we might be able to stop those projects
> > from taking such a misguided course of action. I think the FSF is making
> > a big mistake with t
> As far as I can see neither the gcc nor the binutils documentation has
> invariant sections. I don't know about KDE.
Gcc 3 docs do: gcc-3.0/gcc/doc/gcc.texi has (1) the GPL itself [which
we already need some way of dealing with, the text of the GPL isn't
DFSG but we include it...] (2) the three
alled on my system
> > > if I'm only using packages from main.
> >
> > The FDL is not DFSG-compliant, but that doesn't make it non-free.
>
> By the definitions we have given "non-free", it is exactly that.
If it was software, it was non-free. Our def
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:28:19PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:04:12PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
> > >
> > > In case this is true, nearly all KDE packages have to be moved to
> > > n
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > Why? What freedoms are important for software that aren't for
> > documentation?
>
> Revisionist history, for one. I'm sure the FSF wouldn't appreciate the
> GCC document being modified to make it look like Linus Torvalds wrote
>
I asked:
> Were there any other important debates about the GFDL
> that should be read?
To answer my own question:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg7.html
Off to read about 100 messages ...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 12:32, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:22:00AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > In that thread in debian-legal, he seemed to accept the possibility that
> > some things packaged for Debian might not be software. His problem
> > seemed to be with corner case
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 12:25, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Jeff, you might want to read:
Noted.
> People who want to opine about licensing issues really, really should
> subscribe to -legal.
And I have (though only recently).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubs
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 11:51, David Starner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:53:54AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > Documentation isn't software. Neither are conffiles, icons, etc.
>
> When I buy software, all of that is part of what I buy. Foldoc says
> that one definition of software is "pr
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 03:57:42PM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines". IMHO we ave to create a
> >DFDG, "Debian Free Documentation Guidelines".
>
> I wrote this up last night after getting fed up w
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:50:43PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> I think that the point being made is that, if the GNU FDL is not a free
> license, then we will need to redefine "free" or watch our project
> splinter into uselessness.
The GNU FDL is a license, period. It can
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:22:00AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 00:05, David Starner wrote:
> > Where? Branden seems to believe that anything that Debian packages is
> > software, for the purposes of the DFSG.
[...]
> In that thread in debian-legal, he seemed to accept the pos
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:30:18AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > On the other hand, by taking action we might be able to stop those projects
> > from taking such a misguided course of action. I think the FSF is making
> > a big mistake with the GFDL.
>
> I'm curious about your reasoning. Have y
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Revisionist history, for one. I'm sure the FSF wouldn't appreciate the
> GCC document being modified to make it look like Linus Torvalds wrote
> GCC, for example.
How does the GFDL stop that? I can add a section to the GCC
documentat
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:53:54AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Documentation isn't software. Neither are conffiles, icons, etc.
When I buy software, all of that is part of what I buy. Foldoc says
that one definition of software is "programs plus documentation though
this does not correspond wi
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 09:01, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:08:05AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > The point is that pulling everything out that's GFDL isn't really a good
> > option; it damages the project for zero gain. This is especially true
> > in the long term, as proje
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 01:42, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines". IMHO we ave to create a
> > DFDG, "Debian Free Documentation Guidelines".
>
> Why? What freedoms are important for software th
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 00:43, David Starner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines".
>
> Yes, and since Debian is 100% Free Software, that applies to everything
> in Debian.
Documentation isn't software. Neithe
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:05:31AM +0200, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
>
> > Given that gcc, binutils, and KDE are in main, it would seem that the
> > status quo and the DFSG are in conflict, or the status quo and someone's
> > interpretat
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:08:05AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> The point is that pulling everything out that's GFDL isn't really a good
> option; it damages the project for zero gain. This is especially true
> in the long term, as projects follow the FSF's lead and start releasing
> GFDL docs.
O
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Given that gcc, binutils, and KDE are in main, it would seem that the
> status quo and the DFSG are in conflict, or the status quo and someone's
> interpretation of the DFSG are in conflict at least.
As far as I can see neither the g
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:05:45AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:54:40PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > I don't know. Call me an optimist, but I seem to be hearing a rough
> > consensus.
>
> [...] And you, and another group of people, see to think that Debian
> should
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines". IMHO we ave to create a
> DFDG, "Debian Free Documentation Guidelines".
Why? What freedoms are important for software that aren't for documentation?
If the GFDL fails the DFSG, I'
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 04:01:55PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> you're not allowed to change the license or the author's name of a
> GPL-licensed program so, by your "strictly literal reading of the DFSG"
> that makes the GPL non-free.
True. But by long tradition and, as you say, common sense, th
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:08:53PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to
> > > be not?
> >
> > No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
> > cons
This one time, at band camp, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines". IMHO we ave to create a
>DFDG, "Debian Free Documentation Guidelines".
I wrote this up last night after getting fed up with this thread, then
modified it this morning after reading the thread on
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines".
Yes, and since Debian is 100% Free Software, that applies to everything
in Debian.
In any case, I don't see why an invariant rant about the evils of
Microsoft-extended Kerbeous (fo
Le Lundi 8 Avril 2002 05:08, David Starner a écrit :
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be
> > > not?
> >
> > No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
> > considered free
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 00:05, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:54:40PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > I don't know. Call me an optimist, but I seem to be hearing a rough
> > consensus.
>
> Where? Branden seems to believe that anything that Debian packages is
> software, for the pu
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 23:54, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > Also consider that pulling gcc from main would fracture the project; it
> > would become literally impossible to build a completely free OS, given
> > that the whole ball of wax wou
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:54:40PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> I don't know. Call me an optimist, but I seem to be hearing a rough
> consensus.
Where? Branden seems to believe that anything that Debian packages is
software, for the purposes of the DFSG. A number of people would argue
that small,
> How about: /usr/bin/latex is a program - my_neat_little_phdthesis.tex is
> a file?
Actually, /usr/bin/latex is an interpreter.
my_neat_little_phdthesis.tex *is* program code, even though the vast
proportion of the content will be literal text for output. See Andrew
Greene's BASiX (BASIC interp
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Also consider that pulling gcc from main would fracture the project; it
> would become literally impossible to build a completely free OS, given
> that the whole ball of wax would depend on a non-free compiler.
Why do we need to pull
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:08:53PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?
> > No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
> > considered fre
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 22:49, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> >
> > So, we change either the status quo, or the DFSG, or issue
> > clarifications on why the status quo (with GFDL-licensed components)
> > doesn't violate the DFSG.
>
> Where "cl
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 22:40, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> This should have been dealt with sooner. But the past three times the FDL
> has been discussed on this list, no concensus was reached. The only thing
> we can be certain of is that there are enough problems with it to prevent
> any consensus.
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Given that gcc, binutils, and KDE are in main, it would seem that the
> status quo and the DFSG are in conflict, or the status quo and someone's
> interpretation of the DFSG are in conflict at least.
>
> Also consider that pulling gcc
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > We should also move binutils and gcc to non-free because the manpages
> > > are under the GNU FDL.
> >
> > So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?
>
> N
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:50:43PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > > > The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
> > > >
> > > > In case this is true, nearly all KDE packages have to be moved to
> > > > non-free as they use the GNU FDL for the documentat
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 22:08, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?
> >
> > No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
> > considered free by our
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?
>
> No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
> considered free by our community are using this license. Thus, the onus
> is on yo
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 20:28, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:04:12PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
> > >
> > > In case this is true, nearly all KDE packages have to be moved to
> > > non-free as the
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 19:28, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:04:12PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
> > >
> > > In case this is true, nearly all KDE packages have to be moved to
> > > non-free as the
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
