Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
So, if you find a definition which makes no difference between
software and documentation, please send it on this list.
There is a difference, even if someone doesn't want to see it.
There
On 22 Aug 2003 12:04:55 GMT, Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Actually we don't necessarily need that much, separating 100%
documenation and everything else should be good enough, and we
can apply DFSG to the latter category (including 100% software and
partially software).
I
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 08:51:06AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On 22 Aug 2003 12:04:55 GMT, Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Actually we don't necessarily need that much, separating 100%
documenation and everything else should be good enough, and we
can apply DFSG to the latter
On 2003-08-22 15:48:05 +0100 Andreas Metzler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was merely pointing out the fact that instead of splitting in
documentation | greyzone | software
the separation in
documentation | rest
is easier (just two classes) and might be good enough.
That's not really relevant,
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
I see no need (but it is still possible) to have a very exact line
between program and documentation.
There's no need for such a line if and only if we don't make a
distinction between the freedoms that documentation must have, and the
freedoms
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:03:37 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
First off, sorry for starting off an old discussion. I've been away
for the past two weeks. [If any one cares, there are pictures
available on my website.]
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
So, if you
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
There clearly is a difference, otherwise we wouldn't need two words
for the concept.
Umm, the presence of synonyms is not necesarily proof of a
difference.
Heh. Ignore my statement. It's not particularly brilliant.[1]
If you feel so strongly
First off, sorry for starting off an old discussion. I've been away
for the past two weeks. [If any one cares, there are pictures
available on my website.]
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
So, if you find a definition which makes no difference between
software and documentation,
Don Armstrong wrote:
However, you still have not brought forward a definition that
adequately draws a bright line to distinguish between software and
documentation. That is, at what point does software stop being
software and become documentation, and vice versa?
I see no need (but it is
On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 02:42 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov
wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] There is a definition which says that documentation can be a
part of the software, but I failed to find a definition which makes
no difference
On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 19:02 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov
wrote:
Let's say there is documentation and programs which intersects in
software. Any documentation which is software differs from any
program which is also software.
Maybe, maybe not, it doesn't matter. Debian is free
MJ Ray wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] There is a definition which says that documentation can be a
part of the software, but I failed to find a definition which makes no
difference between software and documentation.
This was a nice try to change the point under
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
This was a nice try to change the point under discussion. It was not
claimed that software and documentation are homonyms, AFAIK. Instead,
Are you sure?
Yes.
Quote Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If we are to treat
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] There is a definition which says that documentation can be a
part of the software, but I failed to find a definition which makes no
difference between software and documentation.
This was a nice try to change the point under discussion. It
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This isn't going to stop the FSF from distributing its non-free stuff,
but we would have the free manuals. ;-) Also, though, it's going to
take quite a while to get up to speed. I am already planning to start
such a project, but I've been putting
On Sun, Aug 10, 2003 at 06:20:32PM +1200,
Adam Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 68 lines which said:
In the meantime I'll be content with the definition of software that
WordNet (r) 1.7.1 (July 2002) provides:
n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or rules
Adam Warner wrote:
PPS: Does anyone know of GFDL-licensed documentation that contains
significant verbatim quotations of GPLed code?
Yes. The libstdc++ manual is largely generated from Doxygen comments
in GPL'ed files. (But there are some skeleton files which are straight
GFDL, so it can't
Branden Robinson said:
I am pretty sure now that the best way to budge the FSF from its
deference to RMS on this subject is to encourage a defection from the
GNU FDL by the contributors to the GNU Project.
How do you suggest doing this? The FSF still demands copyright
assignments. And it has
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
There are cases, when we can easely distinguish, is it documentation or
program. For example, emacs info files are definitely documentation.
And what if a user wishes to link documentation into code? Do you
believe that it is acceptable to ship content within Debian
On Sun, 2003-08-10 at 16:32, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
There are cases, when we can easely distinguish, is it documentation or
program. For example, emacs info files are definitely documentation.
And what if a user wishes to link documentation into code? Do you
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
There is a difference, even if someone doesn't want to see it.
Is documentation that is linked into a binary software? If not, how do
you tell which bits are documentation and which bits software? If so,
how is drawing a distinction
Joe Wreschnig said:
On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 12:55, Joe Moore wrote:
You can extract the BSD-licensed code from the proprietary code, and
use only it. There's no requirement in the BSD-licensed code that
you must distribute proprietary code that it was linked to at one
point.
If you know
On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 14:37, Joe Moore wrote:
How is that harder with the FDL History section than with the clearly
marked BSD code, or the GPL-required changelog?
The document trail in History may not exist anymore (or may be
inadaquate); you can't just say Oh, this Invariant Section didn't
Joe Wreschnig said:
On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 14:37, Joe Moore wrote:
How is that harder with the FDL History section than with the
clearly marked BSD code, or the GPL-required changelog?
The document trail in History may not exist anymore (or may be
inadaquate); you can't just say Oh, this
Joe Wreschnig said:
On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 05:46, Joe Moore wrote:
Joe Wreschnig said:
On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 14:37, Joe Moore wrote:
How is that harder with the FDL History section than with the
clearly marked BSD code, or the GPL-required changelog?
The document trail in History may
MJ Ray wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about
...not cutting out all the definition alternatives that don't support
your position?
Definitions do not support me :( ;) I can use another one to express my
position. There is a definition which says that
On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 12:55, Joe Moore wrote:
You can extract the BSD-licensed code from the proprietary code, and
use only it. There's no requirement in the BSD-licensed code that you
must distribute proprietary code that it was linked to at one point.
And that is exactly the same as
On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 19:51, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
I don't know why you mention the GPL at all. You cannot combine code
under the GPL with proprietary software, nor can you have any kind of
invariant section in GPLd code.
If you define invariant section as a section of the software that
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
There is a difference, even if someone doesn't want to see it.
Is documentation that is linked into a binary software? If not, how do
you tell which bits are documentation and which bits software? If so,
how is drawing a distinction terribly useful?
--
Matthew
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 11:37:31PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and
Joe Wreschnig said:
If someone adds proprietary code to BSD-licensed code, however, you can
later extract the free code (assuming you have access to the code of
the now-proprietary program), and use it in something else. Once
proprietary (invariant) sections are added to something under the
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joe Wreschnig said:
If someone adds proprietary code to BSD-licensed code, however, you can
later extract the free code (assuming you have access to the code of
the now-proprietary program), and use it in something else. Once
proprietary (invariant)
Brian T. Sniffen said:
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joe Wreschnig said:
If someone adds proprietary code to BSD-licensed code, however, you
can later extract the free code (assuming you have access to the code
of the now-proprietary program), and use it in something else. Once
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
I'd gather that most of -legal isn't worried about the copyright
statement, license, or author's statement (which is the same thing as
the copyright statement) being immutable. Most of those can't be
modified under the applicable copyright law and
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
I'd gather that most of -legal isn't worried about the copyright
statement, license, or author's statement (which is the same thing as
the copyright statement) being immutable. Most of those can't be
modified under the applicable copyright law
On Sun, 2003-08-03 at 11:36, Claus Färber wrote:
Of course, someone can add another invariant section to the manual. But
this is actually a licence change, possibly making the new version of
the manual non-free (although it still uses the GFDL as a template for
its licence). This
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about
...not cutting out all the definition alternatives that don't support
your position?
Don Armstrong wrote:
[snip]
If we are to treat documentation any differently than software, we
should first define a ruberic that distinguishes software from
documentation. In all previous discussions, we were unable to do this.
[I cannot do it, but perhaps someone else is able.]
[snip]
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
*ALL* of these approaches are wrong. Putting non-software items into
the same box as a very different beast serves only to cloud the
issue.
No one as yet has come forward with a compelling argument as to why we
should consider treating documentation
39 matches
Mail list logo
