Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AFAIK, ftp-masters only reject a package if inclusion and distribution
in Debian would be illegal. This is not the case with the GFDL.
I think in a typical case, the decision is up to the package maintainer,
and if the maintainer doesn't agree, the
This is an intent to mass-file bugs as required per custom.
Bugs will be filed:
1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material;
2) on packages in 1) that do not include the copyright or license of
the material in their copyright files;
3) at serious severity (DP sec.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:49:21PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
This is an intent to mass-file bugs as required per custom.
Bugs will be filed:
1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material;
2) on packages in 1) that do not include the copyright or license of
Steve Kemp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:49:21PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
This is an intent to mass-file bugs as required per custom.
Bugs will be filed:
1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material;
2) on packages in 1) that do not
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:49:21PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Bugs will be filed:
1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material;
I recommend not filing bugs on documentation until after sarge. The
project agreed by vote that it was not to be considered
On Nov 17, Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In case you are wondering about bugs in case 1), please note that the
GNU Free Documentation License is non-free in all its forms, according
to the informal survey taken by Branden Robinson of the debian-legal
denizens and by my
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 07:31:51PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:49:21PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Two bugs will be filed on packages that meet criteria in both 1) and
2). If the release managers would like, I will be happy to auto-tag
the bugs in 1)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian M. Carlson) writes:
This is an intent to mass-file bugs as required per custom.
Bugs will be filed:
1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material;
2) on packages in 1) that do not include the copyright or license of
the material in
On Nov 17, Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I object. Until there is universal consensus (either through a vote,
leader action, whatever) that GFDL material must be purged from main,
these bugs are wishlist at best.
debian-legal consensus alone is not grounds for removal.
Agreed.
--
El mi, 17-11-2004 a las 19:27 +, Brian M. Carlson escribi:
[...]
Without wishing to start/take part in a huge flamewar didn't we have
a vote and agree to leave such documentation issues until after
Sarge's release?
Here's the result I'm thinking of:
On Nov 17, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And documentation is not software.
Since the editorial changes (LOL) general resolution, for Debian
everything is software. Welcome to the wonderful world the
DFSG-revisionist have made for all of us.
--
ciao, |
Marco | [9258
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:49:21PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Bugs will be filed:
1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material;
I recommend not filing bugs on documentation until after sarge. The
project agreed by vote
On Nov 17, Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is of course understood. But one could always upload to
unstable, AIUI. I am trying to *improve* the quality of the
distribution, not decrease it. The sentence was meant to stress to
I'd say that it's not obvious at all how removing
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
El mi, 17-11-2004 a las 19:27 +, Brian M. Carlson escribi:
[...]
Without wishing to start/take part in a huge flamewar didn't we have
a vote and agree to leave such documentation issues until after
Sarge's release?
Here's
El mi, 17-11-2004 a las 23:26 +0100, Marco d'Itri escribi:
On Nov 17, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And documentation is not software.
Since the editorial changes (LOL) general resolution, for Debian
everything is software. Welcome to the wonderful world the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Nov 17, Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is of course understood. But one could always upload to
unstable, AIUI. I am trying to *improve* the quality of the
distribution, not decrease it. The sentence was meant to stress to
I'd
El mi, 17-11-2004 a las 22:44 +, Brian M. Carlson escribi:
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
El mi, 17-11-2004 a las 19:27 +, Brian M. Carlson escribi:
[...]
Without wishing to start/take part in a huge flamewar didn't we have
a vote and agree to leave
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:49:21 +, Brian M Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This is an intent to mass-file bugs as required per custom. Bugs
will be filed:
And shall be promptly closed on the packages singled out
below.
gnus make message pgg
1) on packages that include GNU
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:26:29 +0100, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Nov 17, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And documentation is not software.
Since the editorial changes (LOL) general resolution, for Debian
everything is software. Welcome to the wonderful world the
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:20:42 +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
El mié, 17-11-2004 a las 19:27 +, Brian M. Carlson escribió:
[...]
Without wishing to start/take part in a huge flamewar didn't we
have
a vote and agree to leave such documentation issues until
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 22:44:59 +, Brian M Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
El mié, 17-11-2004 a las 19:27 +, Brian M. Carlson escribió:
[...]
Without wishing to start/take part in a huge flamewar didn't
we have
a vote and
On Nov 17, Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd say that it's not obvious at all how removing crucial documentation
because some people do not like its license will help the distribution
and/or the cause of free software.
I don't like a lot of licenses, specifically those that are
On Nov 18, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since the editorial changes (LOL) general resolution, for Debian
everything is software. Welcome to the wonderful world the
DFSG-revisionist have made for all of us.
You are the one revising history. When we voted on the SC, it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian M. Carlson) writes:
1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material;
These are currently not bugs (but will be as soon as sarge is released
and the Social Contract upgrade goes into effect); and indeed, I think
packages with GFDL material already
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian M. Carlson) writes:
The sentence was meant to stress to certain maintainers (who shall
remain nameless) that like to ignore debian-legal or licensing
issues that I would that pursue these bugs as vigorously as any
others and that I expected them to be fixed, time and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Nov 17, Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In case you are wondering about bugs in case 1), please note that the
GNU Free Documentation License is non-free in all its forms, according
to the informal survey taken by Branden Robinson of
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I object. Until there is universal consensus (either through a vote,
leader action, whatever) that GFDL material must be purged from main,
these bugs are wishlist at best.
Huh? Since when? Ultimately, the judge of licenses is the ftp-master
and maybe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Nov 17, Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd say that it's not obvious at all how removing crucial documentation
because some people do not like its license will help the distribution
and/or the cause of free software.
I don't like a
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian M. Carlson) writes:
1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material;
These are currently not bugs (but will be as soon as sarge is released
and the Social Contract upgrade goes into effect); and
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 01:42:57AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Nov 17, Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd say that it's not obvious at all how removing crucial documentation
because some people do not like its license will help
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 12:10:13AM +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
If it is a program, it is software.
And so my Python code that includes docstrings is what? What are
PostScript files? The line is not as easy to draw as you might think.
--
gram
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:24:11 -0600, Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 12:10:13AM +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
If it is a program, it is software.
And so my Python code that includes docstrings is what?
Software.
What are PostScript files?
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 02:05:45 +0100, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Nov 18, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since the editorial changes (LOL) general resolution, for
Debian everything is software. Welcome to the wonderful world the
DFSG-revisionist have made for all of
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 09:37:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:24:11 -0600, Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The line is not as easy to draw as you might think.
On the contrary, the line is not so arcane. Computer related stuff is
either a) software,
34 matches
Mail list logo
