On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 04:40:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:53:56AM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
Except for the title, the DFSG is very content-agnostic. It can be
applied equally well to software, fiction, nonfiction, images, what have
you.
I think
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:30:56PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:47:32PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
people to
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/ch-common.en.html.
This claims the GNU FDL is acceptable, so it's worse than
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 12:23:16PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
Could you please point to the discussion you mention that makes that
content out of date? I thought I pretty much cover all the -legal
discussions to date at
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 02:07:14PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
b) people at debian-legal do not keep people at debian-doc up-to-date to
latest consensus wrt to documentation licensing (yes, until somebody who is
at -doc says please RTFM and somebody at -legal says TFM is worthless)
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:30:47PM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:36:13PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Bullshit. It is common for RFCs to be revised over time, and
formulated into new documents. This license prohibits agencies other
than the IETF from revising an
[Stephen Stafford]
We have a commitment that everything in Debian main is Free. Since
the RFC license is NOT Free, it can't be in main. This does NOT
imply anything about the usefulness of RFCs, merely about their
Freedom.
There seem to be two ways of interpreting the social contract. One
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 02:10:12PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Stephen Stafford]
We have a commitment that everything in Debian main is Free. Since
the RFC license is NOT Free, it can't be in main. This does NOT
imply anything about the usefulness of RFCs, merely about their
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 02:10:12PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Stephen Stafford]
We have a commitment that everything in Debian main is Free. Since
the RFC license is NOT Free, it can't be in main. This does NOT
imply anything about the usefulness of RFCs, merely about their
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:13:09PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
And I am arguing that there is no reason not to endorse RFCs just as
we endorse license texts. That last sentence is a personal judgement
that I would guess many Debian developers would find agreement with.
I wouldn't.
The best
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:54:20PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:42:01PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
I think non-free removal will seem more radical if it means that
Debian will no longer distribute RFCs on the
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 04:35:09PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
So, I assume that with that you mean that we have sacrificed one of our
core values as well? My. All this sacrifice is making me hungry. :P
Damn. That means some OTHER deity has been intercepting the products of
ritual slaughter on
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:03:11PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Debian really needs a separate policy for works which are not
software.
We could have a policy for non-software, but it should still exclude
non-free things. What you are trying
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:53:55AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:34:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
| The Debian Social Contract says Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software.
| If there are things in Debian that are not free or not software,
| then we may be
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:53:56AM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
Except for the title, the DFSG is very content-agnostic. It can be
applied equally well to software, fiction, nonfiction, images, what have
you.
I think that's a feature. Apparently, some people think it's a bug.
--
G. Branden
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 05:16:07PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
Fortunately, the situation you describe is unlikely to occur because few
people are perverse enough to make their software free but their
documentation very non-free.
/me falls into a fit of coughing
*COUGH*h
*COUGH*t
*COUGH*t
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are borderline cases, such as the GFDL or free works in
non-editable formats (PS, PDF, in some cases even HTML), or licenses
or other documents of perceived legal relevance.
I have argued on debian-legal that licenses as applied to specific
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 12:33:52AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are borderline cases, such as the GFDL or free works in
non-editable formats (PS, PDF, in some cases even HTML), or licenses
or other documents of perceived legal relevance.
On Sat, 2003-07-05 at 17:22, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 04:35:09PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
So, I assume that with that you mean that we have sacrificed one of our
core values as well? My. All this sacrifice is making me hungry. :P
Damn. That means some OTHER deity
On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 15:19, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Cameron Patrick wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:36:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
| Well, once you folks have come up with a definition of software, you
| be sure and let us know.
How about anything included in Debian? That way
On 03 Jul 2003 23:45:56 -0500
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 15:19, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Cameron Patrick wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:36:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
| Well, once you folks have come up with a definition of software, you
| be
On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 14:53, Cameron Patrick wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:34:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
| The Debian Social Contract says Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:42:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
And, incidentally, the specific issue you address has -- I'm sure you'll
be quite startled -- discussed at length on debian-legal. Maybe you
ought to check out those archives?
I'm well aware that some people have flogged
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 11:54:17PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 14:53, Cameron Patrick wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:34:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
| The Debian Social Contract says Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software.
| If there are things in Debian
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 15:19, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Cameron Patrick wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:36:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Oh, cool. How about changing in DFSG to Anything that can go in main or
contrib.
Because that's a circular definition. Saying
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:50:07AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:42:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
And, incidentally, the specific issue you address has -- I'm sure you'll
be quite startled -- discussed at length on debian-legal. Maybe you
ought to
Selon Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:46:11AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
RFCs aren't software, and so applying the Debian Free /Software/
Guidelines to them seems a little odd.
But...but...what if you want to make your own RFC 2661 by embracing and
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:46:11AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
Of course not. They're software.
RFCs aren't software, and so applying the Debian Free /Software/
Guidelines to them seems a little odd.
Hmmm...
Depends on your definition, really. They're sure as hell not hardware
or
Jérôme == Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jérôme But we absolutely don't want to do this.
Jérôme It is just like modifying someone else' speach and
Jérôme redistributing it without changing the author's name.
Jérôme It is obvious it should be out of the scope of DFSG.
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 05:16:07PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:19:59PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
You have some free software, and it comes with a manual. You modify
the software in a manner which suits you... but you're
Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
treated as software. Standards are not software. Standards do not
improve if everyone is allowed to modify them and publish the modified
version as an updated version of the
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I fully agree. Banning RFCs from debian is just silly.
And I wonder what's next? fsf-funding(7)? The GPL?
Debian really needs a separate policy for works which are not
software.
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So be it. The Social Contract and the traditions of our project
compel us to make principled decisions, not politically expedient
ones.
Not correct. Look at the handling of security issues. The project
has chosen (never formally, though) that it
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:19:07PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I fully agree. Banning RFCs from debian is just silly.
And I wonder what's next? fsf-funding(7)?
Yup, I'll go file a bug about that now; thanks for pointing it out. We
shouldn't be
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:39:46PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
So be it. The Social Contract and the traditions of our project
compel us to make principled decisions, not politically expedient
ones.
Not correct. Look at the handling of security issues. The project
has chosen (never
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Debian really needs a separate policy for works which are not
software.
We could have a policy for non-software, but it should still exclude
non-free things. What you are trying to say is Debian really needs to
include non-free things.
There are
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:39:46PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
So be it. The Social Contract and the traditions of our project
compel us to make principled decisions, not politically expedient
ones.
Not correct. Look at the handling of security
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:04:51PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
But how far goes clause 4? Obviously not that far that Debian
includes Java (for rather complete values of Java, which seems to
imply a certain proprietary implementation at the moment).
Which non-free Java implementations are
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:55:30PM +0200, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:04:51PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
But how far goes clause 4? Obviously not that far that Debian
includes Java (for rather complete values of Java, which seems to
imply a certain proprietary
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:04:51PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
So be it. The Social Contract and the traditions of our project
compel us to make principled decisions, not politically expedient
ones.
Not correct. Look at the handling of security issues. The project
has chosen
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 11:54:17PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
| How do you show it's not software? How does it differ from software?
|
| What if I take the view that Mozilla is an interpreter and anarchism is
| the program? Please explain how that differs from the Perl interpreter
| and Perl
On Thu 03 Jul Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña]
(For those who are not aware of this issue, please read #92810)
There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
treated as software. Standards are not software. Standards do not
improve if
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 09:45:41PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
Why not indeed traft a DFDG spec that includes licenses such as the GFDL
and IETF's and W3C's licenses, as someone suggested, and add a separate
'Documentation' section?
Because that has been already drafted. Not only I
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 06:44:57PM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 09:45:41PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
Why not indeed traft a DFDG spec that includes licenses such as the GFDL
and IETF's and W3C's licenses, as someone suggested, and add a
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:43:10PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
You have some free software, and it comes with a manual.
Your counter example does not apply to IETF Standards documentation. It
is not software.
In a more general reaction to posts on the list, to say an RFC is an
editable
Andrew Suffield wrote:
people to http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/ch-common.en.html.
This claims the GNU FDL is acceptable, so it's worse than useless.
It claims that GNU FDL sans cover texts and invariant sections is acceptable.
Cheers
T.
pgpFhyQTZaH4d.pgp
Description: PGP
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:47:19PM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
To require or demand that the IETF changes their copyright policy or
their publishing practices to cater to someone else's idea of what the
document should be used for is plain arogance.
Which is why no one is doing any such thing.
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:47:32PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
people to http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/ch-common.en.html.
This claims the GNU FDL is acceptable, so it's worse than useless.
It claims that GNU FDL sans cover texts and invariant sections
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:47:19PM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:43:10PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
You have some free software, and it comes with a manual.
Your counter example does not apply to IETF Standards documentation. It
is not software.
Then we have no
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:47:19PM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
To require or demand that the IETF changes their copyright policy or
their publishing practices to cater to someone else's idea of what the
document should be used for is plain arogance. Respect the wishes of
the original authors
On Fri, 2003-07-04 at 11:06, Cameron Patrick wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 11:54:17PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
| How do you show it's not software? How does it differ from software?
|
| What if I take the view that Mozilla is an interpreter and anarchism is
| the program? Please
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:47:32PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
people to http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/ch-common.en.html.
This claims the GNU FDL is acceptable, so it's worse than useless.
It claims that GNU FDL sans cover texts
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:36:13PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Bullshit. It is common for RFCs to be revised over time, and
formulated into new documents. This license prohibits agencies other
than the IETF from revising an RFC and publishing the result.
Yes, and the new document is given a
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:18:02PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Which is why no one is doing any such thing. Instead, we are pointing
out that the RFCs do not comply with the DFSG, and thus, under the
Social Contract as written, should not be included in main.
Yes, I read more into the thread
Brian == Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Couldn't you write a new document along the lines of This is
Brian based on RFC1341 with the following exceptions ?
Brian That way you can see exactly what differences there are to the
Brian known standard, at a glance,
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 04:24:20PM +0800, Isaac To wrote:
It is far from obvious. What if I develop my software, finds the
specification of MIME to be very similar to what my software does, but yet I
need to modify the things here and there so as to suit my needs; and when
documenting my
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 11:41:51AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
Couldn't you write a new document along the lines of This is based on
RFC1341 with the following exceptions ?
Tell that to the authors of RFC2616 :-)
Sometimes it's very valuable to NOT have people reading the old version
first, for
(For those who are not aware of this issue, please read #92810)
Since the doc-rfc packages have been moved to non-free, I have just cloned
the doc-rfc RC bug (#92810) and assigned it to some other packages which
provide RFCs (for a full list see the the bug report, but more might be
affected). I
[Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña]
(For those who are not aware of this issue, please read #92810)
There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
treated as software. Standards are not software. Standards do not
improve if everyone is allowed to modify them and publish the
On 03 Jul 2003 13:00:47 +0200
Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña]
(For those who are not aware of this issue, please read #92810)
There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
treated as software. Standards are not
(Please don't CC: me, I'm in the list)
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:00:47PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña]
(For those who are not aware of this issue, please read #92810)
There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
treated as
Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
treated as software. Standards are not software. Standards do not
improve if everyone is allowed to modify them and publish the modified
version as an updated version of the
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:00:47PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
treated as software.
That would be clause #1 of the Debian Social Contract.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Organized religion is a sham and a
On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe this whole case of RFC standards are not confirming to The
Debian Free Software Guidelines display a complete lack of
understanding of the value of standards, and should be rejected.
Standards are not software, nor software
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:51:15AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
That would be clause #1 of the Debian Social Contract.
Where do you draw the line between software, data and documentation? I
get the impression that you are reading Debian Will Remain 100% Free
Software to mean everything
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:00:47PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
treated as software. Standards are not software. Standards do not
improve if everyone is allowed to modify them and publish the modified
version as an
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
software
n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or
rules and associated documentation pertaining to the
operation of a computer system and that are stored in
read/write
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe this whole case of RFC standards are not confirming to The
Debian Free Software Guidelines display a complete lack of
understanding of the value of standards, and should be rejected.
On Thursday, Jul 3, 2003, at 07:00 US/Eastern, Petter Reinholdtsen
wrote:
[Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña]
(For those who are not aware of this issue, please read #92810)
There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
treated as software. Standards are not software.
If
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe this whole case of RFC standards are not confirming to The
Debian Free Software Guidelines display a complete lack of
understanding of the value of standards,
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:35:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
| So, what other non-DFSG-free stuff is it silly to ban? Netscape
| Navigator? Adobe Acrobat Reader?
Of course not. They're software.
RFCs aren't software, and so applying the Debian Free /Software/
Guidelines to them seems a
Le jeu 03/07/2003 à 13:00, Petter Reinholdtsen a écrit :
There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
treated as software. Standards are not software. Standards do not
improve if everyone is allowed to modify them and publish the modified
version as an updated
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:01:08PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Or else, if the standards are not free, let them in non-free. We're not
going to let non-free documents enter main just because they are called
RFC's or W3C recommendations.
Yet we let them in because they are called
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:46:11AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
RFCs aren't software, and so applying the Debian Free /Software/
Guidelines to them seems a little odd.
But...but...what if you want to make your own RFC 2661 by embracing and
extending the existing one, and redistribute it to
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:54:00AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
If they are not software, then under clause one of the Social Contract,
they don't belong in debian.
This has been debated several thousand times on -legal...
I don't recall a consensus that software documentation does not
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:14:49PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
software
n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or
rules and associated documentation pertaining to the
operation of a
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:23:14PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
That would be clause #1 of the Debian Social Contract.
Where do you draw the line between software, data and documentation? I
get the impression that you are reading Debian Will Remain 100% Free
Software to mean
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:20:02PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
|
| When the program is run, it gets put in read/write memory.
|
So embedded firmware running from an EPROM doesn't count as a program
then?
CP.
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe this whole case of RFC standards are not confirming to The
Debian Free Software Guidelines display a complete
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:42:01PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe this whole case of RFC standards are not
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:15:19AM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
I like this DFDG idea (Debian Free Documentation Guidelines) :-)...
Feel free to propose a General Resolution to amend the Debian Social
Contract. The Project Secretary will probably tell you to wait for the
GRs to disambiguate
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:46:11AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:35:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
| So, what other non-DFSG-free stuff is it silly to ban? Netscape
| Navigator? Adobe Acrobat Reader?
Of course not. They're software.
RFCs aren't
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:10:43PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:46:11AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
RFCs aren't software, and so applying the Debian Free /Software/
Guidelines to them seems a little odd.
But...but...what if you want to make your own RFC 2661
Sebastian Rittau wrote:
There's no need to. But I want to have the right to change a standard
slightly, and hand it around, telling people that this is how I would
have liked the standard. I also want to have the right to enhance or
even change a standard, and use it e.g. for some internal
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:42:01PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
Keep in mind that this hard-line stance of applying the DFSG to
everything in the archive will probably make it more difficult to gain
support for the non-free removal resolution.
So be it. The Social Contract and the traditions
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:12:02PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:54:00AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
If they are not software, then under clause one of the Social Contract,
they don't belong in debian.
This has been debated several thousand times on
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:23:14PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:51:15AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
That would be clause #1 of the Debian Social Contract.
Where do you draw the line between software, data and documentation?
Easy. I don't. I've
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:39:21AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:20:02PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
|
| When the program is run, it gets put in read/write memory.
|
So embedded firmware running from an EPROM doesn't count as a program
then?
Well, once you
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 07:21:34PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Well, of *course* we do. It would be idiotic and hypocritical to
interpret it as The software in Debian will be free, but the
documentation doesn't have to be.
We have historically allowed some free non-software things into the
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 08:07:59PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
Yet we let them in because they are called licenses. And no, I'm not
asking to be able to change the _contract_ between the copyright owner
and the licensee. I'm talking about the file. I'm talking about this:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:34:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
| The Debian Social Contract says Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software.
| If there are things in Debian that are not free or not software,
| then we may be violation of our guiding principles.
The anarchism package is an
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:36:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
| Well, once you folks have come up with a definition of software, you
| be sure and let us know.
How about anything included in Debian? That way we won't be in danger
of violating the Social Contract #1.
Cameron.
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:17:29PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:42:01PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:42:01PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I fully
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:02:59PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
If the separation between main and non-free is intended primarily as a
guarantee that everything in main is DFSG-free, and that no part of the
core distribution depends on non-free software, I completely agree with
you. To the
Cameron Patrick wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:36:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
| Well, once you folks have come up with a definition of software, you
| be sure and let us know.
How about anything included in Debian? That way we won't be in danger
of violating the Social Contract
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:42:01PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
I think non-free removal will seem more radical if it means that
Debian will no longer distribute RFCs on the basis that their
licensing is not permissive enough.
After years of
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:02:59PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
If the separation between main and non-free is intended primarily as a
guarantee that everything in main is DFSG-free, and that no part of the
core distribution depends on non-free
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:03:47AM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
(For those who are not aware of this issue, please read #92810)
Since the doc-rfc packages have been moved to non-free, I have just cloned
the doc-rfc RC bug (#92810) and assigned it to some other packages which
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:54:20PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
Without foundation, your remark serves as sloganeering, perhaps
calculated to intimidate or silence those who are simply viewing the
RFCs' licenses in an objective light.
Do you always read the most malicious and
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:23:14PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
That would be clause #1 of the Debian Social Contract.
Where do you draw the line between software, data and documentation? I
get the impression that you are reading Debian
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
