Re: GFDL holds the answer about fancy javascript (was: gnuradio project..)
> The .dox files seem to make up the bulk of the manual consisting of > the "User Manual", the various parts of GNU radio, and what not and > are scattered around in various doc/ directories. Based on that, I conclude that the .dox files are source code for the manual, and so are the C++ files. Do the .dox files state any license? No.
Re: GFDL holds the answer about fancy javascript (was: gnuradio project..)
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > Do the .dox files state any license? > There is no license in dox files. Thanks. Now I know what to say to the maintainer about this. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org) Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
Re: GFDL holds the answer about fancy javascript (was: gnuradio project..)
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 04:26:07AM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > What the actual license should be of something is not for you to > decide, that is up to St. IGNUcius and the maintainer of the software. > How about we leave it to them to say what should or shouldn't be? I just guess, that the mailing lists are there to engage in conversation, so that groups of people find agreements and better ways of promoting GNU software. Neither, I ever said that I am deciding anything. I am rather pointing out to ready made policies and guidelines which are helpful for maintainers and those decision makers. As long as I am allowed to write to the list, I will write. I like free software, and I also like to be more straight to public in regards to free software promotion, teaching, enlightening people. There is nothing wrong in communicating to others to improve, or to align with the free software goals. Yes, I have the agenda, the agenda is to promote free software and freedoms along it. It just happen that I like to look into details, like "Free & Open Source" terminology. Doxygen documents, may be suitable, like you have elaborated. Maybe it just happen to me that I am used to other GNU packages with info files, that may be converted to any format. That is my personal experience and habit that has to be broken. Jean Louis
Re: GFDL holds the answer about fancy javascript (was: gnuradio project..)
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 01:00:24PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
> > The .dox files seem to make up the bulk of the manual consisting of
> > the "User Manual", the various parts of GNU radio, and what not and
> > are scattered around in various doc/ directories.
>
> Based on that, I conclude that the .dox files are source code for
> the manual, and so are the C++ files.
>
> Do the .dox files state any license?
There is no license in dox files.
admin-> find . -name '*.dox'
./gr-qtgui/doc/qtgui.dox
./gr-fec/doc/fec.dox
./gr-uhd/doc/uhd.dox
./docs/doxygen/other/operating_fg.dox
./docs/doxygen/other/volk_guide.dox
./docs/doxygen/other/usage.dox
./docs/doxygen/other/build_guide.dox
./docs/doxygen/other/pmt.dox
./docs/doxygen/other/components.dox
./docs/doxygen/other/thread_affinity.dox
./docs/doxygen/other/prefs.dox
./docs/doxygen/other/oot_config.dox
./docs/doxygen/other/msg_passing.dox
./docs/doxygen/other/packet_txrx.dox
./docs/doxygen/other/logger.dox
./docs/doxygen/other/metadata.dox
./docs/doxygen/other/ctrlport.dox
./docs/doxygen/other/pfb_intro.dox
./docs/doxygen/other/python_blocks.dox
./docs/doxygen/other/group_defs.dox
./docs/doxygen/other/perf_counters.dox
./docs/doxygen/other/ofdm.dox
./docs/doxygen/other/tagged_stream_blocks.dox
./docs/doxygen/other/main_page.dox
./docs/doxygen/other/stream_tags.dox
./docs/exploring-gnuradio/exploring_gnuradio.dox
./gr-analog/doc/analog.dox
./gr-fft/doc/fft.dox
./gr-fcd/doc/fcd.dox
./gr-filter/doc/filter.dox
./gr-vocoder/doc/vocoder.dox
./gr-channels/doc/channels.dox
./volk/docs/extending_volk.dox
./volk/docs/kernels.dox
./volk/docs/terms_and_techniques.dox
./volk/docs/using_volk.dox
./volk/docs/main_page.dox
./gr-utils/python/modtool/gr-newmod/docs/doxygen/other/group_defs.dox
./gr-utils/python/modtool/gr-newmod/docs/doxygen/other/main_page.dox
./gr-zeromq/docs/zeromq.dox
./gr-digital/doc/digital.dox
./gr-digital/doc/packet_comms.dox
./gr-blocks/doc/blocks.dox
./gr-audio/doc/audio.dox
admin-> find . -name '*.dox' -exec grep -i license {} \;
[~/Downloads/Software/gnuradio-3.7.10.1]
admin-> find . -name '*.dox' -exec grep -i licence {} \;
And no results for GPL, GFDL, free software, and similar.
The downloader of software may simply assume that .dox files and
documentation is licensed under the GPL version 3+.
Jean Louis
Re: GFDL holds the answer about fancy javascript (was: gnuradio project..)
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > The .dox files seem to make up the bulk of the manual consisting of > the "User Manual", the various parts of GNU radio, and what not and > are scattered around in various doc/ directories. Based on that, I conclude that the .dox files are source code for the manual, and so are the C++ files. Do the .dox files state any license? -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org) Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
Re: GFDL holds the answer about fancy javascript (was: gnuradio project..)
What the actual license should be of something is not for you to decide, that is up to St. IGNUcius and the maintainer of the software. How about we leave it to them to say what should or shouldn't be? >Source code is in gnuradio-3.7.10.1/docs/doxygen/other, if I >am no mistaken. > >And GNU radio package is to be found here: >http://gnuradio.org/releases/gnuradio/gnuradio-3.7.10.1.tar.gz > >Source code of documentation is not in simple format, it seems to >be Doxygen format. Doxygen extracts documentation from C++ files. > > What is "simple format"? The reference is to the well drafted Information for Maintainers of GNU Software that is available here: https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html There is no reference to "simple format" in that document. You clearly have some agenda, with this continued misrepresentation, misreading, and continued imagined ideas of what the GFDL says. Such files are not transparent, as there are limitations imposed to read the documentation. One such limitation is that one need to install the Doxygen software, to process the source code to read the documentation, to generate the HTML to read the documentation. Doygen input falls under the category of "transparant copy". âTransparentâ copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy, Doxygen is machine-readable. represented in a format whose specification is available to the general public, Doxygen syntax, and format is specified in the Doxygen manual which is available to the general public. that is suitable for revising the document straightforwardly with generic text editors Doxygen is a plain text format with some syntactical elements like GNU Texinfo, LaTeX, TeX, etc. or (for images composed of pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some widely available drawing editor, That depends on the actual manual content, but the images in GNU radio are editable using GIMP (they are PNG files). Doxygen, like Texinfo, references the file using the \image command (i.e. @image command in Texinfo). and that is suitable for input to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input to text formatters. The input is suitable for the Doxygen processing utility to output other formats -- for example HTML. Doxygen is also free software.
Re: GFDL holds the answer about fancy javascript (was: gnuradio project..)
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 01:37:20AM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: >Source code is in gnuradio-3.7.10.1/docs/doxygen/other, if I am no >mistaken. > >And GNU radio package is to be found here: >http://gnuradio.org/releases/gnuradio/gnuradio-3.7.10.1.tar.gz > >Source code of documentation is not in simple format, it seems to >be Doxygen format. Doxygen extracts documentation from C++ files. > > What is "simple format"? The reference is to the well drafted Information for Maintainers of GNU Software that is available here: https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html First to review, by GNU Radio maintainers would be to read about the documentation, License Notices for Documentation: https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#License-Notices-for-Documentation Documentation files should have license notices also. Manuals should use the GNU Free Documentation License. Following is an example of the license notice to use after the copyright line(s) using all the features of the GFDL. While the copyright on GNU Radio belongs to the FSF, I guess that adding the GNU Free Documentation License should be simple matter, that is up to the GNU Radio maintainers and FSF to do. GNU Radio documentation currently has no license notices displayed, it means it is licensed under the GNU GPL version as in the package. Now, back to common sense: - even if documentation is not currently licensed under the GFDL, and it should be, as it is GNU package, one of best, common sense says that documentation shall be readable. Some people have put great efforts to explain how the documentation shall be presented to the users in the GNU Free Documentation License, which was prepared and made exactly for that purpose. Reference is here: https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#GNU-Free-Documentation-License Even if GNU Radio documentation is not currently licensed by the GFDL, and it should be, it is however a common sense that documentation shall be given in a transparent copy, and not files that are suitable for Doxygen processing only. Such files are not transparent, as there are limitations imposed to read the documentation. One such limitation is that one need to install the Doxygen software, to process the source code to read the documentation, to generate the HTML to read the documentation. Further, one is prevented to revise documents straightforwardly with generic text editors. Please read the GFDL to find the references for my words. Purpose of this email is to give notice to maintainers of GNU Radio and the FSF, to bring the GNU Radio documentation on the standard as expected for the GNU package. Jean Louis P.S. Quoting from the GFDL: “Transparent” copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy, represented in a format whose specification is available to the general public, that is suitable for revising the document straightforwardly with generic text editors or (for images composed of pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some widely available drawing editor, and that is suitable for input to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input to text formatters. A copy made in an otherwise Transparent file format whose markup, or absence of markup, has been arranged to thwart or discourage subsequent modification by readers is not Transparent. An image format is not Transparent if used for any substantial amount of text. A copy that is not “Transparent” is called “Opaque”. Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies include plain ASCII without markup, Texinfo input format, LaTeX input format, SGML or XML using a publicly available DTD, and standard-conforming simple HTML, PostScript or PDF designed for human modification. Examples of transparent image formats include PNG, XCF and JPG. Opaque formats include proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by proprietary word processors, SGML or XML for which the DTD and/or processing tools are not generally available, and the machine-generated HTML, PostScript or PDF produced by some word processors for output purposes only.
Re: GFDL holds the answer about fancy javascript (was: gnuradio project..)
> > I was reviewing this link of documentation, and could not > > find any relation to a license: > > http://gnuradio.org/doc/doxygen/index.html > > Can you find the source code for this in the source repo? > > > However, documentation within the package > > gnuradio-3.7.10.1.tar.gz is > > Is that the source code of the documentation in > http://gnuradio.org/doc/doxygen/index.html? > > I am guessing that you already know the answer, but I don't -- I > have never seen either of them. Source code is in gnuradio-3.7.10.1/docs/doxygen/other, if I am no mistaken. And GNU radio package is to be found here: http://gnuradio.org/releases/gnuradio/gnuradio-3.7.10.1.tar.gz Source code of documentation is not in simple format, it seems to be Doxygen format. Doxygen extracts documentation from C++ files. What is "simple format"? There are two parts to the documentation in GNU radio, one is the .dox files and the other is inline source code documentation in the ñthe C/C++/Python/etc source files. The .dox files seem to make up the bulk of the manual consisting of the "User Manual", the various parts of GNU radio, and what not and are scattered around in various doc/ directories. While the source code files contain the API reference. Examples, this is API documentation extracted from a source code file: http://gnuradio.org/doc/doxygen/classgr_1_1feval__dd.html the source for that is in gnuradio-runtime/include/gnuradio/feval.h. While the soruce code for http://gnuradio.org/doc/doxygen/page_components.html lives here: ./docs/doxygen/other/components.dox
Re: GFDL holds the answer about fancy javascript (was: gnuradio project..)
On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 08:32:51PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] > [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > > http://gnuradio.org/ > > "Free Software - GNU Radio is Free Software. That means it’s free as > > in price, and you are free to use & modify it as you wish." > > -- end of quote > > > May I correct you? It does not mean that it is "free as in price", > > there is some serious lack of understanding what free software > > means. > > The "free" in "free software" refers to freedom -- not price. So that > quote is not really correct. It's possible, though, that I said those > words, 30 years ago before I understood how best to deal with the two > meanings of the word. I will take a look. Those words are on the website http://gnuradio.org -- which shows misunderstanding from the manager of the website or the GNU Radio organization. Words have simply different meanings and meanings are understood from the context. It means there is nothing wrong by using the word "free" in the context of freedom, it is on the reader to understand that words have multiple meanings and to find out the proper definition from the context. When "free" is used in the context of "GNU Radio is Free & Open Source" -- it is wrong for the GNU package to be advertised like that. Exactly that quote is the prominent quote on GNU Radio website. "Free and open source" -- indicates it is free of charge in addition to having source disclosed. Instead of "free software" and references to free software definitions. John Gilmore has financed the project GNU Radio, and he says on his website: http://www.toad.com/gnu/ "Free Software means software that comes with freedom -- not software that has a price of 0. In particular, it means software that gives everyone the source code (what programmers need to keep a program running and improve on it) and the right to use the program, modify it, and give or sell copies to anyone. The new buzzword for this is "Open Source", but it's been called "Free Software" for decades." It would be good for GNU Radio's website maintainers to understand what those definitions mean and to modify the website accordingly. Please maintainers, do it so. Jean Louis
Re: GFDL holds the answer about fancy javascript (was: gnuradio project..)
On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 08:29:13PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] > [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > > I was reviewing this link of documentation, and could not find any > > relation to a license: > > http://gnuradio.org/doc/doxygen/index.html > > Can you find the source code for this in the source repo? > > > However, documentation within the package gnuradio-3.7.10.1.tar.gz is > > Is that the source code of the documentation in > http://gnuradio.org/doc/doxygen/index.html? > > I am guessing that you already know the answer, but I don't -- I have > never seen either of them. Source code is in gnuradio-3.7.10.1/docs/doxygen/other, if I am no mistaken. And GNU radio package is to be found here: http://gnuradio.org/releases/gnuradio/gnuradio-3.7.10.1.tar.gz Source code of documentation is not in simple format, it seems to be Doxygen format. Doxygen extracts documentation from C++ files. Jean Louis
Re: GFDL holds the answer about fancy javascript (was: gnuradio project..)
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > http://gnuradio.org/ > "Free Software - GNU Radio is Free Software. That means it’s free as > in price, and you are free to use & modify it as you wish." > -- end of quote > May I correct you? It does not mean that it is "free as in price", > there is some serious lack of understanding what free software > means. The "free" in "free software" refers to freedom -- not price. So that quote is not really correct. It's possible, though, that I said those words, 30 years ago before I understood how best to deal with the two meanings of the word. I will take a look. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org) Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
Re: GFDL holds the answer about fancy javascript (was: gnuradio project..)
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > Dimitri van Heesch > dimi...@stack.nl > or http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/support.html Thanks. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org) Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
Re: GFDL holds the answer about fancy javascript (was: gnuradio project..)
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > I was reviewing this link of documentation, and could not find any > relation to a license: > http://gnuradio.org/doc/doxygen/index.html Can you find the source code for this in the source repo? > However, documentation within the package gnuradio-3.7.10.1.tar.gz is Is that the source code of the documentation in http://gnuradio.org/doc/doxygen/index.html? I am guessing that you already know the answer, but I don't -- I have never seen either of them. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org) Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
Re: GFDL holds the answer about fancy javascript (was: gnuradio project..)
On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 12:01:46AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] > [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > > using Doxygen for generating documentation in a program with some > different > > license without the program itself becoming GPL-2 as well. > > > I believe Doxygen should clarify the licenses. Otherwise, one could argue > that > > any program/library that ever used Doxygen to generate documentation is > now > > GPL-2 or later. > > Yes. I'd like to ask the developers to agree to install such patches, > and look for someone to write the patches. Can someone tell me how to > contact them? Contact information: Dimitri van Heesch dimi...@stack.nl or http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/support.html Jean Louis
Re: GFDL holds the answer about fancy javascript (was: gnuradio project..)
Can someone tell me how to contact them? I think one can contact the Doxygen maintainers at doxygen-deve...@lists.sourceforge.net. If you want, I can find some more direct contact to one of the maintainers
Re: GFDL holds the answer about fancy javascript (was: gnuradio project..)
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > using Doxygen for generating documentation in a program with some different > license without the program itself becoming GPL-2 as well. > I believe Doxygen should clarify the licenses. Otherwise, one could argue that > any program/library that ever used Doxygen to generate documentation is now > GPL-2 or later. Yes. I'd like to ask the developers to agree to install such patches, and look for someone to write the patches. Can someone tell me how to contact them? -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org) Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
Re: GFDL holds the answer about fancy javascript (was: gnuradio project..)
Дана субота, 04. март 2017. у 00.09.14 CET, Richard Stallman написа: > However, why not have a fall-back search facility for text-based > browsers, that works without graphics or Javascript? Even if it looks > clunky, it is better than nothing. Naturally. Doxygen also supports server-side search written in php, as long as the server can support php (which most can), it shouldn't be a problem to make the search non-javascript based as well. > The ethical issue in this area is that all Javascript code sent to the > user must be free. That is, at the moment, partially true. Doxygen's JavaScript is part of Doxygen which is under GPL-2, but there are no headers in the JavaScript files saying so. Also, having JS files in GPL-2 would, basically, disable anyone from using Doxygen for generating documentation in a program with some different license without the program itself becoming GPL-2 as well. I believe Doxygen should clarify the licenses. Otherwise, one could argue that any program/library that ever used Doxygen to generate documentation is now GPL-2 or later. -- GPG fingerprint: 9AFC0A4BD2CEF3D22CF6108196577BD3C105EDA4 Please read if you don't use GPG: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: GFDL holds the answer about fancy javascript (was: gnuradio project..)
On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 12:10:45AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] > [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > > I cannot find the documentation license on the documentation pages. > > Can you please tell me the URLs of the pages in question? I was reviewing this link of documentation, and could not find any relation to a license: http://gnuradio.org/doc/doxygen/index.html I just guess that documentation is not licensed under GFDL at all, as I have greped in the software package and did not find references. And I do not say it should be, just stating the fact. The assumption is that documentation is licensed under the GNU GPL just like all the software in the package. However, documentation within the package gnuradio-3.7.10.1.tar.gz is not in easy readable format, it requires doxygen to be generated first to be readable and accessible, it becomes usable after building the software. Jean Louis
Re: GFDL holds the answer about fancy javascript (was: gnuradio project..)
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > I cannot find the documentation license on the documentation pages. Can you please tell me the URLs of the pages in question? -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org) Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
Re: GFDL holds the answer about fancy javascript (was: gnuradio project..)
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > 1) HTML without JavaScript and without documentation search functionality > and > 2) HTML with JavaScript and with documentation search functionality where such > search functionality doesn't work on text-based browsers, but everything else > does. There's nothing wrong, in principle, with having functionality that works on graphical browsers and fails on text-based browsers. (It would be shame to create a problem gratuitously, if fixing the problem is easy.) However, why not have a fall-back search facility for text-based browsers, that works without graphics or Javascript? Even if it looks clunky, it is better than nothing. The ethical issue in this area is that all Javascript code sent to the user must be free. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org) Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
Re: GFDL holds the answer about fancy javascript (was: gnuradio project..)
Please redirect improvments for GNU Radio to the GNU Radio maintainers for example, discuss-gnura...@gnu.org. gnu-system-discuss@, and security-discuss@ are not the proper place to raise such things.
Re: GFDL holds the answer about fancy javascript (was: gnuradio project..)
On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 12:34:39AM +0100, Anonymous wrote: > Filip Brcic said: > > > There is absolutely no way to make that functionality without > > javascript, unless you want it to look really ugly, > > If it's the cosmetics of fancy javascript frills vs. being functional, > then the answer as to which wins that contest in the GFDL: > > https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/directory/fdl-1.3-standalone.html > > (search for "simple html") > > If that should be overturned, the GFDL should be updated first, as > opposed to projects violating it. GNU radio has a nice website, and organization. I cannot find the documentation license on the documentation pages. I am in Tanzania, and waiting for cdnjs.cloudflare.com is taking terribly long time, like minutes, so with the "normal browser" I cannot even access the website. I am trying to find out why. If I don't use "normal browser", but use Dillo or Elinks, I can access the website, with limitation to "javascript" links. I would like to add a friendly reminder, that when GNU radio is advertised as "free & open source", it is creating a confusion of what free software is, it may give to people an idea that it is "free of charge" in addition of being "open source". You also have on the front page, quoting: http://gnuradio.org/ "Free Software - GNU Radio is Free Software. That means it’s free as in price, and you are free to use & modify it as you wish." -- end of quote May I correct you? It does not mean that it is "free as in price", there is some serious lack of understanding what free software means. It is free as in liberty. In fact my Wordnet dictionary over here shows the first definition of free as "(38) free -- (able to act at will; not hampered; not under compulsion or restraint; "free enterprise"; "a free port"; "a free country"; "I have an hour free"; "free will"; "free of racism"; "feel free to stay as long as you wish"; "a free choice")" and in the third definition "complimentary, costless, free, gratis, gratuitous -- (costing nothing; "complimentary tickets"; "free admission")". The Free Software is free as in the first definition, in regards to constraints, in regards to liberty of what one may do with the software. Not in regards to pricing or charges for software. While it just happens that is often distributed "free of charge" the words free do not refer to priceless, or free of charge. There is nothing wrong in selling free software. The first Deluxe Distribution of GNU software were sold for nice US $5,000, the compiled binaries on the CD with all the software. References: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html It is unclear from the website under which license the documentation has been published, I could not find it. I can see that everything is copyright to GNU radio foundation, with "all rights reserved". Somebody may wrongly understand the licensing and think that "all rights reserved", also apply to documentation. The website is well organized, only not well functionable, at least from here in Tanzania, it is "loading" all the time. I hope to get the required dongle to try it out. Jean Louis
Re: GFDL holds the answer about fancy javascript (was: gnuradio project..)
Дана петак, 03. март 2017. у 00.34.39 CET, Anonymous написа: > Filip Brcic said: > > There is absolutely no way to make that functionality without > > javascript, unless you want it to look really ugly, > > If it's the cosmetics of fancy javascript frills vs. being functional, > then the answer as to which wins that contest in the GFDL: > > https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/directory/fdl-1.3-standalone.html > > (search for "simple html") > > If that should be overturned, the GFDL should be updated first, as > opposed to projects violating it. You have a choice between: 1) HTML without JavaScript and without documentation search functionality and 2) HTML with JavaScript and with documentation search functionality where such search functionality doesn't work on text-based browsers, but everything else does. I don't see that as a choice. If you do, then you are promoting denial of service for everyone not using lynx (if I am to use your wording). As for "simple html", that needs defining. I am not sure lynx supports even div tags and it definitely doesn't support simple header/footer/nav/button/video/ article/section/... tags from simple html version 5. So, what exactly is simple html? Who defines that? If anything, html is going towards simplicity by introducing semantic tags (such as those I've mentioned), but is that simple or complex? -- GPG fingerprint: 9AFC0A4BD2CEF3D22CF6108196577BD3C105EDA4 Please read if you don't use GPG: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
GFDL holds the answer about fancy javascript (was: gnuradio project..)
Filip Brcic said: > There is absolutely no way to make that functionality without > javascript, unless you want it to look really ugly, If it's the cosmetics of fancy javascript frills vs. being functional, then the answer as to which wins that contest in the GFDL: https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/directory/fdl-1.3-standalone.html (search for "simple html") If that should be overturned, the GFDL should be updated first, as opposed to projects violating it. -- Please note this was sent anonymously, so the "From:" address will be unusable. List archives will be monitored.
