Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Etienne Gagnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Mathieu Roy wrote: LOGICIEL: n.m. Ensemble de travaux de logique, d'analyse, de programmation, nécessaires au fonctionnement d'un ensemble de traitement de l'information Emphasis (opposé à matériel) /emphasis. (Emphasis mine). A translation of the emphasized text is: (opposite to hardware). Apparently you forgot to read/understand the rest of the phrase. No, I did not. Dictionaries try to enumerate all the usual meanings of words. When I teach my Computer Architecture course (in French, I'm in Montreal), I have to make a distrinction between hardware and software, in the first lectures. I use, the term logiciel to mean software, in the broad (yet seldom used) sense, which is indicated above in the definition between parentheses (i.e. not hardware). In other words, ask yourself: what is the opposite of matériel (hardware) in French? Yes, French defines logiciel as the opposite of hardware. There are no other terms, as far as I know. I agree that it is not common to attach this semantic to this word, but it is allowed. Please do not assume that every single word (in French, or in English) has a single meaning (semantics). Most words have a variety of meanings, that can change in a very subtle manner, depending on their context of use. Logiciel is such a word. I never said the contrary. On that list, people pretend that in English the common sense in to use software about anything on a computer but hardware. This is not the common sense in French, at all. (Please refer to the Academie Française's definition that I previously copy/paste here, which is the authority on the topic.) Etienne PS: Mailing-list usage policy mandates that you not CC me unless I ask for it. Correct, but please would you like to set an appropriate X-Followup header so my mailer do not put you by default in To:? As you seem to be a new maintainer (NM) (What's the point? I seen many very official maintainer for a long time having the same problem, and no one was daring telling them that they misbehave.) -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: Starting to talk
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On 2003-09-22 15:14:45 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does the DFSG definition of freedom that applies to program (nobody question that) help us to draw the line at the correct place also for documentation? Trivially, all Debian developers who have passed PP should have agreed to this. Any who agreed but do not agree should know the process for resignation. So any member of GNU must resign from Debian or GNU? Interesting. Of course, delivering documentation that is non-free software would be harmful to the project, as it would break our published commitments to our users. I agree on that. Did I wrote delivering documentation that is non-free software? Apparently you misunderstood my question which still seems to me pretty clear. So, does the DFSG definition of freedom help us to draw the line at the correct place also for documentation? -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, I think that the question is not really what the DFSG allows. Because it's pretty clear that the DSFG does not allow GFDLed documentation with Invariant section. The question is: do we think that tolerating this non-DFSG essays in some GFDLed documentation is more harmful to Debian than removing these GNU manuals? Of course! Leaving them in main weakens our principles and opens the door to abuse. Moving the manuals to non-free doesn't mean they are no longer available. It should. non-free is not part of Debian, like the official logo. I personally don't care very much if the Emacs and Emacs Lisp manuals don't get rewritten as free software. I'll get them from non-free and at least it's being honest about the freeness of the content. Get over out, it's not a huge deal. Ok. That's a point of view I can understand. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : * Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030922 15:09]: The point is whether every software needs to be free or just program and their documentation. So, you finally admited that software includes also digital photos of your girlfriend. Wow. You apparently missed a part of the discussion. I understood that you were using a very large definition of software since a while now. Now, then next question is very clear for debian-legal: The Social Contract (and the DFSG) say that all software in Debian must be 100% free. So, the answer for Debian is: Every software. I think this question too simplistic. The current situation is the fact that we have manuals with some part that will never be DFSG-compliant. It was important to ask to ourselves if, in this case, removing these manuals is more harmful than letting these manuals. Now there is an answer, which not only about the law (Is it DFSG compatible? - it is not) but also social (Is it better to keep these manuals despite their non-DSFG part? - the answer is no also). If it makes no difference for you, it does for me - and I'm maybe not the only one. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: Starting to talk
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:31:14AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On 2003-09-22 15:14:45 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does the DFSG definition of freedom that applies to program (nobody question that) help us to draw the line at the correct place also for documentation? Trivially, all Debian developers who have passed PP should have agreed to this. Any who agreed but do not agree should know the process for resignation. So any member of GNU must resign from Debian or GNU? Interesting. The GNU project has not, to the best of my knowledge, made a similar statement. Certainly there are GNU maintainers on this list who have been agreeing with Debian's position and objecting to that of the FSF. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: There was never a chance of a GFDL compromise
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Don Armstrong wrote: They're not Free under the 5 freedoms Yes, that should be 4 freedoms in case anyone was wondering. My freedoms are currently undergoing rapid inflation, which, ostensibly, is a good thing. Don Armstrong -- DIE! -- Maritza Campos http://www.crfh.net/d/20020601.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpeisSnvKqe7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 02:47 US/Eastern, Thomas Hood wrote: IBM distributes the Linux driver and the binaries in a tarball that it says is licensed under the GPL. http://oss.software.ibm.com/acpmodem/ No source code is provided for the DSP binaries. What about DFSG 2?
Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia
On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 01:15 US/Eastern, Nathanael Nerode wrote: I'd like to nail it as open as humanly possible, so I'd like to apply to to anyone receiving a derivative work based on the work as well, unless there's a legal complication in that. Well, that's not public domain any more. If I take a public domain work, create a derivative work, then I have copyright over my portions of the derivative work, and can license it how I want.
Re: Starting to talk
On 2003-09-23 07:31:14 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So any member of GNU must resign from Debian or GNU? Interesting. I am surprised people don't accuse you of slippery slope as quickly as I was accused recently. [...] So, does the DFSG definition of freedom help us to draw the line at the correct place also for documentation? Yes. You already knew my answer to that, so I regard you accusing me of failing to answer as stupid posturing.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On 2003-09-23 00:45:52 +0100 Andrew Saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [2] Okay, this was just an extreme example. However: since I personally believe that, Invariant sections or no, the term Open Source will *still* be more widespread, Do you have numbers to back the claim that it is more widespread? I thought only English had the free/free ambiguity enough to create a market for the more ambiguous term open source. I know that the damned term is being imported into other languages, sadly, but I didn't think it had got to the point of majority yet! If you have no such data, please refrain from that claim. It borders on trolling, given your to-list. or at least be seen as synonymous with Free Software (as the increasingly popular FOSS [Free/Open Source Software] concatenation shows) That is intersection, not equation. It is known that undesirable stunts limiting freedom, such as software patents, are allowed under most definitions of open source. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 14:13, MJ Ray wrote: On 2003-09-23 00:45:52 +0100 Andrew Saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [2] Okay, this was just an extreme example. However: since I personally believe that, Invariant sections or no, the term Open Source will *still* be more widespread, Do you have numbers to back the claim that it is more widespread? I thought only English had the free/free ambiguity enough to create a market for the more ambiguous term open source. I know that the damned term is being imported into other languages, sadly, but I didn't think it had got to the point of majority yet! If you have no such data, please refrain from that claim. It borders on trolling, given your to-list. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22free+software%22 - 4,840,000 hits. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22open+source%22 - 7,210,000 hits. And I'm pretty sure free software is used a lot more than open source in documents that have zero to do with free software or open source, in the sense of this discussion. And completely anecdotal, I'm the only person I know of that uses free software around here (University of Minnesota). All the professors use open source (or rarely, public software, freeware, or some other term), as do my friends and classmates. -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Starting to talk
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The point is whether every software IN DEBIAN needs to be free. That is indeed the question. I think personally that it is harmful to do so and harmless to let that essays where they are, since they do not interfere with the program and documentation usability. What do you think? Saying it's not DFSG-compliant is not an answer. Sure it is: the DFSG applies to all software in Debian: programs, documentations, and digitized lunchmeat. If you want to change that, get the Social Contract amended, because nobody here can be an honest Developer and intentionally behave in a way contradictory to that Contract. A good way to start that amendment process would be to begin work on construction a set of guidelines for free documentation. I put a bit of work into such on this list -- in late August, I believe -- but stopped when it was clear that I wanted freedoms to modify and such which made the DFSG a good fit. Apart from MJ Ray, which think that any document should follow the Free Software rules, software or not, nobody against the GFDLed text inclusion clearly stated his point of view. People are complaining about this discussion being endless. But they just have to say what they are thinking good or bad for Debian in this case, not just what is their interpretation of a text. Right, in this case -project is maybe a more appropriate place, but it is here where the discussion started. Many, many of us -- Branden Robinson, Nathaniel Nerode, me, Anthony DeRobertis, Peter G. -- have clearly said to you and to Fedor Zuev that we think all software should have to meet the same qualifications to be called Free Software, that the DFSG and the FSF Free Software Definition are both good approximations of those qualifications, and that the Debian OS should contain only Free Software. You haven't wanted to hear that, but from where I'm sitting it's pretty clear. You've also made your position -- that the manuals are useful, and so should be in Debian despite not meeting the DFSG. If you feel strongly enough about that to put work into solving the problem you see -- and you certainly seem willing to put in a bunch of conversation here -- I invite you to propose a set of guidelines for identifying free documents, or to admit that you have no such set of guidelines and merely want useful FSF works included in Debian, regardless of the freedoms these grant Debian's users. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On 2003-09-23 20:55:20 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22free+software%22 - 4,840,000 hits. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22open+source%22 - 7,210,000 hits. Distortions here include choice of language, importing of open source compared to translation of free software, only reflecting web page authors and one page one vote, amongst others. Taken off-list.
