Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is a document, and what is a program? How can Debian even begin
> to distinguish what makes free documentation different from free
> software when we can't distinguish whether a particular piece of
> data is software or documentation in the first pla
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:24:44PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > The FDL is not DFSG-compliant, but that doesn't make it non-free.
> >
> > By the definitions we have given "non-free", it is exactly that.
>
> If it was software, it was non-free. Our definitions are only about
> software. The
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:22:53PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:29:27PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
> > > user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
> > > if I'm
> How about: /usr/bin/latex is a program - my_neat_little_phdthesis.tex is
> a file?
Actually, /usr/bin/latex is an interpreter.
my_neat_little_phdthesis.tex *is* program code, even though the vast
proportion of the content will be literal text for output. See Andrew
Greene's BASiX (BASIC interp
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:22:51AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:15:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > In fact, XML and HTML (and I would imagine therefore CSS and XSLT) are
> > explicitly listed as transparent formats. I'm not going to argue that.
> > The problems, alt
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:29:27PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
> > user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
> > if I'm only using packages from main.
>
> The FDL is not DFSG-compliant, but
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:15:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 14:29, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > It's possible to draw a line. The GNU FDL clearly describes what a
> > "Transparant copy" is for example.
>
> Whether or not it describes what a transparent copy is is irrelevant
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:15:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> In fact, XML and HTML (and I would imagine therefore CSS and XSLT) are
> explicitly listed as transparent formats. I'm not going to argue that.
> The problems, although they're transparent, they're programs as well
> as documents.
Bl
Il lun, 2002-04-08 alle 00:15, Joe Wreschnig ha scritto:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 14:29, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for
> > > content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not
> > > sure, but it's definitely not j
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 14:29, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for
> > content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not
> > sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be
> > included as "documentatio
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:12:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
> > SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software
>
> Unfortunately this is becoming less true.
11 matches
Mail list logo
