On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 12:43, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> Witness the response to Jeroen.
I don't think we can draw any conclusion from the response to Jeroen
other than "a lot of us think rudeness is a bad thing". (Including even
Jeroen himself, per his apology a few flames back in that thread.)
-
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The membership also seems
> to have shifted towards a more radical^H^H^H^Henthusiastic support of
> _only_ free software, and helping people use whatever they wish on
> Debian, while providing them with free alternatives, seems to be on
> the wane
>>"Steve" == Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Steve> I'd be happy to hear clarifications from the author and
Steve> contemporaries, then; to be honest, my memory of Debian
Steve> history isn't good enough to even know who to approach. (The
Steve> debian-doc package is conspicuously
On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 14:39, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> I'd be happy to hear clarifications from the author and contemporaries,
> then; to be honest, my memory of Debian history isn't good enough to
> even know who to approach. (The debian-doc package is conspicuously
> lacking of the relevant c
>>"Steve" == Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Steve> As a developer, I am by no means in a position to try to
Steve> interpret what the phrasers of the Social Contract /really/
Steve> meant to say. They wrote what they wrote, and I agreed to it
Steve> as written; as did many other d
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> How about correcting a supposedly historical document, for
Anthony> example, taking a document that describes Windows as the
Anthony> progenitor of the trend for GUIs, and adding some
Anthony> explanation about Apple and Xerox and suchlike?
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 00:55, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 01:42, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > > DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines". IMH
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 15:21, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > > Why? What freedoms are important for software that aren't for
> > > documentation?
> >
> > Revisionist history, for one. I'm sure the FSF wouldn't appreciate the
> > GCC docum
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 19:03, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
> >I wrote this up last night after getting fed up with this thread, then
> >modified it this morning after reading the thread on -legal that was
> >referred to. Flame away.
> >
> >http://peo
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:30:18AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 09:01, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > On the other hand, by taking action we might be able to stop those projects
> > from taking such a misguided course of action. I think the FSF is making
> > a big mistake with t
> As far as I can see neither the gcc nor the binutils documentation has
> invariant sections. I don't know about KDE.
Gcc 3 docs do: gcc-3.0/gcc/doc/gcc.texi has (1) the GPL itself [which
we already need some way of dealing with, the text of the GPL isn't
DFSG but we include it...] (2) the three
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:28:19PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:04:12PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
> > >
> > > In case this is true, nearly all KDE packages have to be moved to
> > > non-free as they use the GNU FDL for the docum
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 12:32, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:22:00AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > In that thread in debian-legal, he seemed to accept the possibility that
> > some things packaged for Debian might not be software. His problem
> > seemed to be with corner case
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 12:25, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Jeff, you might want to read:
Noted.
> People who want to opine about licensing issues really, really should
> subscribe to -legal.
And I have (though only recently).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubs
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:50:43PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> I think that the point being made is that, if the GNU FDL is not a free
> license, then we will need to redefine "free" or watch our project
> splinter into uselessness.
The GNU FDL is a license, period. It can applied in a manner co
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:22:00AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 00:05, David Starner wrote:
> > Where? Branden seems to believe that anything that Debian packages is
> > software, for the purposes of the DFSG.
[...]
> In that thread in debian-legal, he seemed to accept the pos
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:30:18AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > On the other hand, by taking action we might be able to stop those projects
> > from taking such a misguided course of action. I think the FSF is making
> > a big mistake with the GFDL.
>
> I'm curious about your reasoning. Have y
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 09:01, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:08:05AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > The point is that pulling everything out that's GFDL isn't really a good
> > option; it damages the project for zero gain. This is especially true
> > in the long term, as proje
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 01:42, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines". IMHO we ave to create a
> > DFDG, "Debian Free Documentation Guidelines".
>
> Why? What freedoms are important for software th
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 00:43, David Starner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > DFSG stand for "Debian Free Software Guidelines".
>
> Yes, and since Debian is 100% Free Software, that applies to everything
> in Debian.
Documentation isn't software. Neithe
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:05:31AM +0200, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
>
> > Given that gcc, binutils, and KDE are in main, it would seem that the
> > status quo and the DFSG are in conflict, or the status quo and someone's
> > interpretat
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:08:05AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> The point is that pulling everything out that's GFDL isn't really a good
> option; it damages the project for zero gain. This is especially true
> in the long term, as projects follow the FSF's lead and start releasing
> GFDL docs.
O
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Given that gcc, binutils, and KDE are in main, it would seem that the
> status quo and the DFSG are in conflict, or the status quo and someone's
> interpretation of the DFSG are in conflict at least.
As far as I can see neither the g
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:05:45AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:54:40PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > I don't know. Call me an optimist, but I seem to be hearing a rough
> > consensus.
>
> [...] And you, and another group of people, see to think that Debian
> should
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 04:01:55PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> you're not allowed to change the license or the author's name of a
> GPL-licensed program so, by your "strictly literal reading of the DFSG"
> that makes the GPL non-free.
True. But by long tradition and, as you say, common sense, th
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:08:53PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to
> > > be not?
> >
> > No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
> > cons
Le Lundi 8 Avril 2002 05:08, David Starner a écrit :
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be
> > > not?
> >
> > No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
> > considered free
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 00:05, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:54:40PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > I don't know. Call me an optimist, but I seem to be hearing a rough
> > consensus.
>
> Where? Branden seems to believe that anything that Debian packages is
> software, for the pu
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 23:54, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > Also consider that pulling gcc from main would fracture the project; it
> > would become literally impossible to build a completely free OS, given
> > that the whole ball of wax wou
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:54:40PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> I don't know. Call me an optimist, but I seem to be hearing a rough
> consensus.
Where? Branden seems to believe that anything that Debian packages is
software, for the purposes of the DFSG. A number of people would argue
that small,
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Also consider that pulling gcc from main would fracture the project; it
> would become literally impossible to build a completely free OS, given
> that the whole ball of wax would depend on a non-free compiler.
Why do we need to pull
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:08:53PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?
> > No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
> > considered fre
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 22:49, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> >
> > So, we change either the status quo, or the DFSG, or issue
> > clarifications on why the status quo (with GFDL-licensed components)
> > doesn't violate the DFSG.
>
> Where "cl
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 22:40, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> This should have been dealt with sooner. But the past three times the FDL
> has been discussed on this list, no concensus was reached. The only thing
> we can be certain of is that there are enough problems with it to prevent
> any consensus.
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Given that gcc, binutils, and KDE are in main, it would seem that the
> status quo and the DFSG are in conflict, or the status quo and someone's
> interpretation of the DFSG are in conflict at least.
>
> Also consider that pulling gcc
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > We should also move binutils and gcc to non-free because the manpages
> > > are under the GNU FDL.
> >
> > So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?
>
> No, they're saying that a vast majority of p
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:50:43PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > > > The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
> > > >
> > > > In case this is true, nearly all KDE packages have to be moved to
> > > > non-free as they use the GNU FDL for the documentation. For example :
> > > > open KHelpcenter and click
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 22:08, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?
> >
> > No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
> > considered free by our
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?
>
> No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
> considered free by our community are using this license. Thus, the onus
> is on yo
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 20:28, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:04:12PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
> > >
> > > In case this is true, nearly all KDE packages have to be moved to
> > > non-free as they use the GNU FDL for the documentation. For
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 19:28, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:04:12PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
> > >
> > > In case this is true, nearly all KDE packages have to be moved to
> > > non-free as they use the GNU FDL for the documentation. For
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:34:45PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I thought that it hasn't been finally resolved if the GNU FDL meets
> the DFSG or not. However, there seemed to be consensus on documents
> released under the GFDL with large sections marked invariant are
> probably not DFSG-complia
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:04:12PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
> >
> > In case this is true, nearly all KDE packages have to be moved to
> > non-free as they use the GNU FDL for the documentation. For example :
> > open KHelpcenter and click on "Introduction
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 11:14:08PM +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 21:34, Martin Schulze ha scritto:
> > Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
> >
> > I thought that it hasn't been finally resolved if the GNU FDL meets
> > the DFSG or not. Howeve
Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 21:34, Martin Schulze ha scritto:
> Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Le Dimanche 7 Avril 2002 09:57, Ben Pfaff a écrit :
> > > Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Package: gnu-standards
> > > > Version: 2002.01.12-1
> > > > Severity: serious
> > > > Justification: Pol
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Le Dimanche 7 Avril 2002 09:57, Ben Pfaff a écrit :
> > Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Package: gnu-standards
> > > Version: 2002.01.12-1
> > > Severity: serious
> > > Justification: Policy 2.1.2
> > >
> > > The GNU standards are licensed under two seperate
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 11:05:03AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Le Dimanche 7 Avril 2002 09:57, Ben Pfaff a ?crit :
> > Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Package: gnu-standards
> > > Version: 2002.01.12-1
> > > Severity: serious
> > > Justification: Policy 2.1.2
> > >
> > > The GNU
Le Dimanche 7 Avril 2002 09:57, Ben Pfaff a écrit :
> Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Package: gnu-standards
> > Version: 2002.01.12-1
> > Severity: serious
> > Justification: Policy 2.1.2
> >
> > The GNU standards are licensed under two seperate licenses, neither
> > one of which mee
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 11:57:53PM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > > The GNU standards are licensed under two seperate licenses, neither one of
> > > which meets the DFSG.
> > >
> > > The first is the GNU FDL, which blatantly violates sections 5 and 6 of th
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 11:57:53PM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > The GNU standards are licensed under two seperate licenses, neither one of
> > which meets the DFSG.
> >
> > The first is the GNU FDL, which blatantly violates sections 5 and 6 of the
> > DFSG. The second license allows only for verba
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package: gnu-standards
> Version: 2002.01.12-1
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Policy 2.1.2
>
> The GNU standards are licensed under two seperate licenses, neither one of
> which meets the DFSG.
>
> The first is the GNU FDL, which blatantly violat
51 matches
Mail list logo
