Bug#207932: Time to fix this bug.
Jérôme Marant wrote: Quoting Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jérôme Marant wrote: Sooner or later, Debian will have to decide if it definitely wants to leave the project in the hands of extremists. I hope the GR will lead us to the right path, that is getting rid of fundamentalists. If Debian goes down your we don't give a damn about freedom path, I plan to introduce lots of exciting non-modifiable software to main. That would be fun. I would not be surprised. You are constantly trying to undermine the Debian project. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Bug#207932: Time to fix this bug.
Quoting Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jérôme Marant wrote: Sooner or later, Debian will have to decide if it definitely wants to leave the project in the hands of extremists. I hope the GR will lead us to the right path, that is getting rid of fundamentalists. If Debian goes down your we don't give a damn about freedom path, I plan to introduce lots of exciting non-modifiable software to main. That would be fun. I would not be surprised. You are constantly trying to undermine the Debian project. -- Jérôme Marant
Bug#207932: Time to fix this bug.
Jérôme Marant wrote: Sooner or later, Debian will have to decide if it definitely wants to leave the project in the hands of extremists. I hope the GR will lead us to the right path, that is getting rid of fundamentalists. If Debian goes down your we don't give a damn about freedom path, I plan to introduce lots of exciting non-modifiable software to main. That would be fun.
Bug#207932: Time to fix this bug.
Quoting Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]: You don't have any kind of authority, as far as I know. I didn't say I did. I quoted like debian-legal tells me it needs to be done, and noted that debian-legal had in fact said that. A clear majority at any rate. That's all. debian-legal is no majority. there's a successful General Resolution passed on a relevant topic, That's happened. Do you need another, even more specific, one? If you do, I'll be happy to oblige if I ever get through NM. I notice your lack of comment on this. Because I don't owe you a comment on this. or they're removed from the upstream... Well, that's not happening right now it looks like. :-P Please remove these from 'main' ASAP. Thank you. They can be placed in a package in non-free if you wish, as they appear to have licenses which make them distributable. It would be good to get this done as soon as possible, so that there is a releaseable version of emacs in etch. It is already releasable, thanks. Sorry, it's not. Please note that it has an RC bug filed against it. You do know what RC means, right? This bug shall be closed because it is irrelevant, whether it is RC or not. So, there's not point arguing. Alternatively, you could initiate a GR to overrule the Social Contract with respect to these works. Oh, FYI, don't pay too much attention to Michael Edwards. He has misinterpreted the meaning of the integrity of the work provisions in We do pay attention to Michael. We even agree with him. Sad. 'Cause he's propounding bad legal advice. He's not an extremist at least. I trust him for this reason. .. I stand that removing those documents will not make Emacs more free than it is nowdays. Well, you can stand by whatever you want, but not having any arguments to back it up makes it rather unconvincing. I'll repeat that I don't owe you any argument. It is all about common sense, but you don't seem to get it. Extremists and ideologists have never known anything about common sense and _this_ is _proven_. I'm not ready to leave Debian in the hands of ideologists and extremists, partisants of my way or the highway and such kind of Free software morality crusaders. I'm all against the dictatorship of minorities. You are an extremist, a fundamentalist, with no bits of common sense at all. OK, that's both an ad hominem attack, and was given with no evidence. I'm sad I have to use such words but I don't think there is anything else to say. It is based on your interventions on debian-legal. I don't have to give evidence, you already have. You aren't helping anyone, not even the Debian Project. OK, that's partly an ad hominem attack, but worse, it is provably false. I am not the only one who gains direct benefit from having a clear, obvious division -- main exclusive of license texts -- between material satisfying the DFSG and that which doesn't. It is an extreme view of the DFSG, I call this fundamentalism. -- Jérôme Marant
Bug#207932: Time to fix this bug.
Quoting Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Romain Francoise wrote: Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please remove these from 'main' ASAP. Don't: URL: http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 That's not directly relevant, since it's about the GFDL, and this bug isn't. I suppose it would be sort of relevant if the Invariant Sections are Just Fine option passes, since this is about unmodifiable stuff. Trust me, if that passes, you'll see a lot of unmodifiable stuff going into main. I seriously doubt it will pass; if you really want to wait to see, however, fine with me. Sooner or later, Debian will have to decide if it definitely wants to leave the project in the hands of extremists. I hope the GR will lead us to the right path, that is getting rid of fundamentalists. -- Jérôme Marant
Bug#207932: Time to fix this bug.
Jérôme Marant wrote: Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And for whatever it's worth, as long as I'm maintaining the packages, these files will almost certainly not be removed unless there's some overwhelmingly convincing reason, like debian-legal tells me it needs to be done, We've done that. You don't have any kind of authority, as far as I know. I didn't say I did. I quoted like debian-legal tells me it needs to be done, and noted that debian-legal had in fact said that. A clear majority at any rate. That's all. there's a successful General Resolution passed on a relevant topic, That's happened. Do you need another, even more specific, one? If you do, I'll be happy to oblige if I ever get through NM. I notice your lack of comment on this. or they're removed from the upstream... Well, that's not happening right now it looks like. :-P Please remove these from 'main' ASAP. Thank you. They can be placed in a package in non-free if you wish, as they appear to have licenses which make them distributable. It would be good to get this done as soon as possible, so that there is a releaseable version of emacs in etch. It is already releasable, thanks. Sorry, it's not. Please note that it has an RC bug filed against it. You do know what RC means, right? Alternatively, you could initiate a GR to overrule the Social Contract with respect to these works. Oh, FYI, don't pay too much attention to Michael Edwards. He has misinterpreted the meaning of the integrity of the work provisions in We do pay attention to Michael. We even agree with him. Sad. 'Cause he's propounding bad legal advice. Jerome Marant's claim that the articles are logically non modifiable without the consent of their author is wrong, and is apparently due to the same point of confusion which also comes up when we discuss making standards documents modifiable: you can't modify the original, but you should be allowed to create a derivative work, a modified copy. Consider the Declaration of Independence and these famous modified versions: the Declaration of Sentiments, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. The modifications did not change the original Declaration of Independence. Modified versions of these essays and speeches would likewise not change RMS's words, and would not pretend to be RMS's words. They would be different essays which used some of RMS's rhetoric and style. I stand that removing those documents will not make Emacs more free than it is nowdays. Well, you can stand by whatever you want, but not having any arguments to back it up makes it rather unconvincing. You are an extremist, a fundamentalist, with no bits of common sense at all. OK, that's both an ad hominem attack, and was given with no evidence. You aren't helping anyone, not even the Debian Project. OK, that's partly an ad hominem attack, but worse, it is provably false. I am not the only one who gains direct benefit from having a clear, obvious division -- main exclusive of license texts -- between material satisfying the DFSG and that which doesn't. So just please go away and find yourself another sandbox.
Bug#207932: Time to fix this bug.
Romain Francoise wrote: Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please remove these from 'main' ASAP. Don't: URL: http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 That's not directly relevant, since it's about the GFDL, and this bug isn't. I suppose it would be sort of relevant if the Invariant Sections are Just Fine option passes, since this is about unmodifiable stuff. Trust me, if that passes, you'll see a lot of unmodifiable stuff going into main. I seriously doubt it will pass; if you really want to wait to see, however, fine with me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#207932: Time to fix this bug.
The repeatedly-confirmed GRs, the current Social Contract, debian-legal consensus, and the stated opinion of the etch release team, are that everything in 'main', with the special exception of license texts which constitute the licenses to works in 'main', has to satisfy the DFSG. The DFSG requires that everyone be given permission to create modified copies. And for whatever it's worth, as long as I'm maintaining the packages, these files will almost certainly not be removed unless there's some overwhelmingly convincing reason, like debian-legal tells me it needs to be done, We've done that. there's a successful General Resolution passed on a relevant topic, That's happened. Do you need another, even more specific, one? If you do, I'll be happy to oblige if I ever get through NM. or they're removed from the upstream... Well, that's not happening right now it looks like. :-P Please remove these from 'main' ASAP. Thank you. They can be placed in a package in non-free if you wish, as they appear to have licenses which make them distributable. It would be good to get this done as soon as possible, so that there is a releaseable version of emacs in etch. Alternatively, you could initiate a GR to overrule the Social Contract with respect to these works. Oh, FYI, don't pay too much attention to Michael Edwards. He has misinterpreted the meaning of the integrity of the work provisions in French and other law. Those provisions do not restrict creation of modified copies, which can most certainly be permitted by copyright license. They were originally designed for physical, non-replicable works, such as a painting on canvas (and the US law specifically applies only to such works) -- you can't buy the original Mona Lisa in order to deface it, basically, but you can do whatever you want with your photograph of it. Misattribution is also a red herring; we never allow misattribution, and if you create a modified essay you absolutely mustn't claim that it's by the original author. He's also flatly wrong in claiming that the current consensus position (all non-license content must generally permit creation of modified copies in order to be DFSG-free) would require the removal of all artistic or polemical works; these can be licensed just as freely as anything else, and the anarchism package is the classic example. Jerome Marant's claim that the articles are logically non modifiable without the consent of their author is wrong, and is apparently due to the same point of confusion which also comes up when we discuss making standards documents modifiable: you can't modify the original, but you should be allowed to create a derivative work, a modified copy. Consider the Declaration of Independence and these famous modified versions: the Declaration of Sentiments, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. The modifications did not change the original Declaration of Independence. Modified versions of these essays and speeches would likewise not change RMS's words, and would not pretend to be RMS's words. They would be different essays which used some of RMS's rhetoric and style. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#207932: Time to fix this bug.
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please remove these from 'main' ASAP. Don't: URL: http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 -- ,''`. : :' :Romain Francoise [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `' http://people.debian.org/~rfrancoise/ `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#207932: Time to fix this bug.
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And for whatever it's worth, as long as I'm maintaining the packages, these files will almost certainly not be removed unless there's some overwhelmingly convincing reason, like debian-legal tells me it needs to be done, We've done that. You don't have any kind of authority, as far as I know. there's a successful General Resolution passed on a relevant topic, That's happened. Do you need another, even more specific, one? If you do, I'll be happy to oblige if I ever get through NM. or they're removed from the upstream... Well, that's not happening right now it looks like. :-P Please remove these from 'main' ASAP. Thank you. They can be placed in a package in non-free if you wish, as they appear to have licenses which make them distributable. It would be good to get this done as soon as possible, so that there is a releaseable version of emacs in etch. It is already releasable, thanks. Alternatively, you could initiate a GR to overrule the Social Contract with respect to these works. Oh, FYI, don't pay too much attention to Michael Edwards. He has misinterpreted the meaning of the integrity of the work provisions in We do pay attention to Michael. We even agree with him. Jerome Marant's claim that the articles are logically non modifiable without the consent of their author is wrong, and is apparently due to the same point of confusion which also comes up when we discuss making standards documents modifiable: you can't modify the original, but you should be allowed to create a derivative work, a modified copy. Consider the Declaration of Independence and these famous modified versions: the Declaration of Sentiments, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. The modifications did not change the original Declaration of Independence. Modified versions of these essays and speeches would likewise not change RMS's words, and would not pretend to be RMS's words. They would be different essays which used some of RMS's rhetoric and style. I stand that removing those documents will not make Emacs more free than it is nowdays. You are an extremist, a fundamentalist, with no bits of common sense at all. You aren't helping anyone, not even the Debian Project. So just please go away and find yourself another sandbox. -- Jérôme Marant
