On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 09:30:27 +0400 olive wrote:
There are in fact two things in these manuals. The technical part
which is in my opinion free and the small invariant political stuff.
My argument was that I just don't read and care about these small
political stuff that we are obliged to
On Sat, 2006-02-04 at 11:35 +0400, olive wrote:
Once again if a license clearly fail the DFSG I will never advocate to
include it. But there are a lot of case where this is not the case and I
think people claim that the license violates the DFSG just because they
do no like it. There is no
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006, olive wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006, olive wrote:
There is no rule which say that every bits of a file can be
modified; but there are law which says that you must be able to
use your freedom.
I'm not sure what else you can
(Don Armstrong):
Your interpretation would allow authors to identify any part of the
work that they wished as invariant, and then would claim that it is
Free Software.
([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I spoke on a typical GNU manual; not on every hypothetical work based on the
same license.
Well, I will give a *very* specific example of why I am certain they are *not*
on the good side of the line. The GCC manual contains an essay called
Funding Free Software. I believe that this essay is inaccurate in the
details, that it gives bad advice, and that it presents an unrealistic
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006, olive wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
When we discuss them, we can discern between the two cases, but
it's not appropriate for Debian to bend its own guidelines to allow
in works which do not meet the requirements of the DFSG simply
because we think it would be nice to
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006, olive wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
When we discuss them, we can discern between the two cases, but
it's not appropriate for Debian to bend its own guidelines to allow
in works which do not meet the requirements of the DFSG simply
because we think it
Olive wrote:
[...] But I still think we
must not exagerate. By modifying some files; like logos, the result
could really abuse people since the very puporse of trademarks are just
to properly identify people.
I acknowledge that, but they should be controlled by trademark licences.
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006, olive wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006, olive wrote:
There is no rule which say that every bits of a file can be
modified; but there are law which says that you must be able to
use your freedom.
I'm not sure what else you can reasonably interpret DFSG 3
Walter Landry wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way, there are licenses which in my opinion more clearly violates
the DFSGL and are nevertheless accepted. I think of a license of a file
in x.org which prohibit to export it to Cuba. This seems clearly be a
discrimination and
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 10:59:45AM +0400, olive wrote:
Walter Landry wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way, there are licenses which in my opinion more clearly violates
the DFSGL and are nevertheless accepted. I think of a license of a file
in x.org which prohibit to export it
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way, there are licenses which in my opinion more clearly violates
the DFSGL and are nevertheless accepted. I think of a license of a file
in x.org which prohibit to export it to Cuba. This seems clearly be a
discrimination and moreover it fails the
On 03/02/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You do realize that even the FSF does not think that the GFDL is a
free license? They just don't think that freedom is as important for
documentation as in software.
That is totally untrue; see for example: http://www.gnu.org/doc/doc.html
Did you more than glance at the page you linked to? That article
totally supports Walter's point. Not only are the freedoms to change
and to redistribute changes excluded from the page you linked to, the
page also refers to the essay Free Software and Free Manuals, in
which RMS explains why
Olive,
Sorry the previous point was confused. I think the PP was maybe trying
to explain that FSF does not claim FDL is a free software licence (and
also why they do not think all modification is important) but iDunno.
It tell that freedom to modify is not important for political text
(which
MJ Ray wrote:
Olive,
Sorry the previous point was confused. I think the PP was maybe trying
to explain that FSF does not claim FDL is a free software licence (and
also why they do not think all modification is important) but iDunno.
It tell that freedom to modify is not important for
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You do realize that even the FSF does not think that the GFDL is a
free license? They just don't think that freedom is as important for
documentation as in software.
That is totally untrue; see for example: http://www.gnu.org/doc/doc.html
Please read
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006, olive wrote:
there are several licenses which have some small problems (choice of
venue, etc...) and that are declared non-free; Debian should make a
clearer difference between small and big problems.
Licenses which do not comply with the DFSG do not comply with the
DFSG,
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006, olive wrote:
there are several licenses which have some small problems (choice of
venue, etc...) and that are declared non-free; Debian should make a
clearer difference between small and big problems.
Licenses which do not comply with the DFSG do
Olive's argument seems to boil down to that, in order to avoid annoying
people, Debian should
- allow consessions (new restrictions that do not benefit Free Software;
that is, a one-way exchange), if they appear minor. This is a chipping-
away at the standards of free software, allowing more
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:49:59PM +0400, olive wrote:
You seem to say that if a given license has conditions that would best
be removed to benefit free software then the license is by itself
non-free. But Debian does not choose the license of a given software; it
just choose if will
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 05:24:26AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Glenn On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:49:59PM +0400, olive wrote:
Glenn You seem to say that if a given license has conditions that would best
Glenn be removed to benefit free software then the license is by itself
Glenn non-free. But
The choice of whether to include a work is based on whether its license
is free. The definition of free is based, ultimately, on whether it
benefits free software or not. You're trying to bypass the process that
determines that, by handwaving wildly and saying but anyway, who cares,
it would
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 03:40:11PM +0400, olive wrote:
the open source movement and the FSF): it is astonishing that licenses
that does not follow the DFSG does follow the law of the open source
movement which are exactly the same ones!
So now we're being inconsistent because our conclusions
Wow--you're actually arguing that invariant sections are free? (I
thought we were talking about the less blindingly obvious cases, like
anti-DRM restrictions or choice of venue--too many parallel threads,
perhaps.) This isn't a debated topic anymore; Debian agrees with me
unambiguously (see
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let's conclude we do not agree. I respect your opinion but I invite
you to respect mine.
Note that this is exactly the opposite of what I've taken to be your
central thesis: that having multiple points of view damages the free
software community. I've already
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let's conclude we do not agree. I respect your opinion but I invite
you to respect mine.
Note that this is exactly the opposite of what I've taken to be your
central thesis: that having multiple points of view damages the free
software
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The choice of whether to include a work is based on whether its license
is free. The definition of free is based, ultimately, on whether it
benefits free software or not.
I fully and completely disagree with this, although you're right that
Debian's
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let's conclude we do not agree. I respect your opinion but I invite
you to respect mine.
Note that this is exactly the opposite of what I've taken to be your
central thesis: that having
You do realize that even the FSF does not think that the GFDL is a
free license? They just don't think that freedom is as important for
documentation as in software.
That is totally untrue; see for example: http://www.gnu.org/doc/doc.html
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Debian does not contain non-free. I'm fine with Debian providing
non-free software, but it's not part of Debian, and I like that people
are motivated to create free alternatives. --
People will be motivated to create free alternatives if anyone agree
that the fact that the license is non
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006, olive wrote:
People will be motivated to create free alternatives if anyone agree
that the fact that the license is non free. Do you really believe
that many people will be motivated to create a free alternative of
an OSI-certified license; which is considered free also by
On 2006-01-31 00:40, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:34:25 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free
software if
there were in accordance to the FSF.
I personally think that the FSF
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free software if
there were in accordance to the FSF.
I personally think that the FSF would do much, much better at defending free
software if they operated in accordance with
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 04:22:01PM +0400, olive wrote:
olive Nathanael Nerode wrote:
olive olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
olive
olive I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free software
if
olive
olive there were in accordance to the FSF.
olive
olive I personally think that
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:45:49PM +0100, Yorick Cool wrote:
Without taking a stance on the GFDL issue, I agree with the fact that
Debian should be cautious not to go to far in it's assessment of
licenses. In my view, a license can be free and yet not ideal, the two
are different. And I feel
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:45:25 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 12:52:00PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
[...]
Let's face it: Debian wouldn't exist without the FSF.
Maybe not. Neither would a lot of other things. That's a strawman
that doesn't change where things are
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free software if
there were in accordance to the FSF.
I personally think that the FSF would do much, much better at defending free
software if they operated in accordance with Debian. Debian-legal has
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:34:25 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free
software if
there were in accordance to the FSF.
I personally think that the FSF would do much, much better at
defending free
On 1/31/06, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free software if
there were in accordance to the FSF.
I personally think that the FSF would do much, much better at defending free
software if they
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 12:52:00PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 1/31/06, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free software if
there were in accordance to the FSF.
I personally think that
The advertising clause is:
All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the University of
California, Berkeley and its contributors.
If this causes problems, you can always
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:24:04PM +0400, olive wrote:
If this causes problems, you can always elect to not mention the use of
the software in advertising. That's annoying, but accepted. There's no
such escape with front- and back-cover texts.
It's also not at all obvious to me how
Glenn Maynard
The FSF has made it clear that it does not believe documentation does
not need the same freedoms as software, and has even agreed that the
GFDL is not a Free Software license.
RMS quotes for this position:
I am not sure if the GFDL is a
free software license, but I don't think
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That is at least an elaborate argument. I personnaly think that Debian
would do better to defend free software if there were in accordance to
the FSF.
I think you're completely wrong here. Monopolies are rarely good, and
monopolies on what free software means
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:59:07 + MJ Ray wrote:
Personally, I think we need the same freedoms if we ever want to
have sustainably up-to-date manuals for free software.
Indeed.
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 04:17:55 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
This is a concluded debate: Debian and the FSF are in disagreement
regarding standards of freedom for documentation. I'm glad that
Debian stuck to its standards, and didn't allow them to plummet merely
to follow the FSF's standards into
[ Bcc'ed to -project, -devel and -legal, any further discussion and/or
seconds on -vote, please. ]
After reading all the recent posts about the GFDL on debian-vote, I
hereby propose the following General Resolution and ask for seconds.
--8--
The Debian Project asserts that
Works licensed under
Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
[ Bcc'ed to -project, -devel and -legal, any further discussion and/or
seconds on -vote, please. ]
After reading all the recent posts about the GFDL on debian-vote, I
hereby propose the following General Resolution and ask for seconds.
--8--
The Debian Project asserts
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:52:56AM +0400, olive wrote:
Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
Works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as
published by the Free Software Foundation (GNU FDL), are free in
accordance with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG), if and only
if
50 matches
Mail list logo
