On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 10:00:13PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
But you're right that none of the notices you quote describe DFSG-free
licensing terms. Feel free to join the ongoing quasiflamewar in the
LGPL thread about the degree to which we care about that in the case
of Stallman's essays.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 02:23:40PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
WHY-FREE is not documentation! it is a manifesto
Okay. Would you draw us up some Debian Free Manifesto Guidelines and
tell us how we should relate them to the Debian Social Contract?
--
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 08:39:08PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Documentation *is* software, and therefore its licenses must follow the
DFSG; I thought we just decided that.
Please don't exaggerate. There is a difference between the statements:
1) Documentation *is* software; and
2) The
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 10:46:47AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes:
take some time to deal with, but it's not remotely difficult.
How should we proceed? Should we contact RMS directly?
Should a RC bug be opened? Note that we've been shipping theses
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:20:53PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
How does that follow from the definition of free applicable in this
context? http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
Just to pick a nit, that's not a definition. It's a series of tests.
The Free Software Foundation
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 03:42:24PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
what's weird is people applying the free-software concept to things
other than software.
I don't see what's weird about it.
# Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 12:48:20PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
* Whether it is useful or not as a DFWWWDG-free item is not at issue. If it
is not free as we define it, Debian will not distribute it.
...in main, anyway...
--
G. Branden Robinson| The software said it
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:13:51PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
there you go. you are attempting to supersede the DFSG with DFWWWDG
without any discussion among developers or a vote.
No, you are trying to supersede clause 1 of the Social Contract
unilaterally, without a vote.
We on debian-legal
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 06:15:18PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
You have turned the DFSG soundly on its head.
Unfortunately this is pretty common. A lot of people (just to pick an
example out of thin air, Isaac To on the debian-devel list) seem to
believe that something is Free as long as it
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 02:05:23PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
it is because of zealots like you every revolution fails in the end.
No, it is because of zeal that revolutions happen at all.
Most people are sheep, couch potatoes, collaborators, or wage-slaves.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 10:36:39AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On 20030428T234517-0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
so no, debian didn't come up with the idea of free software.
Are you trolling?
It seems that he is. :(
--
G. Branden Robinson| We either learn from
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 06:23:05PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Unfortunatly, it is because of the tolling rants of developers like you
that we cannot seem to get a consensus anymore. And we seemed *so* close
to a consensus on the FDL, and actually doing something too..
Don't despair. I personally
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 09:37:13PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
If we decide hey, let's not distribute them in main at all, I take it
you mean.
You don't have to distribute pristine tarballs. The xfree86 upstream
source includes some
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 05:59:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
You might like to consider some of the other documents accompanying
WHY-FREE, and their relevance to emacs or Debian.
CENSORSHIP - 1996-03-01 criticism of the Communications Decency Act
of 1996-02, which was
On Wed, 7 May 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 12:48:20PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
* Whether it is useful or not as a DFWWWDG-free item is not at issue. If it
is not free as we define it, Debian will not distribute it.
...in main, anyway...
Hair well split.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 01:25:34AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On 20030429T140523-0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
it is because of zealots like you every revolution fails in the end.
So it is wrong for me to defend what I believe is right?
I think Mr. Romosan is expecting you to
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 05:29:25PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 12:48:20PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
* Whether it is useful or not as a DFWWWDG-free item is not at issue. If
it
is not free as we define it,
On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 07:21, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 05:59:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
You might like to consider some of the other documents accompanying
WHY-FREE, and their relevance to emacs or Debian.
It looks like RMS used to use the official GNU Emacs
En réponse à Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
1) Documentation *is* software; and
2) The Debian Project treats documentation as software for the
purposes
of interpreting our Social Contract and the Debian Free Software
Guidelines.
I do not believe the former. I do believe the
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 18:58, Alex Romosan wrote:
in
no way, shape, or form do i think anybody should have the right to
edit somebody else's political statement.
Why? I can certainly see why they shouldn't be able to edit someone
else's political statement without clearly noting they have done
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 20:09, Alex Romosan wrote:
wow, what can i say?! everything is software!? an infinite number of
monkeys, at an infinite number of keyboards will eventually define all
that is software...
So? That's true of any set of works composed of a finite set of
elements. Sit them
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 19:34, Alex Romosan wrote:
i've read the DFSG now a
million times and all i can see is references to software and source
code. it doesn't say anything about documentation,
Nor does the Social Contract.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
so if it isn't code, and it isn't used to generate
code, or doesn't affect the build and run-time of a
program, then it ain't software.
OK, now define code.
Let's try an example. PostScript is a programming language. It is
Turing-complete (w/ the exception of finite resources in
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 05:09:05PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure, but for some of us, _software_ is a very broad category. For
me, it includes all works which can be encoded as a stream of bits.
wow, what can i say?! everything is software!? an
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Debian is about freedom. There are a set of guidelines which define
freedom as Debian sees it. This is the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Expand the name a little, if you like, to the Debian Free What We Will
Distribute Guidelines.
and that's
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
distributed in the same package. If you look at the Debian History
package, you'll find the statement that `The Debian Project was
officially founded by Ian Murdock on August 16th, 1993.', which
stands in interesting contrast to WHY-FREE's
On 20030428T234517-0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
so no, debian didn't come up with the idea of free software.
Are you trolling?
Anyway, the generally accepted concept of software in the context of
software engineering includes not only the programs themselfs being
produced but also all
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:45:17PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
distributed in the same package. If you look at the Debian History
package, you'll find the statement that `The Debian Project was
officially founded by Ian Murdock on August 16th,
En réponse à Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au:
If they're important for emacs users, why aren't they important for vi
users? If they're important enough to distribute, why are they hidden
away where they're impossible to find?
Anthony, what should we do with those files?
Should we remove
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 11:21:21AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
En r?ponse ? Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au:
If they're important for emacs users, why aren't they important for vi
users? If they're important enough to distribute, why are they hidden
away where they're impossible to
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 04:34:54PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
why should be distribute WHY-FREE? because it is our raison d'être.
Hmm, I would argue that it's the FSF's raison d'être, but Debian's
purpose does not always coincide with that of the FSF.
with out it debian wouldn't even exist
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 20030428T234517-0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
so no, debian didn't come up with the idea of free software.
Are you trolling?
no, i am not. i was just merely responding to the statement that the
debian project was founded in august of 1993 while
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 04:34:54PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You have turned the DFSG soundly on its head. In a world of
copyrights, all works are non-free *by default*; it is only if they
meet certain requirements, as detailed in the DFSG, that
On 20030429T104014-0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
no, i am not. i was just merely responding to the statement that the
debian project was founded in august of 1993 while the WHY-FREE
manifesto dates from 1994, and hence it was claimed that the social
contract preceded the WHY-FREE manifesto. i
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
If we decide hey, let's not distribute them in main at all, I take it
you mean.
You don't have to distribute pristine tarballs. The xfree86 upstream
source includes some non-free stuff, which is stripped out of the
.orig.tar.gz before Branden
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 20030429T104014-0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
no, i am not. i was just merely responding to the statement that the
debian project was founded in august of 1993 while the WHY-FREE
manifesto dates from 1994, and hence it was claimed that the
On 20030429T140523-0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
have taken upon yourselves to extend the definition of software, purge
the distribution of what you deem impure, and in general ignore any
opinions that don't agree with yours.
For this insult alone you deserve a *plonk*.
(To say nothing about the
Alex Romosan wrote:
now, this can also be interpreted as anthony saying debian was founded
before the WHY-FREE manifesto so the manifesto couldn't be our raison
d'être. i don't think it was either, since at the very beginning
(and i've been using debian since early in 1995) there was no
Let's try again with a cooler head...
On 20030429T140523-0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
here it is what anthony towns said on tue, 29 apr 2003 15:47:51 +1000
No, it's not. Our raison d'etre is documented in the Debian
Manifesto, distributed in the doc-debian package. Or it's the Debian
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Alex Romosan wrote:
* Debian is about freedom. There are a set of guidelines which define
freedom as Debian sees it. This is the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Expand the name a little, if you like, to the Debian Free What We Will
Distribute Guidelines.
and
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 08:08:01PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
According to Dylan Thurston (see #154043), some files shipped
with GNU Emacs could be considered as non-free.
One of them is /usr/share/emacs/21.3/etc/LINUX-GNU.
The problem seem to come from the footer which mentions:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 08:39:08PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
What do I think? I think WHY-FREE is a very ironic name for something so
non-free. It should be removed, of course. I'm sorry if RMS will be
unhappy, but the DFSG does not make exceptions if people are unhappy.
Documentation
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What do I think? I think WHY-FREE is a very ironic name for
something so non-free. It should be removed, of course. I'm sorry if
RMS will be unhappy, but the DFSG does not make exceptions if people
are unhappy. Documentation *is* software, and
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 02:23:40PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
WHY-FREE is not documentation! it is a manifesto in which rms expounds
on his views on free software. it's _his_ opinion and as such it
should not be altered. this doesn't make it non-free.
this thread is getting weirder and
Alex Romosan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
WHY-FREE is not documentation! it is a manifesto in which rms expounds
on his views on free software.
It doesn't really matter whether it's documentation or not. The
question is, is it free?
it's _his_ opinion and as such it
should not be altered.
However,
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 02:23:40PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
WHY-FREE is not documentation! it is a manifesto in which rms expounds
on his views on free software. it's _his_ opinion and as such it
should not be altered. this doesn't make it non-free.
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alex Romosan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
WHY-FREE is not documentation! it is a manifesto in which rms expounds
on his views on free software.
It doesn't really matter whether it's documentation or not. The
question is, is it free?
people, dfsg, fsf,
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 02:23:40PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What do I think? I think WHY-FREE is a very ironic name for
something so non-free. It should be removed, of course. I'm sorry if
RMS will be unhappy, but the DFSG does not make
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 03:42:24PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 02:23:40PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
WHY-FREE is not documentation! it is a manifesto in which rms expounds
on his views on free software. it's _his_ opinion and
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You have turned the DFSG soundly on its head. In a world of
copyrights, all works are non-free *by default*; it is only if they
meet certain requirements, as detailed in the DFSG, that we consider
them free. Are you saying that the WHY-FREE op-ed piece
Alex Romosan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
WHY-FREE is not documentation! it is a manifesto in which rms expounds
on his views on free software.
It's pretty clearly documentation of a point of view and a way of looking
at the world. There are parts of it which someone may want to use to
document
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure, but for some of us, _software_ is a very broad category. For
me, it includes all works which can be encoded as a stream of bits.
wow, what can i say?! everything is software!? an infinite number of
monkeys, at an infinite number of keyboards will
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Alex Romosan wrote:
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure, but for some of us, _software_ is a very broad category. For
me, it includes all works which can be encoded as a stream of bits.
wow, what can i say?! everything is software!? an infinite number of
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 10:20:50PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
But you're right that none of the notices you quote describe DFSG-free
licensing terms. Feel free to join the ongoing quasiflamewar in the
LGPL thread about the degree to which we care about that in the case
of Stallman's
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 10:20:50PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
But you're right that none of the notices you quote describe DFSG-free
licensing terms. Feel free to join the ongoing quasiflamewar in the
LGPL thread about the degree to which we
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes:
take some time to deal with, but it's not remotely difficult.
How should we proceed? Should we contact RMS directly?
Should a RC bug be opened? Note that we've been shipping theses
files for quite a while now.
Hmm, aren't Verbatim texts a special
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 08:08:01PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
Hi,
According to Dylan Thurston (see #154043), some files shipped
with GNU Emacs could be considered as non-free.
One of them is /usr/share/emacs/21.3/etc/LINUX-GNU.
The problem seem to come from the footer which mentions:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But you're right that none of the notices you quote describe DFSG-free
licensing terms. Feel free to join the ongoing quasiflamewar in the
LGPL thread about the degree to which we care about that in the case
of Stallman's essays.
If you think so,
58 matches
Mail list logo
