Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote: First, try to answer to several simply questions. If you do likewise. 0) Is printed Emacs Manual in bookstore a software or hardware? No. Is it in Debian? 1) Is Emacs Manual recorded on CD-Audio a software or hardware? No. Is it in Debian? 2) Is Debian/main printed as book a software or hardware? No. Is it (still) in Debian? 3) Why? What differs from 0,1? It doesn't. 4) Is Debian/main printed into punch-cards a software or hardware? The punch cards themselves are hardware; however, the information contained on the punch cards is still software. 5) Why? What differs from 0,1,2? A computer can make sense of it without stuff like OCR software. 6) Is Debian/main written on CD-ROM a software or hardware? The CD-ROM itself is hardware; however, the information contained on the CD-ROM is still software. 7) Why? What differs from 0, 1,2,4? No difference with 4, but differences with 0,1,2 as in 5. 8)Is Debian logo written on [cover of] the same CD-ROM software or hardware? No. Is it in Debian? So, your definition of software is heavily Debian-specific. Even ftp.debian.org-specific, since you do not recognise covers of Debian CDs as subject of DFSG. What you think about DFSG 8?
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 03:23:06AM +0900, Fedor Zuev brabbled: On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote: 8)Is Debian logo written on [cover of] the same CD-ROM software or hardware? No. Is it in Debian? So, your definition of software is heavily Debian-specific. Even ftp.debian.org-specific, since you do not recognise covers of Debian CDs as subject of DFSG. Not quite so. There are no official CD covers, so any cover printed on a CD-ROM is unofficial. Even if it contains the logo, even if it is burned based on an official ISO image. As such, the logo is not 'in' Debian. Hency, my question. Did you even bother to read what I said? Are you genuinely interested in a constructive discussion, or are you just trying to waste everyone's time? I suspect the latter is the case; hence, welcome to my plonkfile. You're the first person, *ever*, to reach it (not counting USENET). -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation. So is my neck, stop it anyway! -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We want to have freedom over what we distribute in binary packages. We are willing to tolerate noxious restrictions like the TeX ones only because they do not impact what we can distribute in the binary package: they only restrict the hoops that the source package must go through to do create the binary package. That is a very clear place to draw the line, but I think it rejects a range of licenses, for software programs as well as for documentation, that we could accept. Which licenses (for programs)?
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think it needs to be possible to use text from manuals in a program. A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals. And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as text editors -- not as manuals or tetris games or news-readers or web browsers? You have to be free to publish modified versions of the program as tetris games and news-readers and web browsers, since those are different programs, but a manual is a different kind of thing entirely. It is to much to ask that it should be feasible to conveniently publish a modified version of the program as a manual. The GPL, for instance, does not permit this in a way that is good for publication of books on paper. The question is, importantly, *WHY* is this too much to ask?
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 13:13, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Software is not a controversial word in English (roughly inverse of hardware in one sense). Some people advocate a bizarre definition of it in order to further their agenda. If you're going to define common words just because someone objects to the normal meaning being used, you'll get some bozo that objects to the word social and claims it only applies to the welfare state. That's clearly ungood. Software is a controversial word in English. In an informal survey, two out of two people surveyed (my officemate and myself) agreed that we would not, by default, call an arbitrary collection of bits software (the particular example in the survey question was an MP3 file); but that we would agree to use a different definition of software than the one we are accustomed to in certain contexts. But your question, Is this MP3 file software? is itself biased. Consider the alternatives: 1. Is this MP3 file software or hardware? 2. Can an MP3 file be Free Software? -Brian I'm not sure what bias you see here. I believe that a no answer to Is an MP3 file software? implies that the respondent's primary definition of software is not anything made of bits. The main point of my message was to respond to MJ Ray's comment that Software is not a controversial word in English (roughly inverse of hardware in one sense). giving more evidence of controversy. Carl Witty
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On 2003-09-30 02:13:23 +0100 Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe that a no answer to Is an MP3 file software? implies that the respondent's primary definition of software is not anything made of bits. I think you are extrapolating too far from that little data. The main point [...] giving more evidence of controversy. Ah, but controversial has many meanings. :P
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 2003-09-24 23:12:06 +0100 Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Software is a controversial word in English. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes. -- Monty Python's Flying Circus. While there are very few things which can be properly argued with mere contradictions, I believe that does controversy exist is one of them. In an informal survey, two out of two people surveyed (my officemate and myself) agreed that we would not, by default, call an arbitrary collection of bits software That is not stronger statistical evidence than what that has gone before. I am sorry that the people in your office do not know the word software very well. Thank you for your sympathy. [...] I assure you that my definition of software (roughly, software==programs) was not adopted to further my agenda; I never said that it was. Do you have a different definition of the word some too? I now realize that the sentence Some people advocate a bizarre definition of it in order to further their agenda. is silent on the question of whether you believe that everybody with the bizarre definition advocates it in order to further their agenda. I apologize for my assumption that you intended the more extreme possible meaning of this sentence. I have no idea where these different definitions of software came from, but I don't think it's useful to attack people who use a different definition. I have explained in some detail where the word software comes from. I am sorry you have missed it. I suggest you look in the archives. I believe it was under the subject Unidentified Subject! during the last week. I do not know where this attempt to define it as a synonym for stored program started. I saw an explanation of the origin of the word software, but no argument as to why your definition should still be considered the One True Definition today. (Starting from the origin of the word is only indicative, not conclusive, unless you believe that words have only a single meaning which is locked in stone forever.) I apologize for my word attack, which stems (again) from my misreading of your words. Carl Witty
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 03:04, Fedor Zuev wrote: First, try to answer to several simply questions. First, let me note that I speak only for myself here, and I have a very liberal use of the term 'software.' In the Social Contract, a more conservative one is used, where we'd only consider it software if we can store its bits on a computer hard disk, CD, DVD, etc. 0) Is printed Emacs Manual in bookstore a software or hardware? The actual paper is not. The information printed on them is. 1) Is Emacs Manual recorded on CD-Audio a software or hardware? The actual polycarbonate and aluminum disc is not. The information encoded on it is. 2) Is Debian/main printed as book a software or hardware? Same as (0) 3) Why? What differs from 0,1? n/a --- nothing differs. 4) Is Debian/main printed into punch-cards a software or hardware? The paper is hardware. The information stored on them is software. 5) Why? What differs from 0,1,2? see (3) 6) Is Debian/main written on CD-ROM a software or hardware? see (1) 7) Why? What differs from 0, 1,2,4? see (3) 8)Is Debian logo written on [cover of] the same CD-ROM software or hardware? The paper and ink is hardware. The information --- i.e., the abstract logo, independent of the representation medium --- is software. 9) Why? What differs from 0, 1, 2, 4, 6? see (3) 10) Is Debian installation, hardcoded into embedded system software or hardware? the EEPROM, FLASH, or whatever that stores it is hardware. The information is software. 11) Why? What differs from 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8? see (3) If you take a computer hard disk, there is a portion of it that can only be a part of a hard disk: The platters, the read/write heads, the servos, etc. That's what I call the hardware. There is another part which, amazingly, can be a part of nearly anything. It can be burnt to optical media such as CD-R and DVD-R; it can be stored in magnetic flux on a tape; it can be sent over a communications link; it can be printed on the pages of a book; it can be read aloud. That's what I call the software. I don't claim that this is common usage. I do however claim that if you take the subset that is written to a computer hard disk, that is what the Social Contract calls software, and that is a reasonably common usage. 12) Does DFSG extends to computer programs, when they are not loaded into computer memory? Yes. (For example what about program, which is freely distributable only over Internet?) Violates DFSG 1, 2, and possibly others. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Op vr 26-09-2003, om 09:04 schreef Fedor Zuev: On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Roland Mas wrote: In the Debian Project, 'software' means anything that is not hardware. It does not mean just computer programs. Seconded. First, try to answer to several simply questions. If you do likewise. 0) Is printed Emacs Manual in bookstore a software or hardware? No. Is it in Debian? 1) Is Emacs Manual recorded on CD-Audio a software or hardware? No. Is it in Debian? 2) Is Debian/main printed as book a software or hardware? No. Is it (still) in Debian? 3) Why? What differs from 0,1? It doesn't. 4) Is Debian/main printed into punch-cards a software or hardware? The punch cards themselves are hardware; however, the information contained on the punch cards is still software. 5) Why? What differs from 0,1,2? A computer can make sense of it without stuff like OCR software. 6) Is Debian/main written on CD-ROM a software or hardware? The CD-ROM itself is hardware; however, the information contained on the CD-ROM is still software. 7) Why? What differs from 0, 1,2,4? No difference with 4, but differences with 0,1,2 as in 5. 8)Is Debian logo written on [cover of] the same CD-ROM software or hardware? No. Is it in Debian? 9) Why? What differs from 0, 1, 2, 4, 6? ... (hey, I'm not going to reiterate that every time!) 10) Is Debian installation, hardcoded into embedded system software or hardware? The chips containing the Debian installation are hardware; however, the installation itself is still software. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation. So is my neck, stop it anyway! -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462. signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You have previously suggested we should consider whether documentation is free, based on the four basic freedoms as specified on http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/ . That includes 'the freedom to run the program, for any purpose'. Since a manual can't be run, I'll interpret that as 'the freedom to use the manual, for any purpose'. So, by your own terms (unless you want to state that my interpretation is incorrect), a manual is not free if you can only use the manual as a manual, and not as something else. Freedom zero is not about modification, not for programs or manuals. The analogue of running a program, for a manual, is to read it. I strongly disagree. The analogue of running a program, for a manual, is to write it or to teach from it. In order to have freedom with respect to a manual, I must be able to apply it to purposes beyond those which the original author intended. -Brian
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté : 1. Is this MP3 file software or hardware? This is one is definitely worse: you explicitely point out which definition of the word software you think is the most usual, by asking to refer to this definition. Well, yes: I'm being upfront about in which domain I'm placing the question. Simply asking Is this MP3 software? doesn't give any meaningful data, because you can't control for bias on the part of the individual. Well, what you call controlling for bias is in fact controlling the data. Have you some background in sociology? You know, there's are interesting books that explain some acceptable methodology to follow when doing interviews and wanting meaningful data (in a little bit scientific and honnest way). For instance, controling for bias should be done once you already collected the data, not during this collection of _raw_ data, if you do not want to alter too much the _raw_ data. Is this MP3 software? seems to be a correct question: it does not propose any definition of software to follow, so the questioned one must answer by explaining partly what he considers to be software. -- 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
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On 2003-09-26 21:48:48 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Is this MP3 file software or hardware? This is one is definitely worse: you explicitely point out which definition of the word software you think is the most usual, by asking to refer to this definition. ITYM implicitly. If it were explicit, the question would be: Is this MP3 file software, where software is defined as? Then again, given the level of mindgames and word games that you have engaged so far, I might be missing your private definition of the word implicit. Well, my definition of ad hominem is shared by ancient roman history teachers -- excuse me but I think that this topic they deserve to be trusted by comparison to these simplistic fallacious blabla webpages. Well, my definition of logiciel is shared by the Académie Française, which is the authority in matter of French vocabulary. Well, my usual definition of software is at least shared by most of non-french the persons I've ever meet. I would not call these definitions private. In this case, the point of the question was explicit: both words software and hardware were named and presented as alternative answers. However, the definition underlying was implicit, correct. -- 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
On 2003-09-27 09:28:31 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, my definition of ad hominem is shared by ancient roman history teachers -- excuse me but I think that this topic they deserve to be trusted by comparison to these simplistic fallacious blabla webpages. This makes so little sense that I await the appearance of Rathieu Moy in this thread. Well, my definition of logiciel is shared by the Académie Française, which is the authority in matter of French vocabulary. Yes and no. The definition of the AF contradicts itself and most people look at Petit Robert too. After all, the AF campaigns refuses common import words like week-end don't they? In this case, the point of the question was explicit: both words software and hardware were named and presented as alternative answers. However, the definition underlying was implicit, correct. No, you are still wrong. It did not say The point of this question is ...: Is this MP3...? Gr. I hate retcon attempts. -- 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 2003-09-27 09:20:01 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you some background in sociology? Have you some background in psychology? If so, you should know that people try to pick the narrowest class by default and will likely answer Is this MP3 software? with It's music. That is part of the reason why the question was biased. For instance, controling for bias should be done once you already collected the data, not during this collection of _raw_ data, if you do not want to alter too much the _raw_ data. You clearly do not have a background in statistics. You must try to avoid bias when designing the data collection, else you may alias different factors and waste a lot of money. -- 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
For instance, controling for bias should be done once you already collected the data, not during this collection of _raw_ data, if you do not want to alter too much the _raw_ data. You clearly do not have a background in statistics. Unfortunately your point of view does not reflect reality. You must try to avoid bias when designing the data collection Clearly. What is called here controlling for bias is indeed introducing bias -- a big one. Avoiding bias means trying to collect _raw_ data. When you question someone, he should not be able to clearly know what answer you expect from him. , else you may alias different factors and The biggest factor of bias here is the author (of the question) point of view. waste a lot of money. It is about money here? Why talking about money here? -- 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
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté : 1. Is this MP3 file software or hardware? This is one is definitely worse: you explicitely point out which definition of the word software you think is the most usual, by asking to refer to this definition. Well, yes: I'm being upfront about in which domain I'm placing the question. Simply asking Is this MP3 software? doesn't give any meaningful data, because you can't control for bias on the part of the individual. Well, what you call controlling for bias is in fact controlling the data. I didn't say my question controlled for bias: I said you failed to do so, and presented several alternative questions which explicitly pulled the answer into certain domains. Have you some background in sociology? Minimal. Have you? I've got some statistics experience, though. You know, there's are interesting books that explain some acceptable methodology to follow when doing interviews and wanting meaningful data (in a little bit scientific and honnest way). There certainly are. For instance, controling for bias should be done once you already collected the data, not during this collection of _raw_ data, if you do not want to alter too much the _raw_ data. Well, yes: Is this MP3 software? seems to be a correct question: it does not propose any definition of software to follow, so the questioned one must answer by explaining partly what he considers to be software. Well, no. A good question to ask is: Give me some examples of software. Try to span the range of what 'software' might include. Is this corner case software, answer quick now, no long consideration or checking references is a horrid question. -Brian
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On 2003-09-27 12:37:52 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You must try to avoid bias when designing the data collection Clearly. This disagrees with your earlier comment. What is called here controlling for bias is indeed introducing bias -- a big one. I did not defend it. Please try not to continue arguing points already made. It makes for long and tedious exchanges. Avoiding bias means trying to collect _raw_ data. Cobblers does it. When you question someone, he should not be able to clearly know what answer you expect from him. Indeed. , else you may alias different factors and The biggest factor of bias here is the author (of the question) point of view. I disagree and say that it's impossible to know, but that is moot. waste a lot of money. It is about money here? Why talking about money here? It is usual to talk about data collection being cheap or expensive and use an equation of money for effort even when it is not paid. I have even seen that in French-language statistics texts. -- 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 Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 11:05:52AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: On 2003-09-27 09:20:01 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you some background in sociology? Have you some background in psychology? He's French. His poststructuralism will trump your reproducible results at every turn. -- G. Branden Robinson| You could wire up a dead rat to a Debian GNU/Linux | DIMM socket and the PC BIOS memory [EMAIL PROTECTED] | test would pass it just fine. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Ethan Benson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 01:37:52PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: Avoiding bias means trying to collect _raw_ data. There is no such thing as raw data in this context. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On 2003-09-23 20:20:41 +0100 Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is also known that undesirable stunts limiting freedom, such as Invariant sections, are allowed under the FSF's definition of free. FSF do not claim that FDL-covered works are free software, use a particular odd definition of software and don't claim to define free in general, leading to disputes about those limitations. At least on what they call free software it does exactly what it says on the tin, campaigning for the right to use the program, for any purpose.
Re: Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Software is not a controversial word in English (roughly inverse of hardware in one sense). Some people advocate a bizarre definition of it in order to further their agenda. If you're going to define common words just because someone objects to the normal meaning being used, you'll get some bozo that objects to the word social and claims it only applies to the welfare state. That's clearly ungood. Software is a controversial word in English. In an informal survey, two out of two people surveyed (my officemate and myself) agreed that we would not, by default, call an arbitrary collection of bits software (the particular example in the survey question was an MP3 file); but that we would agree to use a different definition of software than the one we are accustomed to in certain contexts. I assure you that my definition of software (roughly, software==programs) was not adopted to further my agenda; if I were to accept your claim Some people advocate a bizarre definition of it in order to further their agenda., I would consider the software==anything made of bits definition to be the bizarre one. In fact, I believe that most of the people who advocate software==programs, as well as most of the people who advocate software==things made of bits, are sincerely explaining the definition that they personally use. I have no idea where these different definitions of software came from, but I don't think it's useful to attack people who use a different definition. I believe that adding a definition of software to the relevant Debian documents would be an excellent idea. Carl Witty
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
I don't think that section titles are a problem--it would not be hard to put them in a program. But it is true that you cannot take text from a GFDL-covered manual and put it into most free programs. This is because the GFDL is incompatible with the normal free software license. This is incorrect, and you know it. I stand by what I said. You cannot take text from a GFDL manual and put it into ANY free program, and still have a free program. The problem is not that the GFDL is incompatible with this or that free software license. It's that it is incompatible with EVERY free software license, at least, if you want the combined work to still be free software. I understand that you are talking about the latter question. There is no need to keep repeating it; I understood it the first time. I did not respond right away, but you should have seen my response by now. I don't agree that the latter is the important question. I think the former is the question that matters. I am not sure if the GFDL is a free software license, but I don't think the question matters.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
I am seeing a persistent pattern where you accuse me of dishonesty based on little except supposition. Here are several examples from the mail I received last night. Thomas Bushnell proposed another interpretation, in which certain things that are included in the Debian package files are not part of Debian for this purpose. That way, you don't have to apply the DFSG to them. No, I did not, and you know it. That is what I thought you meant. It is a natural interpretation of your message. I quote your message in full: But Debian contains essays, logos, and licenses that cannot be modified. These are not programs; are they software? The essays and logos in question are in fact not part of Debian. The essays I referred to are in Debian packages, or so I have believed. Perhaps I was wrong. Anyway, assuming you are talking about the same essays, you seem to be saying these essays are not considered part of Debian even though they are in Debian packages. I will take your word for it that you did not mean that. However, the accusation that I deliberately distorted your words is groundless. Your words were terse, and anyone could have interpreted them as I did. I already corrected you on this misunderstanding. I already corrected you carries an implication of You are ignoring the correction. I had not ignored anything, since at the time I wrote that message, I had not received your mail correcting this misunderstanding. I sent out the message saying that Thomas Bushnell proposed another interpretation in batch 310. At the time, the last mail I had received was batch 309. The message I quoted above was in batch 309. It was the last message from you on this point that had arrived on my machine at that time. Here is another example: This has been explained to you enough times that your attempt to pretend it hasn't can no longer be attributed to ignorance. I am not pretending anything--I consider the issue a red herring. So I have addressed the issues I think are important. If I do not respond to one point, that doesn't mean I am pretending anyting. I may think it is not important enough to be worth a response--or I may think it is important and be thinking about what to say. You made a groundless accusation here too. Ironically, even as your accusation was waiting on my mail server, I decided to respond directly to that point. I did not have to do so, but I had some time and decided to spend it by responding to your message which raised this point. Your message accusing me of pretending not to see the point, and my message addressing the point, crossed in the mail.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
I don't think it needs to be possible to use text from manuals in a program. A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals. And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as text editors -- not as manuals or tetris games or news-readers or web browsers? You have to be free to publish modified versions of the program as tetris games and news-readers and web browsers, since those are different programs, but a manual is a different kind of thing entirely. It is to much to ask that it should be feasible to conveniently publish a modified version of the program as a manual. The GPL, for instance, does not permit this in a way that is good for publication of books on paper.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
You have previously suggested we should consider whether documentation is free, based on the four basic freedoms as specified on http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/ . That includes 'the freedom to run the program, for any purpose'. Since a manual can't be run, I'll interpret that as 'the freedom to use the manual, for any purpose'. So, by your own terms (unless you want to state that my interpretation is incorrect), a manual is not free if you can only use the manual as a manual, and not as something else. Freedom zero is not about modification, not for programs or manuals. The analogue of running a program, for a manual, is to read it. So freedom zero would mean you can read it for any purpose. The freedom to modify is freedom one. Many free documentation licenses won't permit use of the text in GPL-covered free programs, and practically speaking, this means I can't use them in any of the programs I might want to use them in. The difference being that none of the other free documentation licenses include invariant sections, at least not AFAIK. This means they can be used for other purposes, such as reference cards, where large blurbs of invariant text (which is required to be part of the work by the GFDL) are not a problem. This is not a real obstacle. I have explained it several times in the past week. The fact that various people keep raising this issue despite my explanations convinces me that I may as well stop. Whether the manual's text could be used in a free software package with a license that qualifies as free software, but is not one I'd want to use, is just academic. In your opinion, perhaps. Allow other people the freedom to think otherwise. I have never questioned your freedom to think, and say, whatever you like about this and other issues.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
We want to have freedom over what we distribute in binary packages. We are willing to tolerate noxious restrictions like the TeX ones only because they do not impact what we can distribute in the binary package: they only restrict the hoops that the source package must go through to do create the binary package. That is a very clear place to draw the line, but I think it rejects a range of licenses, for software programs as well as for documentation, that we could accept. I think it is not the best decision, but that isn't my problem.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Everything in Debian is software; the official logo is not free, and therefore is not in Debian. Fortunately it is not necessary for me to understand this.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't agree that the latter is the important question. I think the former is the question that matters. I am not sure if the GFDL is a free software license, but I don't think the question matters. When people said the GFDL is incompatible with free software, and that this is not a mere practical inconvenience, nor is it an ordinary case of license incompatibility, this is exactly what they were saying. At least three times you tried to derail what they said by using misleading analogies.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This has been explained to you enough times that your attempt to pretend it hasn't can no longer be attributed to ignorance. I am not pretending anything--I consider the issue a red herring. So I have addressed the issues I think are important. But you *did* address the issue. That's the problem.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Everything in Debian is software; the official logo is not free, and therefore is not in Debian. Fortunately it is not necessary for me to understand this. Many things are on Debian servers which are not part of the Debian system. The Debian system contains only free software; any exceptions are bugs for which bug reports should be filed. The official Debian logo (the bottle) is not free, and is not part of Debian.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 03:45:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: My girlfriend photography sitting on my computer is not free software. That's not something I think important to be shared. And it can't be part of Debian as long as it's not free. I'm not saying there should never be non-free stuff--only that the DFSG manuals are not free. (Because they fail the GFDL, of course.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On 2003-09-24 23:12:06 +0100 Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Software is a controversial word in English. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes. -- Monty Python's Flying Circus. In an informal survey, two out of two people surveyed (my officemate and myself) agreed that we would not, by default, call an arbitrary collection of bits software That is not stronger statistical evidence than what that has gone before. I am sorry that the people in your office do not know the word software very well. [...] I assure you that my definition of software (roughly, software==programs) was not adopted to further my agenda; I never said that it was. Do you have a different definition of the word some too? I have no idea where these different definitions of software came from, but I don't think it's useful to attack people who use a different definition. I have explained in some detail where the word software comes from. I am sorry you have missed it. I suggest you look in the archives. I believe it was under the subject Unidentified Subject! during the last week. I do not know where this attempt to define it as a synonym for stored program started. I do not think it's useful to attack people who use the incorrect definition either. Rest assured, the sword stays hanging on the wall for now. -- 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]
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: I am not saying that the DFSG is evil, just that it isn't free (and our logos aren't either), and therefore can't be in a free OS (and so also our logos can't). Of course I meant GFDL where I said DFSG. Sorry for the confusion.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Software is not a controversial word in English (roughly inverse of hardware in one sense). Some people advocate a bizarre definition of it in order to further their agenda. If you're going to define common words just because someone objects to the normal meaning being used, you'll get some bozo that objects to the word social and claims it only applies to the welfare state. That's clearly ungood. Software is a controversial word in English. In an informal survey, two out of two people surveyed (my officemate and myself) agreed that we would not, by default, call an arbitrary collection of bits software (the particular example in the survey question was an MP3 file); but that we would agree to use a different definition of software than the one we are accustomed to in certain contexts. But your question, Is this MP3 file software? is itself biased. Consider the alternatives: 1. Is this MP3 file software or hardware? 2. Can an MP3 file be Free Software? -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté : Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Software is not a controversial word in English (roughly inverse of hardware in one sense). Some people advocate a bizarre definition of it in order to further their agenda. If you're going to define common words just because someone objects to the normal meaning being used, you'll get some bozo that objects to the word social and claims it only applies to the welfare state. That's clearly ungood. Software is a controversial word in English. In an informal survey, two out of two people surveyed (my officemate and myself) agreed that we would not, by default, call an arbitrary collection of bits software (the particular example in the survey question was an MP3 file); but that we would agree to use a different definition of software than the one we are accustomed to in certain contexts. But your question, Is this MP3 file software? is itself biased. Consider the alternatives: 1. Is this MP3 file software or hardware? This is one is definitely worse: you explicitely point out which definition of the word software you think is the most usual, by asking to refer to this definition. -- 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
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 09:58:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 03:45:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: I'm not saying there should never be non-free stuff--only that the DFSG manuals are not free. (Because they fail the GFDL, of course.) /me does a double take /me does a triple take /me gives up and backs slowly away from these madmen :) -- G. Branden Robinson|Lowery's Law: Debian GNU/Linux |If it jams -- force it. If it [EMAIL PROTECTED] |breaks, it needed replacing anyway. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté : Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Software is not a controversial word in English (roughly inverse of hardware in one sense). Some people advocate a bizarre definition of it in order to further their agenda. If you're going to define common words just because someone objects to the normal meaning being used, you'll get some bozo that objects to the word social and claims it only applies to the welfare state. That's clearly ungood. Software is a controversial word in English. In an informal survey, two out of two people surveyed (my officemate and myself) agreed that we would not, by default, call an arbitrary collection of bits software (the particular example in the survey question was an MP3 file); but that we would agree to use a different definition of software than the one we are accustomed to in certain contexts. But your question, Is this MP3 file software? is itself biased. Consider the alternatives: 1. Is this MP3 file software or hardware? This is one is definitely worse: you explicitely point out which definition of the word software you think is the most usual, by asking to refer to this definition. Well, yes: I'm being upfront about in which domain I'm placing the question. Simply asking Is this MP3 software? doesn't give any meaningful data, because you can't control for bias on the part of the individual. -Brian
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On 2003-09-26 21:48:48 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Is this MP3 file software or hardware? This is one is definitely worse: you explicitely point out which definition of the word software you think is the most usual, by asking to refer to this definition. ITYM implicitly. If it were explicit, the question would be: Is this MP3 file software, where software is defined as? Then again, given the level of mindgames and word games that you have engaged so far, I might be missing your private definition of the word implicit. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and I'm BLOODY FED UP WITH IT.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Richard Stallman wrote: I don't think it needs to be possible to use text from manuals in a program. A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals. And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as text editors -- not as manuals or tetris games or news-readers or web browsers? You have to be free to publish modified versions of the program as tetris games and news-readers and web browsers, since those are different programs, but a manual is a different kind of thing entirely. It is to much to ask that it should be feasible to conveniently publish a modified version of the program as a manual. The GPL, for instance, does not permit this in a way that is good for publication of books on paper. Others have mentioned that the GPL has been successfully used to publish books on paper. Regardless of that, it does permit it in a way which is good for electronic distribution. So what could possibly be wrong with a GFDL/GPL dual license, or a GPL-conversion clause in the GFDL? Printers could use the GFDL, and everyone else could use the GPL. :-)
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Roland Mas wrote: Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet, 2003-09-22 20:40:07 +0200 : Given the amount of discussion this topic has started, perhaps it might be a good idea to do it anyway, if only to reduce the confusion for those who are not native speakers of English. In the Debian Project, 'software' means anything that is not hardware. It does not mean just computer programs. Seconded. First, try to answer to several simply questions. 0) Is printed Emacs Manual in bookstore a software or hardware? 1) Is Emacs Manual recorded on CD-Audio a software or hardware? 2) Is Debian/main printed as book a software or hardware? 3) Why? What differs from 0,1? 4) Is Debian/main printed into punch-cards a software or hardware? 5) Why? What differs from 0,1,2? 6) Is Debian/main written on CD-ROM a software or hardware? 7) Why? What differs from 0, 1,2,4? 8)Is Debian logo written on [cover of] the same CD-ROM software or hardware? 9) Why? What differs from 0, 1, 2, 4, 6? 10) Is Debian installation, hardcoded into embedded system software or hardware? 11) Why? What differs from 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8? 12) Does DFSG extends to computer programs, when they are not loaded into computer memory? (For example what about program, which is freely distributable only over Internet?)
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
* Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030923 08:51]: Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : 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. You can ask the very same question for non-free software, e.g. some jdk. Debian has one very consistent answer. The answer is that everything that wants to be in main, must be DFSG-free. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The DFSG lists three specific licenses that are meant to satisfy its criteria. Nowadays some Debian developers tend to say that these three licenses are listed as exceptions to the rules of the DFSG, but I think that is a misinterpretation. I think they are meant as examples to help people understand what the DFSG criteria mean. An interpretation of the rules which would lead to rejecting any of thee licenses is the wrong interpretation. I think you are right. Note that the DFSG is not listed. You mean that the GFDL is not listed, of course.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The DFSG lists three specific licenses that are meant to satisfy its criteria. Nowadays some Debian developers tend to say that these three licenses are listed as exceptions to the rules of the DFSG, but I think that is a misinterpretation. I think they are meant as examples to help people understand what the DFSG criteria mean. An interpretation of the rules which would lead to rejecting any of thee licenses is the wrong interpretation. I think you are right. Note that the DFSG is not listed. You mean that the GFDL is not listed, of course. Right.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 20:13, MJ Ray wrote: 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. It is also known that undesirable stunts limiting freedom, such as Invariant sections, are allowed under the FSF's definition of free. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
RMS wrote: A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals. Brian T. Sniffen wrote: And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as text editors -- not as manuals or tetris games or news-readers or web browsers? This is absolutely a *critical* point. This is perhaps the essence of many of the complaints being made about the GFDL: it effectively restricts reuse to a narrow class of reuses, while free software licenses do not. The issue of whether this is important may, in fact, sum up the fundamental point of disagreement between Debian and RMS. Glad we're actually getting somewhere in regards to understanding each other. :-)
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
But what if an Invariant Section was the only part of the document that fell foul of the law? I guess nobody could distribute that version, so it might be non-free. However, all free software and free documentation licenses share this problem. You could simply add code for a DeCSS program, and that would make the modified version illegal in the US. So the existence of such a possibility cannot be a criterion for criticizing a license. I have read statements =66rom you saying that while you cannot indorse Debian because it including non-free on its FTP servers, you have stated that Debian gives better considerations to users' rights by separating non-free software from the Debian System. As the GFDL allows for text that is legally, morally or ethically objectionable shouldn't we, Debian, not mark a GFDL work as different also (given that such material can not be modified)? A distinctive marking of some other kind might be reasonable.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
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. Most of the computer-using world uses English, and the English-language press is most influential. In French and Spanish, the term libre is used most of the time, though there are persistent efforts to introduce open source or codigo abierto. In Italy the English term open source seems to be used more than the Italian software libero. I have seen similar tendencies in some other countries, but I cannot give a detailed report.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : 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. I still did not get the point. Many many people seems to enjoy Britney Spears. Does it mean that Britney Spears is wonderful? Many people around me call the system we are using Linux while none of us would be able to truly make the difference if we were using another kernel with our GNU system, in most of the cases. Many people in France thinks that Republic is something heavily linked to Democracy, despite the fact the Republic model was clearly an oligarchy. Something can be popular and also completely wrong. -- 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
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 01:08, Mathieu Roy wrote: Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : 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. I still did not get the point. Many many people seems to enjoy Britney Spears. Does it mean that Britney Spears is wonderful? Musical (or other) tastes are almost entirely matters of opinion. Many people around me call the system we are using Linux while none of us would be able to truly make the difference if we were using The proper English construction here is tell the difference -- and I'm sure many of us, those of us familiar with kernel design, could tell the difference. another kernel with our GNU system, in most of the cases. Many people in France thinks that Republic is something heavily linked to Democracy, despite the fact the Republic model was clearly an oligarchy. Something can be popular and also completely wrong. If you would have read the thread, or my opinions on 'open source' versus 'free software' (consider this an exercise in Googling), you would know *I agree with you*, and so you didn't need to write a bunch of embarassingly stupid and incorrect examples. Open source is a terrible term, and the Open Source Movement's message seems to be drowning out the Free Software Movement's, insofar as there is an organized movement for either group (it would be more correct to say that the pragmatic side of free software is being overhyped, and the ethical side is being ignored, leading to less free software and more almost-free software). On the other hand, I don't think publishing non-free software (especially *bad* non-free software, see the comments about the crappy editorial style of the Emacs manual in the archive) to promote free software is justifiable ethically, or logically. Nor do I think that anyone will read The GNU Manifesto just because it's included in their manual (especially since it was included anyway before, and they didn't read it). So invariant sections are a failure both philosophically and pragmatically, which is typical of non-free things. -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : I still did not get the point. Many many people seems to enjoy Britney Spears. Does it mean that Britney Spears is wonderful? Musical (or other) tastes are almost entirely matters of opinion. Correct. Many people in France thinks that Republic is something heavily linked to Democracy, despite the fact the Republic model was clearly an oligarchy. Something can be popular and also completely wrong. If you would have read the thread, or my opinions on 'open source' versus 'free software' (consider this an exercise in Googling), you would know *I agree with you* What difference does it make? You can agree with me about this subject and however present arguments that I consider pointless: for instance, what does it mean if an expression is popular? , and so you didn't need to write a bunch of embarassingly stupid and incorrect examples. These examples are correct. Musical taste is not a matter of popularity. For the kernel example, unless you assume that most users are familiar with kernel design, most people use a popular term to describe something else than the kernel. And the fact that in France many people ignore the concept they are refering to makes sense too: the word Republic is popular but misused. So invariant sections are a failure both philosophically and pragmatically, which is typical of non-free things. Was the message you are answering to talking about invariant sections? -- 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
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Something can be popular and also completely wrong. If you would have read the thread, or my opinions on 'open source' versus 'free software' (consider this an exercise in Googling), you would know *I agree with you* What difference does it make? You can agree with me about this subject and however present arguments that I consider pointless: for instance, what does it mean if an expression is popular? Note the if you would have read the thread. Apparently you don't like coherent discussions and prefer to confuse the discussion with completely irrelevant tangents and incoherent ramblings. The issue in question was that RMS claimed that the term Free Software and the Free Software Movement becomes increasingly invisible in the public, being replaced by Open Source. This was one of the reasons given by him for the importance of non-free essays. Joe gave statistical evidence that RMS is indeed correct in his perception of Free Software vs. Open Source. Most of us don't agree with RMS' proposed course of action in response to this, which is a different question. One more hint: If you consider a discussion pointless, if you don't understand what other people are talking about, why not just stay silent? I have not seen any new arguments from you in the last several hundred messages to this list, and it gets tiresome. Lukas P.S.: Please don't Cc me, I read the list. (And no, I don't intend to set some particular header for this, it is list policy here.)
[OFFTOPIC] Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 08:08:59AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: I still did not get the point. Many many people seems to enjoy Britney Spears. Only with the sound off... -- G. Branden Robinson|I've made up my mind. Don't try to Debian GNU/Linux |confuse me with the facts. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Indiana Senator Earl Landgrebe http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet, 2003-09-22 20:40:07 +0200 : Given the amount of discussion this topic has started, perhaps it might be a good idea to do it anyway, if only to reduce the confusion for those who are not native speakers of English. In the Debian Project, 'software' means anything that is not hardware. It does not mean just computer programs. Seconded. Roland. -- Roland Mas With the arrest of Dimitry Sklyarov it has become apparent that it is not safe for non US software engineers to visit the United States. - Alan Cox
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Debian project is dedicated to the Debian OS. Without this collection of software, the Debian project is purposeless. If the Debian project does not follow the rules that the Debian project wrote itself for the Debian OS, the Debian project is somehow inconsistent. Way more inconsistent than the GNU project that always follows its rules, for Software (Program) and Documentation. Right, and we distribute logos that cannot be part of the Debian OS, but which are part of the Debian Project. We do not think it's evil to distribute such logos. I am not saying that the DFSG is evil, just that it isn't free (and our logos aren't either), and therefore can't be in a free OS (and so also our logos can't).
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My girlfriend photography sitting on my computer is not free software. That's not something I think important to be shared. And it can't be part of Debian as long as it's not free. I'm not saying there should never be non-free stuff--only that the DFSG manuals are not free.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As far as the logo, the name Mathieu Roy isn't free in the DFSG-sense. Neither is the Debian name. I don't see why the Debian logo should be either. I don't believe the logo needs to be free; I think the way it is being handled is appropriate. However, others were arguing recently that everything in Debian is software and that the DFSG applies to it. Everything in Debian is software; the official logo is not free, and therefore is not in Debian.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 08:32:55PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But Debian contains essays, logos, and licenses that cannot be modified. These are not programs; are they software? The essays and logos in question are in fact not part of Debian. I think Richard Stallman was referring to essays such as /usr/share/emacs/21.3/etc/WHY-FREE (emacs21-common 21.3+1-3) Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted without royalty as long as this notice is preserved; alteration is not permitted. Quite right; when I said in fact not part of Debian, I misspoke. I should have said that they should not be in Debian.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think that section titles are a problem--it would not be hard to put them in a program. But it is true that you cannot take text from a GFDL-covered manual and put it into most free programs. This is because the GFDL is incompatible with the normal free software license. This is incorrect, and you know it. You cannot take text from a GFDL manual and put it into ANY free program, and still have a free program. This is equally true of other free documentation licenses, including the Open Publication License version 1, and the simple license we used in the past for GNU manuals without invariant sections. You are muddling the issue, and what's particularly annoying is that this has already been pointed out. The problem is not that the GFDL is incompatible with this or that free software license. It's that it is incompatible with EVERY free software license, at least, if you want the combined work to still be free software. Thomas
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Bushnell proposed another interpretation, in which certain things that are included in the Debian package files are not part of Debian for this purpose. That way, you don't have to apply the DFSG to them. No, I did not, and you know it. I already corrected you on this misunderstanding. I said that such things cannot be part of Debian, and if they are, it's a bug. I never said it was okay to include them. You are to smart to have made such a distortion of my words accidentally. Thomas
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Many free documentation licenses won't permit use of the text in GPL-covered free programs, and practically speaking, this means I can't use them in any of the programs I might want to use them in. Whether the manual's text could be used in a free software package with a license that qualifies as free software, but is not one I'd want to use, is just academic. A GFDL'd document cannot be used in ANY free program. There is NO free software license which would allow you to combine a GFDL'd piece, and have a result which would still be free software. Other free documentation licenses do NOT generally have this problem. This has been explained to you enough times that your attempt to pretend it hasn't can no longer be attributed to ignorance.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Someone else criticized the idea (though no one had proposed it) of giving the FSF special consideration; now you seem to be saying just the opposite, that you believe in giving the FSF less cooperation that you would give to anyone else. The consequences of such an approach should be obvious: there will be no cooperation. No consideration was made to TeX or to Donald Knuth. Instead, we decided that a particular kind of restriction on modification was not a problem sufficient to impact freeness. Not *any* kind, but *that particular kind*. And the reason is important. We want to have freedom over what we distribute in binary packages. We are willing to tolerate noxious restrictions like the TeX ones only because they do not impact what we can distribute in the binary package: they only restrict the hoops that the source package must go through to do create the binary package. If you were to permit the same thing for manuals, it would be delightful. Thomas
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think it needs to be possible to use text from manuals in a program. A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals. And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as text editors -- not as manuals or tetris games or news-readers or web browsers? You have to be free to publish modified versions of the program as tetris games and news-readers and web browsers, since those are different programs, but a manual is a different kind of thing entirely. It is to much to ask that it should be feasible to conveniently publish a modified version of the program as a manual. But this is done! It *is* feasible to publish a GPL'd work as a manual. It's even more feasible to do what I'm discussing, which is to take a GPL'd manual and derive a program from it. I'm sorry for not making that clear enough in what I wrote originally -- too much rhetoric and too little meaning. So here it is more clearly: I can take a GPL'd text editor, such as GNU Emacs, and derive a tetris game or a news reader or a web browser from it. I can even derive a manual from it. Such a book could be very interesting to read, walking a technically savvy reader through the bulk of Emacs' code. Because the GPL is a copyleft, all of these derivative works will be Free Software. I think the manual will also meet your definition of Free Documentation -- right? I can take a GPL'd manual and derive a program from it -- this part is clear enough that I don't think I need to write more. I cannot take a GFDL'd manual and derive any sort of Free Software program from it. I do not think it is too much to ask that it should be feasible to conveniently publish a modified version of the manual as a Free Software program. The GPL, for instance, does not permit this in a way that is good for publication of books on paper. And yet there are GPL'd books on paper, and their publishers make money from them. Would Harry Potter be a good choice to put under the GPL? No, probably not. Would On Lisp? Well, I'd love to be able to make slides and lecture notes from it... or use some of the big-enough-to-be-copyrightable code snippets. It has significant functional content. The more you talk about this, the more I come to guess that a primary motivation behind the codified, centralized GFDL is the desire to make things convenient for publishers of printed books. Why not provide the manuals for GNU software under a dual license: GNU GPL for those who wish to treat the manuals like software programs, and GNU FDL for those who wish to print books from the manuals. The FSF has sufficient respect that it can, by example and explicit suggestion, convince most people to dual-license their similar works -- and controls the copyright on all of those manuals anyway, so can make sure things are done right at the source. This has all of the benefits of the GFDL for publishers of printed works: they can add their value-add contributions and publish, licensing to their readers only under the GFDL. This has all the benefits of the GPL for publishers and users of software: they can combine the manuals with other work in the Copyleft Commons of the GPL, and can derive Free Software from the manuals. Software programs would probably be distributed only under the GPL, as the GFDL is awfully inconvenient for programs. This has all the benefits of the GPL and the GFDL for the FSF and the Free Software community, as the FSF's example would encourage most people to dual-license their manuals under the GPL and the GFDL. It avoids the problems you alluded to with a conversion clause, which destroys the benefits for publishers. -Brian
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: 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: 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: 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.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
I said: 2. The GFDL prevents you from using the technical material in the manual in nearly any program, because most programs don't have a lot of the specific things the GFDL refers to (section titles, etc.), so there's no legally clear way to satisfy its requirements. RMS said: I don't think that section titles are a problem--it would not be hard to put them in a program. In a *binary executable* ?!?! That's what I'm talking about here. Anyway, the troublesome terms are named appendix, front-matter section; titles and title of sections or named subunits; and Title Page (defined as the text near the most prominent appearance of the work's title, preceding the beginning of the body of the text, which doesn't help, and does not make sense for anything consisting of multiple 'parallel' files). Would dumping ELF sections into the executable with the correct titles and contents perhaps qualify? ;-) -- Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On 2003-09-21 21:15:25 +0100 Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, that's not a logical conclusion. It's [...] slippery slope fallacy. It's no less a fallacy than claiming software is controversial and worthy of special definition. Software is not a controversial word in English (roughly inverse of hardware in one sense). Some people advocate a bizarre definition of it in order to further their agenda. If you're going to define common words just because someone objects to the normal meaning being used, you'll get some bozo that objects to the word social and claims it only applies to the welfare state. That's clearly ungood. Since Debian use the translation Logiciel for Debian French pages, it means that the word software must be clearly defined by Debian. -- 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
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Sunday, Sep 21, 2003, at 03:18 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote: The essays and logos in question are in fact not part of Debian. But some of them are produced by Debian. Which essays does Debian have that aren't free? If there are any, I think that should be fixed. As far as the logo, the name Mathieu Roy isn't free in the DFSG-sense. Neither is the Debian name. I don't see why the Debian logo should be either. I do not see either why RMS's political essays should be free in the DFSG-sense either, even when included in a 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
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Sunday 21 September 2003 19:55, Mathieu Roy wrote: I do not consider a bug as a philosophical failure but a technical one. Did you really pass PP ? And you? A bug is an error, not something made on purpose. There are others words for this kind of problem. -- 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
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Sunday, Sep 21, 2003, at 03:20 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote: But is the upstream author of these *Bugs*. Does it means that Debian have an implicit policy which is making non-free software is ok unless you distribute it? I'm not sure what your asking, but I think it'd be safe to say Debian strongly believes in the right to private modifications. And do you consider the official logo as a private modification? -- 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
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030921 23:19]: Software is not a controversial word in English (roughly inverse of hardware in one sense). Some people advocate a bizarre definition of it in order to further their agenda. If you're going to define common words just because someone objects to the normal meaning being used, Sorry, but at least I understood software at start of discussion more as a synonym to programms, but I'm not a native english speaker. I have however learned that we use the word software (at least) here at Debian as the opposite of hardware, and I'm fine with it. So, it's not true that all people using software as programms are doing it to get better arguments. There are some people that do it, especially if they are not able to adjust their usage of a word to the meaning that's common here. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
* Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030922 08:02]: I do not see either why RMS's political essays should be free in the DFSG-sense either, even when included in a documentation. Because we require them to be free if we include them in Debian? Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 09:29:54AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: The DFSG explicitly codifies my specific decision about TeX,=20 It does nothing of the sort; there is no mention of the word 'TeX' in the DFSG. Section 4 does precisely that, though without mentioning TeX by name. In other words: I can live with Donald Knuth issuing a license in the gray areay between free and non-free. I cannot live with the same thing coming from the FSF. The GFDL is free according to our standards. If you wish to view the matter otherwise, you're entitled to your opinion. Someone else criticized the idea (though no one had proposed it) of giving the FSF special consideration; now you seem to be saying just the opposite, that you believe in giving the FSF less cooperation that you would give to anyone else. No, that's not true. I'm saying that, when it comes to freedom, I expect a higher standard from the FSF than I do from D.E. Knuth. I'm not suggesting we should stop cooperating with the FSF. is that the Debian Project could end up being better friends with the Open Source Initiative than with the FSF; while most Debian Developers and users nowadays think the FSF is a good organization[1], this might change if the FSF insists on having those Invariant Sections.\ The FSF has lived with contant criticism for many years. Say what you wish; we will make no concession to threats like this. I'm not trying to be a 'threat' to you; I'm just suggesting a possible future, and am asking you whether you have considered it. If you have, good; if you haven't, please do. I for one will know what the FSF stands for, and will not easily be pursuaded to think of the FSF as an '3v1l' organization, but I'm not sure everyone thinks that way. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation. So is my neck, stop it anyway! -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On 2003-09-22 07:33:48 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, but at least I understood software at start of discussion more as a synonym to programms, but I'm not a native english speaker. I am sorry that software has been mistranslated frequently, but this is not unusual. Many languages have false friends, yet we do not spell out all of them just in case. [...] So, it's not true that all people using software as programms are doing it to get better arguments. There are some people that do it, It was not claimed that all people with the synonym definition have that motive.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On 2003-09-22 06:58:19 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since Debian use the translation Logiciel for Debian French pages, it means that the word software must be clearly defined by Debian. If logiciel truly does not mean the same as the English word software, then it should probably be reported as a bug against Debian's French translation when used in its place. (I think that programaro (group around programs AIUI, translated by some as collection of programs) or softvaro (imported word) should be used instead of programo (lit. program) for its EO translation.)
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030922 10:03]: On 2003-09-22 07:33:48 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, but at least I understood software at start of discussion more as a synonym to programms, but I'm not a native english speaker. I am sorry that software has been mistranslated frequently, but this is not unusual. Many languages have false friends, yet we do not spell out all of them just in case. Yes. However, as software is a so fundamental term to Debian, it would perhaps be better to make an appropriate (semi-)official statement anywhere. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On 2003-09-22 09:27:52 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. However, as software is a so fundamental term to Debian, it would perhaps be better to make an appropriate (semi-)official statement anywhere. It seems a little odd to expect Debian to contain an official statement saying by software, we mean software. Let the people who use bizarre definitions say by software, we don't mean software but this other thing. Fun note: on http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/fs-translations.html FSF give libera softvaro as a translation of free software. That has the opposite problem to debian's apparent French mistranslation. I think that libera programo (lit. free program) may be closer to FSF's preferred meaning. I think I have seen Free Software Foundation translated as organizo por libera programaro in the past, but I can't find that on their site. Random Thought: FSF claim to support freedom of the press. Why not the free press movement?
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On 2003-09-22 07:33:48 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, but at least I understood software at start of discussion more as a synonym to programms, but I'm not a native english speaker. I am sorry that software has been mistranslated frequently, but this is not unusual. Many languages have false friends, yet we do not spell out all of them just in case. And there are more complex issues than false friends... Some words are polysemic but have monosemic translations. For instance, gratuit is a correct translation of free. But libre is also a correct translation of free. And gratuit does not mean at all libre. Logiciel is a correct translation of software in most of the case. And there's no word to translate software in its widest sense -- probably because nobody in France ever needed that word. Note that the issue with software have nothing to do with false friends. Logiciel and software have nothing in common. -- 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 08:02]: I do not see either why RMS's political essays should be free in the DFSG-sense either, even when included in a documentation. Because we require them to be free if we include them in Debian? Hum, you do not follow a rule _just_ to follow the rules, do you? There was a reason to promote free software, and I'm not sure that the whole issue was about political essays, but about programs and their 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
As far as the logo, the name Mathieu Roy isn't free in the DFSG-sense. Neither is the Debian name. I don't see why the Debian logo should be either. I don't believe the logo needs to be free; I think the way it is being handled is appropriate. However, others were arguing recently that everything in Debian is software and that the DFSG applies to it.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On 2003-09-22 06:58:19 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since Debian use the translation Logiciel for Debian French pages, it means that the word software must be clearly defined by Debian. If logiciel truly does not mean the same as the English word software, then it should probably be reported as a bug against Debian's French translation when used in its place. (I think that programaro (group around programs AIUI, translated by some as collection of programs) or softvaro (imported word) should be used instead of programo (lit. program) for its EO translation.) Logiciel truly means program (it can surely include the technical documentation). But it is a very acceptable translation for software in the narrow sense (which seems to be the most common sense, however). Free Software is known in France as Logiciel Libre. I'm not sure that you will find many supporters of Logiciel Libre that really thinks that Free Software is not about specifically software programs. Anyway, if you are no longer talking about programs, you are no longer talking about Operating System and even no longer talking about computing. Because if you propose rules to handle documents sitting on a computer which are not programs or their documentation, there's no reason not to apply these rules to the same documents in a non-software form. So maybe you are right (I do not share your point of view) but anyway this is off-topic for Debian and for Logiciel Libre. -- 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
On 2003-09-22 10:41:16 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : * Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030922 08:02]: I do not see either why RMS's political essays should be free in the DFSG-sense either, even when included in a documentation. Because we require them to be free if we include them in Debian? Hum, you do not follow a rule _just_ to follow the rules, do you? Mathieu claims to see no need for derived works of political essays despite all of the suggested reasons which are broadly similar to those for free software in general. I think Andreas cannot be blamed for using desire to include them in Debian without compromising our commitments as a reason to make the case for DFSG-free-ness.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On 2003-09-22 10:47:11 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Free Software is known in France as Logiciel Libre. I'm not sure that you will find many supporters of Logiciel Libre that really thinks that Free Software is not about specifically software programs. This is expected, because FSF encourages a misuse of the word software and that is possibly how most LL supporters will know the word. From what you say, logiciel appears fine for their purpose. Anyway, if you are no longer talking about programs, you are no longer talking about Operating System and even no longer talking about computing. Huh? Software is trivially always about computing. OSes arguably include their documentation and bundled works of art, music etc. Because if you propose rules to handle documents sitting on a computer which are not programs or their documentation, there's no reason not to apply these rules to the same documents in a non-software form. That is my view, but again we are drifting outside the scope of Debian, so I will not pursue this.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On 2003-09-22 10:47:11 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Free Software is known in France as Logiciel Libre. I'm not sure that you will find many supporters of Logiciel Libre that really thinks that Free Software is not about specifically software programs. This is expected, because FSF encourages a misuse of the word software The FSF always has been about computing, way before Debian even exists. and that is possibly how most LL supporters will know the word. From what you say, logiciel appears fine for their purpose. It is already very hard to promote the Logiciel Libre in France. I think that emcumbering it with your view described at the end of this message would not be helpful at all. Because as you see, it is possible to support Logiciel Libre and, however, do not agree with your view described at the end - the link between the two point of view is not obvious. Anyway, if you are no longer talking about programs, you are no longer talking about Operating System and even no longer talking about computing. Huh? Software is trivially always about computing. Your argument against the GFDL invariant section applies to texts in a non-software form. So basically, your point of view is not specifically computing related. Because if you propose rules to handle documents sitting on a computer which are not programs or their documentation, there's no reason not to apply these rules to the same documents in a non-software form. That is my view, but again we are drifting outside the scope of Debian, so I will not pursue this. This view clearly have an influence on your usage of the word software in the Debian case. -- 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
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 05:27:46PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: Remember the hypothetical emacs reference card, which must be accompanied by 12 pages of additional invariant material? Sounds like a big deal to me. If the GPL were used, it would have to be accompanied by 6 pages of additional invariant material. That is still bigger than the reference card. Do you object to the GPL on these grounds? The reference card would have to be accompanied by the GPL, yes, but it would not require the text of the GPL being printed on it. With the GFDL, this requirement is there. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation. So is my neck, stop it anyway! -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On 2003-09-22 10:41:16 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : * Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030922 08:02]: I do not see either why RMS's political essays should be free in the DFSG-sense either, even when included in a documentation. Because we require them to be free if we include them in Debian? Hum, you do not follow a rule _just_ to follow the rules, do you? Mathieu claims to see no need for derived works of political essays despite all of the suggested reasons which are broadly similar to those for free software I do not agree with your point of view, that's all. in general. I think Andreas cannot be blamed for using desire to include them in Debian without compromising our commitments as a reason to make the case for DFSG-free-ness. It does not compromise any desire to keep the Operating System Free. But, sure, it compromise your desire to make any literature text free as Free Software, whether it stands on a computer or not. -- 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
On 2003-09-22 11:21:35 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The FSF always has been about computing, way before Debian even exists. The FSF apparently claims that it is only concerned with program freedom. and that is possibly how most LL supporters will know the word. From what you say, logiciel appears fine for their purpose. It is already very hard to promote the Logiciel Libre in France. I think that emcumbering it with your view described at the end of this message would not be helpful at all. That view is not a requirement for support of free software. Your argument against the GFDL invariant section applies to texts in a non-software form. So basically, your point of view is not specifically computing related. This does not invalidate the reasoning for the software form. I believe that it can be generalised, but it is not necessary to believe that. [I advocate free works in all media] This view clearly have an influence on your usage of the word software in the Debian case. Like hell. My school computing lessons have a larger influence. -- 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
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On 2003-09-22 11:21:35 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The FSF always has been about computing, way before Debian even exists. The FSF apparently claims that it is only concerned with program freedom. And documentation. Basically the other things sitting a computer are not part of the OS. My girlfriend photography sitting on my computer is not free software. That's not something I think important to be shared. and that is possibly how most LL supporters will know the word. From what you say, logiciel appears fine for their purpose. It is already very hard to promote the Logiciel Libre in France. I think that emcumbering it with your view described at the end of this message would not be helpful at all. That view is not a requirement for support of free software. I agree. Your argument against the GFDL invariant section applies to texts in a non-software form. So basically, your point of view is not specifically computing related. This does not invalidate the reasoning for the software form. I believe that it can be generalised, but it is not necessary to believe that. I think it's necessary to believe that. Why typing a text on a computer should change the freedom given? A free software code printed on a paper should be free software, even if it's not software... [I advocate free works in all media] This view clearly have an influence on your usage of the word software in the Debian case. Like hell. My school computing lessons have a larger influence. In this debate, I mean. -- 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
On Monday 22 September 2003 12:36, Mathieu Roy wrote: My girlfriend photography sitting on my computer is not free software. Who cares about the licence of your girlfriend photographs ? Are you willing to put them in main ? The point is that the photographs on your computer are _software_. Whether they are free or not has absolutely no link with the current thread. Mike
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Monday 22 September 2003 12:36, Mathieu Roy wrote: My girlfriend photography sitting on my computer is not free software. Who cares about the licence of your girlfriend photographs ? Are you willing to put them in main ? The point is that the photographs on your computer are _software_. Whether they are free or not has absolutely no link with the current thread. The point is whether every software needs to be free or just program and their 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
Mathieu Roy wrote: Since Debian use the translation Logiciel for Debian French pages, it means that the word software must be clearly defined by Debian. Mathieu, I would suggest that you to carefully read Le petit Robert's definition for logiciel. (For those of you that are not French speaking, Le petit Robert is one of the most respected French language dictionaries.) In the 1983 edition (on my desk) I read: 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). So, Debian's use of the word logiciel in french seems quite in line with the English semantics used by people on debian-legal. Etienne -- Etienne M. Gagnon, Ph.D. http://www.info.uqam.ca/~egagnon/ SableVM: http://www.sablevm.org/ SableCC: http://www.sablecc.org/
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
On Monday 22 September 2003 14:32, Mathieu Roy wrote: The point is whether every software needs to be free or just program and their documentation. The point is whether every software IN DEBIAN needs to be free. Mike
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
* Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030922 11:40]: Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : * Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030922 08:02]: I do not see either why RMS's political essays should be free in the DFSG-sense either, even when included in a documentation. Because we require them to be free if we include them in Debian? Hum, you do not follow a rule _just_ to follow the rules, do you? You seem to live in the wrong country. ;) There was a reason to promote free software, and I'm not sure that the whole issue was about political essays, but about programs and their documentation. The issue is to give recipients the full freedom. And I don't see which part of this issue doesn't apply to essays, regarding Debians position. (I do, however, publish parts of my essays under a non-free license. But I don't ask Debian then to include them in main, and they've a very destinct audience where it is more usefull to work with other licenses - that also gives the freedom to any recipient to use my ideas, and words, but not in a way that Debian would consider as free.) Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not see either why RMS's political essays should be free in the DFSG-sense either, even when included in a documentation. As someone asked in another thread: Did you really pass PP ?
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Monday 22 September 2003 12:36, Mathieu Roy wrote: My girlfriend photography sitting on my computer is not free software. Who cares about the licence of your girlfriend photographs ? Are you willing to put them in main ? The point is that the photographs on your computer are _software_. Whether they are free or not has absolutely no link with the current thread. The point is whether every software needs to be free or just program and their documentation. Actually, the whole debate is really about programs and their documentation and the need for them to be free. Invariant sections make the documentation non-free. You're the one trying to sidetrack that issue to other content. Above you said software needs to be free and program and their documentation. Start with that. The documentation isn't free if it has Invariant Sections.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Etienne Gagnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Mathieu Roy wrote: Since Debian use the translation Logiciel for Debian French pages, it means that the word software must be clearly defined by Debian. Mathieu, I would suggest that you to carefully read Le petit Robert's definition for logiciel. (For those of you that are not French speaking, Le petit Robert is one of the most respected French language dictionaries.) In the 1983 edition (on my desk) I read: 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. So, Debian's use of the word logiciel in french seems quite in line with the English semantics used by people on debian-legal. Please, try to pretend to any educated French person that his Bible on his computer is a Logiciel :)) -- 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: I do not see either why RMS's political essays should be free in the DFSG-sense either, even when included in a documentation. As someone asked in another thread: Did you really pass PP ? What does this question mean? Does Debian impose on applicant to believe that a political essay should be ruled by the DFSG? I do not think so. If it is an implicit law, please make it explicit. However, I know what is the DFSG and I know what I should do when contributing for Debian and what I should not do. I am a very lawful person. 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? That's the question. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
