Michael Stutz stutz@dsl.org writes:
I think that any work (software or otherwise) that is not free does
not belong in Debian. Every work that is part of the Debian system, be
it book or image or software program, should be entirely free -- free
to modify or sample from, in whole or in part,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
Nearly everything in Debian contains invariant text, the question
is, when and how is invariant text a problem?
When modification of a work itself is forbidden, then that work is not
free. If modification of only part of a work is permitted, that
On Friday, December 28, 2001, at 03:23 PM, Michael Stutz wrote:
The licensing terms and copyright statement for a work are not a part
of the work itself.
If that is true, then arguably, then the same might go for the text that
the FSF says can be invariant in the GFDL.
Invariant
On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 12:47:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
That's quite correct. We're also discussing moving the Gdb manual from
main, and seem to have agreed that that's entirely appropriate.
N.B., an older version of the GDB Manual, corresponding to version
4.18,, is entirely Free.
At
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 03:26:49AM -0600, Adrián De León wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(What if RMS expands the GNU Manifesto to double its current size?)
FWIW The GNU Manifesto starts like this:
The GNU Manifesto which appears below was written by Richard
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 05:36:29PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
Just so I can follow the teams, is there anyone who doesn't feel their
position falls more-or-less into one of the following?
Thank you for this excellent summary :)
[positions elided, they've been quoted often enough]
BTW, I have no
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 11:16:57AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 11:07:29PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I don't have any issues with what you've said, but I still don't have
a fully formed opinion on the whole issue.
Is it just a matter of thinking it through, or is
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 01:39:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 07:19:58PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:31:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
That I do not support grandfathering efforts on these manuals doesn't
mean I'll fight them,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 13 December 2001 08:48, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 08:00:53AM -0600, ichimunki wrote:
Obviously if the FSF is intending to lead by example, they think the
Manifesto is a good benchmark for what kind of texts
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 12:49:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
You're, uh, just eliding what I consider the substantive and interesting
points in this discussion. That's not really very helpful. Do you agree
with them, and are you
I fear that one problem here is that I regard Debian as comprising
only the main archive.
Some people seem to have, in the back of their heads, that relabelling
the emacs manual as non-free is a mere bookkeeping change of no major
consequence, that moving it from main to non-free is a mere issue
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 07:27:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I'm still not clear on whether the GNU Manifesto [0] has a place in
main, and, if it does, what that place should be. I'm not sure where the
line should be drawn, except that licenses should be okay, and that it
shouldn't be
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 01:56:44PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
The DFSG was not written or intended to be an automated mechanism
which you apply to a software and you get yes or no as output.
Agreed; it's a manual mechanism which you apply to a work and you get
yes or no as output. A
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:02:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I can see justification for making a rule that one shouldn't have a
dependency on a package with invariant manual sections.
And what justification would that be?
If the primary motivation in this discussion is what's
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:06:30PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I fear that one problem here is that I regard Debian as comprising
only the main archive.
That's not a problem, that is correct.
Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:41:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's been discussed to death. Some people want to be able to include
megabytes upon megabytes of invariant non-technical
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:43:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:02:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I can see justification for making a rule that one
On 14 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Some people seem to have, in the back of their heads, that relabelling
the emacs manual as non-free is a mere bookkeeping change of no major
consequence, that moving it from main to non-free is a mere issue of
labelling.
I haven't seen this
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 07:18:37PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 01:56:44PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
The DFSG was not written or intended to be an automated mechanism
which you apply to a software and you get yes or no as output.
Agreed; it's a manual
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 14 December 2001 06:06, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I fear that one problem here is that I regard Debian as comprising
only the main archive.
So do I. That's one of my top reasons for using Debian in favor of other
Linux distros where
ichimunki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So do I. That's one of my top reasons for using Debian in favor of other
Linux distros where hardware allows (there are other reasons to love Debian,
but this is a huge one). To that end, I'd like to see main only contain
truly free packages (including
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:02:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
And voila, you're Cc'ing me again.
I know it's easy to forget, but ``Our Priorities are **Our Users**
and Free Software''. Putting docs for random packages in a package with
a completely bizarre name, and collating a
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FWIW, if I can't reuse a sentence from the Debian manifesto, I don't think
it belongs in Debian either.
Old BSD software (including stuff currently in Debian) requires the
addition of an advertising sentence in many circumstances. The GPL
requires the
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
What I suspect you're becoming confused about though, is thinking that
removing a package from the Debian distribution, and adding it to the
non-free component, harms users even slightly. It doesn't. It is still
trivial to get, still supported, and
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 05:12:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I think it's reasonable to judge that people who install a package
shouldn't automatically get something with more restrictive conditions
attached to it.
We don't have any such rule within main; for example apt-get
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
If you find the restrictions are that bothersome, then it's probably
appropriate to just put the docs in non-free. That's what it's for.
I don't think the restrictions are that bothersome. (Duh!)
I said that I could understand that some people
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 06:51:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Thomas, stop Cc'ing me.
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
What I suspect you're becoming confused about though, is thinking that
removing a package from the Debian distribution, and adding it to the
non-free
Stop Cc'ing me.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 07:04:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
If you find the restrictions are that bothersome, then it's probably
appropriate to just put the docs in non-free. That's what it's for.
I don't think the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 14 December 2001 08:37, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
What about things that are not documentation, but which the
documentation licenses requires to be included too? (Which is
actually the case we are talking about.)
What we are
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Then why do you want them put in some special debian-political package
which other packages aren't allowed to recommend?
I didn't say I wanted that. I tossed it out as a wacky suggestion,
which would rather put it to RMS by decrying his contention
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Well, not to be as pedantic as Branden often is, but I never said it was
just as easy to get, I said it was still trivial to get. And it is:
you add one line, or even one word, to /etc/apt/sources.list and then
do what you would've if it was in
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
It's a bit rich you saying this when you've gone ahead and ignored
everything in my mails that addressed these issues.
I told you, already, that such ignoring is not something
intentional, but represents a judgment on my part that something
seemed
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 07:35:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Then why do you want them put in some special debian-political package
which other packages aren't allowed to recommend?
I didn't say I wanted that. I tossed it out as a wacky
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 07:35:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Then why do you want them put in some special debian-political package
which other packages aren't allowed to recommend?
I
(There wasn't a Mail-Followup-To: header in the mail I'm replying to)
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:06:10PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Then why do you want them put in some special debian-political package
which other packages aren't allowed to recommend?
I didn't say I wanted
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
I'm not seeing why you're suggesting things that you don't want.
I'm looking for compromise positions. Is that a foreign concept?
Geez, I hope not.
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quote
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] [011214 19:40]:
[...]
Well, only for people on the net.
[...]
My layman's point of view from the discussion and the number of posts
you have made is that you just want to argue and others are obliging.
I also think that in email you need to pay
Grant Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I also think that in email you need to pay attention to everything
written. To ignore some fundamental point is a less than cooperative
tactic that delays the efforts of summarizing and coming to a complete
resolution that everyone can agree to.
I do
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:40:30PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I'm not seeing why you're suggesting things that you don't want.
I'm looking for compromise positions. Is that a foreign concept?
Geez, I hope not.
If you don't want it, how does it make sense as a compromise?
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:40:30PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I'm not seeing why you're suggesting things that you don't want.
I'm looking for compromise positions. Is that a foreign concept?
Geez, I hope not.
If you don't want it,
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 09:11:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:40:30PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I'm not seeing why you're suggesting things that you don't want.
I'm looking for compromise positions. Is that a foreign concept?
Geez, I hope
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
It would be helpful if you didn't repeatedly skip over the points people
think are substantive, even when they're specifically brought to your
attention.
I'm desperately trying to punt the whole meta discussion and the whole
meta meta discussion,
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 06:21:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
But it seems even more efficient to just oppose your proposal. Why
shouldn't I just do that?
Be my guest. If it's just too much bother for you to participate in a
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 12:02:23AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I ask you to contribute to Debian's progress, and not to impede it.
There simply HAS BEEN NO PROBLEM before. The GFDL is new, but the
principles involved are NOT; they are WELL-TRAVELED GROUND, and it is
Sorry, I don't
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 12:02:23AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I'm happy to cooperate in a constructive process. But it requires
you, the one interested in drafting proposals, to try and include the
By the way, you left a large portion of my mail unrebutted. Please address
these points. (The doubly-indented stuff is you, of course).
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why not look at whether the views being pushed are consonant with the
goals of the Debian Project?
Message-ID: [EMAIL
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why, particularly, does the Debian Project need to undertake the duties
of a newspaper's editorial board? Furthermore, who would comprise this
editorial board? Shall we ordain and establish a Ministry of
Truth?
I would be happy to simply have
Please do not Cc me on mailing list posts.
What does it take to get this damn message across to people? Do you
assume that No Junk Mail signs have an (Unless it's too much effort)
rider or something? If not, why do you assume M-F-T headers and the list
guidelines in the developers-reference do?
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Please do not Cc me on mailing list posts.
What does it take to get this damn message across to people? Do you
assume that No Junk Mail signs have an (Unless it's too much effort)
rider or something? If not, why do you assume M-F-T headers and
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 01:06:28AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 12:02:23AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I ask you to contribute to Debian's progress, and not to impede it.
There simply HAS BEEN NO PROBLEM
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 01:06:00AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Bruce Parens has already given his take on it.
Which was completely uninformed. He did not read the thread or
participate in the discussion. He heard second-hand that someone on
this mailing list was concerned about the
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 01:12:13AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I would be happy to simply have a debian-political package and leave
these questions to the package maintainers and the ftp site people.
There is no particular reason there needs to be only one package; if
there should be
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 06:51:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's something Debian's needed to actually think about for quite some
time.
Anthony,
I don't want to make any assumptions, so I'll just come right out and
ask:
Do you second my Final Draft?
--
G. Branden Robinson
On 12 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
What about a rant that goes the other way, about
how the GPL sucks? What about one that talks about why free software
beats open source any day? How about vice-versa? How about one that,
instead of
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 01:22:01AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
What does it take to get this damn message across to people? Do you
assume that No Junk Mail signs have an (Unless it's too much effort)
rider or something? If not, why do you
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 04:54:44AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 06:51:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's something Debian's needed to actually think about for quite some
time.
I don't want to make any assumptions, so I'll just come right out and
ask: Do you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 12 December 2001 10:04, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 08:15:23AM -0600, ichimunki wrote:
So perhaps this is a necessary move on the part of the Debian
community to get the FSF to clean up the emacs package a bit--
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 08:00:53AM -0600, ichimunki wrote:
Obviously if the FSF is intending to lead by example, they think the
Manifesto is a good benchmark for what kind of texts should be allowable as
invariant sections. For my part I agree.
Actually... in that case, they also seem to
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 08:00:53AM -0600, ichimunki wrote:
My previous proposal (REVISED PROPOSAL) would in fact have let the GCC
and Emacs manuals be interpreted as DFSG-free works. It was rejected by
other developers on this list.
Was this because they find texts like the Manifesto
Henning Makholm said:
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is what non-free is for, right? How is including the emacs
docs cuz we need it different from including netscape back whene
there weren't any free alternatives?
The emacs docs are ... docs. Netscape is/was, or at least
Thomas Bushnell, BSG said:
I think you, dear sir, should consider whether this whole
conversation--one you are the driving force behind--has done anything
to contribute to Debian's progress.
There simply HAS BEEN NO PROBLEM before. The GFDL is new, but the
principles involved are NOT;
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:31:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
That I do not support grandfathering efforts on these manuals doesn't
mean I'll fight them, either. At the moment, I don't feel motivated to
participate in such a discussion at all.
I think the fact that your proposal entirely
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 07:19:58PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:31:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
That I do not support grandfathering efforts on these manuals doesn't
mean I'll fight them, either. At the moment, I don't feel motivated to
participate in
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 01:06:00AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Bruce Parens has already given his take on it.
Which was completely uninformed. He did not read the thread or
participate in the discussion. He heard second-hand that someone
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Uh, it's the program you've chosen to use; it's no one else's
responsibility to make it match list policy. And hell, we've even gone
out of our way to use a standard header to make this easy for you.
It's not a standard header. But, hey, if the
Stephen Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm uneasy with this approach. Does this mean that any time anyone wants
to tie an (invariant, non-removable) political-type statement to technical
docs, Debian has to take a position on that issue?
No, I'm happy to leave it up to the developer to
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 12:44:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I said that the precedent of allowing emacs in main is a good
precedent, and that it was not an accident.
Cite evidence that people were clearly aware of the license restrictions
on the Emacs *documentation*.
Emacs itself
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 12:47:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it your contention that the DFSG as written DOES include this
important question? What part of DFSG 3 says that Debian doesn't
require permission to modify copyright notices
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 12:49:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
You're, uh, just eliding what I consider the substantive and interesting
points in this discussion. That's not really very helpful. Do you agree
with them, and are you convinced by the arguments?
Anthony Towns
Summary:
Per recent discussion on the debian-legal mailing list regarding DFSG
section 3 and provisions of documentation-specific licenses that have
been developed in recent years, that allow for non-modifiable portions
of the work (such as the license text itself) and mandate the display of
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) A copyright holder is permitted to (withhold permission to modify or
remove) (copyright notices) upon a work, or parts of a work, under
Parentheses indicate the way I'm parsing this. Am I wrong? This
concerns to copyright notices, right?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 12 December 2001 12:56, Branden Robinson wrote:
3) Works licensed under the GNU FDL meet the DFSG if:
A) there are no Invariant Sections[*]; or
B) the only Invariant Sections consist of license texts which
apply to a
Scripsit ichimunki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday 12 December 2001 12:56, Branden Robinson wrote:
3) Works licensed under the GNU FDL meet the DFSG if:
A) there are no Invariant Sections[*]; or
B) the only Invariant Sections consist of license texts which
apply to a work, or
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:17:49PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Yeah. I wonder where all the bits about individual good judgement
must be used went. It seems to me that Branden has reacted to the
objections that too bright bright-line tests are not a good idea,
simply by defining another and
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 08:55:49AM +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) A copyright holder is permitted to (withhold permission to modify or
remove) (copyright notices) upon a work, or parts of a work, under
Parentheses indicate the way I'm
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 08:15:23AM -0600, ichimunki wrote:
So the crux of this proposal is that emacs (a signature piece in the history
of the Free Software) at least be moved into non-free,
No, just the Emacs Manual. The editor itself does not appear to have
any license problems under this
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:17:49PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Yeah. I wonder where all the bits about individual good judgement
must be used went. It seems to me that Branden has reacted to the
objections that too bright bright-line tests are not a good idea,
simply by defining another and
I agree with the content of this proposal. I found it hard to read and
understand, however. I'm still thinking of ways to change the wording.
At least I suggest to change A copyright holder is permitted to withhold
permission to... to A license need not grant permission to This
way it talks
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 07:12:51PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
I agree with the content of this proposal. I found it hard to read and
understand, however. I'm still thinking of ways to change the wording.
At least I suggest to change A copyright holder is permitted to withhold
permission
Henning Makholm said:
I think I would be satisfied if we added something like
3) If a copyright holder withholds permission to modify or remove
other texts of a non-technical nature, the merits of including
the work in Debian must be considered on a case-by-case basis.
As a
Richard Braakman said:
I would also support a variant that allows some non-modifiable text,
as long as it is [insert definition of non-technical], and as long
as it can be removed. That way, we can distribute editorial text
(such as the GNU Manifesto) if we want to, but it doesn't impact the
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My proposal does not forbid the grandfathering of any particular package
in main. It also doesn't forbid making exceptions in the future. It's
an interpretive guideline. That means it's an analysis of how we
(Debian) actually apply the DFSG
M. Drew Streib [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is somewhat easy to sympathize with the FSF in this matter, since the
invariant text happens to be a free software manifesto, but what if
the invariant text were something else? Do you really want to carry around
invariant sections from everyone
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 06:27:53PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
I think your Final Draft does a really good job of defining a class
of Cases That Are Unarguably In The Clear.
I think it does more than that. Review Bruce Perens's last mail to this
list. He essentially tossed a stone tablet at
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 11:12:51AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Yes, but before I (or others too, probably) want to approve any
particular guideline, we might also want to know whether you support
certain instances of grandfathering.
Why does that matter? I am only one voice.
I wrote
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why does that matter? I am only one voice.
I wrote my proposal in such a way as to attempt to be completely neutral
about whether grandfathering might take place, or what might be
grandfathered.
If you find any indications of bias in it on the
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 06:27:53PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
I think your Final Draft does a really good job of defining a class
of Cases That Are Unarguably In The Clear.
I think it does more than that.
Probably.
My uneasiness is with
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is what non-free is for, right? How is including the emacs docs
cuz we need it different from including netscape back whene there
weren't any free alternatives?
The emacs docs are ... docs. Netscape is/was, or at least purports to
be, a program.
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 11:36:49AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
See, here's the problem.
You make a proposal with very hard bright-line tests. When people say
that's too strict, what about special cases, you say oh, these are
just *guidelines*; we can still grandfather things or make
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 09:13:46PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
It implies that accepting them would not be consistent with past
practice.
What about the past practise of including the Emacs manual in main?
What about it?
In any event, my proposal does not forbid the grandfathering of
Branden Robinson wrote:
START OF PROPOSAL
1) A copyright holder is permitted to withhold permission to modify or
remove copyright notices upon a work, or parts of a work, under
copyright by that holder. Permission to modify or remove copyright
notices not used as such (i.e., as examples),
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 09:13:46PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
3) Do you feel the Free Software Foundation deserves selective exemption
from the DFSG?
No. Some of the software they produce may deserve it, though,
independently of its being produced by the FSF.
Which is to say some
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 11:14:04AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Quite right. I think we should look at the statement, and decide on
that basis whether we want to carry it.
So, if I write a manpage for, say, mutt, and include an essay about
how the GPL is a much better licenses than the
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's up to you. Whatever grandfathering procedure you come up with,
you've got to sell it to the rest of the Project.
But it seems even more efficient to just oppose your proposal. Why
shouldn't I just do that?
I mean, if you want me to sign on
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 09:13:46PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Let me just concur with Thomas Bushnell's latest comment to this.
Which was?
Are you not bothering to read the thread?
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
And apart from these sorts of reasons, I can't see any good reason why
we should acquiesce to RMS's demands for the FSF's docs, but not to
J. Random Kid and his desire to push his views on the world too.
Why not look at whether the views being
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 11:14:04AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Quite right. I think we should look at the statement, and decide on
that basis whether we want to carry it.
So, if I write a manpage for, say, mutt, and include an essay
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 06:31:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The manual then goes in debian-political. I insist that
debian-political would still belong in main, but it might perhaps be a
good idea to prohibit other main packages from depending on it; they
would be required to only
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 06:21:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
But it seems even more efficient to just oppose your proposal. Why
shouldn't I just do that?
Be my guest. If it's just too much bother for you to participate in a
constructive, collaborative process, then I guess attempting
99 matches
Mail list logo
