Re: DFSG : Really useful?

2014-04-27 Thread Solal
The two documents are incompatible, and the DFSG is very laxist and do not protects completely freedom. FSDG protects freedoms : it resolves issues : proprietary software is totally banned, patents are prohibited, trademarks limited, etc. GFDL is free, because Invariant Sections are free if used

Re: DFSG : Really useful?

2014-04-27 Thread Sven Bartscher
On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 12:05:21 +0200 Solal solal.rast...@me.com wrote: The two documents are incompatible, and the DFSG is very laxist and do not protects completely freedom. FSDG protects freedoms : it resolves issues : proprietary software is totally banned, patents are prohibited, trademarks

Re: DFSG : Really useful?

2014-04-27 Thread Solal
The two documents are incompatible, and the DFSG is very laxist and do not protects completely freedom. FSDG protects freedoms : it resolves issues : proprietary software is totally banned, patents are prohibited, trademarks limited, etc. GFDL is free, because Invariant Sections are free if

Re: DFSG : Really useful?

2014-04-27 Thread Sven Bartscher
On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 14:16:31 +0200 Solal solal.rast...@me.com wrote: I see that you don't like the DFSG. But as already has been said: We are Debian and follow our own contract and not a contact of some other project/company. I think if you have problems with the DFSG you should propose

Re: DFSG : Really useful?

2014-04-27 Thread Dimitri John Ledkov
On 27 April 2014 11:05, Solal solal.rast...@me.com wrote: The two documents are incompatible, and the DFSG is very laxist and do not protects completely freedom. FSDG protects freedoms : it resolves issues : proprietary software is totally banned, patents are prohibited, trademarks limited,

Re: DFSG : Really useful?

2014-04-27 Thread Dimitri John Ledkov
On 27 April 2014 13:16, Solal solal.rast...@me.com wrote: The two documents are incompatible, and the DFSG is very laxist and do not protects completely freedom. FSDG protects freedoms : it resolves issues : proprietary software is totally banned, patents are prohibited, trademarks limited,

Re: DFSG : Really useful?

2014-04-26 Thread Dimitri John Ledkov
On 25 Apr 2014 15:15, Solal solal.rast...@me.com wrote: Why not just take the Free Software Definition[0] instead lose a lot of time in specific guidelines. I think use the Free System Distribution Guidelines published by the FSF[1] is the best way. Use the FSDG instead of the DFSG will :

DFSG : Really useful?

2014-04-25 Thread Solal
Why not just take the Free Software Definition[0] instead lose a lot of time in specific guidelines. I think use the Free System Distribution Guidelines published by the FSF[1] is the best way. Use the FSDG instead of the DFSG will : -Be more efficient instead of lose a lot of time in the DFSG.

Re: DFSG : Really useful?

2014-04-25 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Quoting Solal (2014-04-25 15:14:49) Why not just take the Free Software Definition[0] instead lose a lot of time in specific guidelines. I think use the Free System Distribution Guidelines published by the FSF[1] is the best way. Use the FSDG instead of the DFSG will : -Be more efficient

Re: DFSG : Really useful?

2014-04-25 Thread Sven Bartscher
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:14:49 +0200 Solal solal.rast...@me.com wrote: Why not just take the Free Software Definition[0] instead lose a lot of time in specific guidelines. I think use the Free System Distribution Guidelines published by the FSF[1] is the best way. Use the FSDG instead of the

Re: DFSG : Really useful?

2014-04-25 Thread Paul Wise
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Sven Bartscher wrote: nonfree [...], which we don't want to drop (as far as I know). Some Debian members definitely wanted to drop it in 2004, not sure about today though. https://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002