On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 09:46:47AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 01:08:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns a ?crit :
For what it's worth, we don't do that. References I'm aware of:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/05/msg00092.html
Le Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 01:08:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
For what it's worth, we don't do that. References I'm aware of:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/05/msg00092.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/05/msg00149.html
Hi Anthony,
thank for the links.
Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
thank for the links. So in the end, am I right to say that, since
the point of view of the FTP team is that RFC are software,
orig.tar.gz files which contain them fail to comply the DFSG and
therefore are not accepted in main?
No. Whether or not the
Le Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:35:15PM -0500, Peter Samuelson a écrit :
A lot of users appreciate our promise to read all the licenses so they
don't have to.
as I explain further, suddenly we have a user who notices, for the
first time, that the RFC (or Sun Java, or whatever) actually _does_
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 11:24:21PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:35:15PM -0500, Peter Samuelson a ?crit :
I fully agree with what you write. Indeed what I support is not to ignore
the RFC or other similarly non-free, non-programmatic files, but to
document them in the
[Charles Plessy]
On the other hand, does the effort of removing these documents from
the upstream sources has any chance to make things change in the
future, by either having the IETF freeing the RFCs, or volunteers
paraphrasing free versions of them?
The fact that Debian cares about
2007/9/14, Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This said, it does not make a big difference, apart from the packager's
time... But would I be asked to expurge one of my package, I would
probably consider moving it in non-free instead.
The nice thing about the current system is that whoever wants
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 11:38:38AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:05:26PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit a ?crit :
I think that shipping the non-programmatic, non-modifiable works in
non-free binary packages generated from source packages located in main
would better
Le Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 08:50:04PM -0500, Peter Samuelson a écrit :
We're pretty much at an impasse, then, so I don't think I'll reply
after this message. I, and many Debian folks, don't quite understand
the essential difference, between functional source code and
non-functional
Le Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:05:26PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit a écrit :
With your argument, gcc would be in non-free right now...
This is why it has been proposed on this list that original sources
containing non-free elements that are not part of the software could be
allowed in main, as long as
Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Much of the free software development is about creating replacements
of non-free component to build a free OS with free applications.
If so, that's an effect, not the goal. The goal isn't about creating
replacements, it's about increasing freedom for
11 matches
Mail list logo
