A few weeks ago someone was trying to argue that nobody would do
this, and that invariant sections were designed to solve a
nonexistent problem. Now we know the problem is not just
theoretical.
No, it's still a theoretical problem.[1] The above has nothing to do
with
I don't think that section titles are a problem--it would not be
hard to put them in a program.
In a *binary executable* ?!?! That's what I'm talking about here.
I am not sure if you are right; this might be impossible or it might
be easy. I have never thought about what this
If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer
would remove the political statements one could find in it.
Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot
be modified.
Mathieu Roy wrote:
Free, in think that everybody agree, but under which definition of
freedom? Does the DFSG definition of freedom that applies to program
(nobody question that) help us to draw the line at the correct place
also for documentation?
Many people, including the author of the DFSG,
On 2003-09-22 18:10:18 +0100 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
http://www.debian.org/vote/1999/vote_0002
Interesting. Did anyone spot that it seems not to meet DFSG? A
casual search with vote;logo;dfsg of
vote/legal/devel/user/project/policy returns no matches for the
quarter
On 2003-09-22 16:05:31 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because you are confronted with a situation where your arguments, that
you repeat and repeat, do not convince your interlocutor (me in this
case)?
There are two ways to argue against someone: present data or claim
that they are
Mathieu
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:38:18AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Steve Dobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
The Social Contract is about producing the Debian system and other
works that provide a useful platform for our users. The Operating
System is just part of that work.
I see
On Monday 22 September 2003 16:58, Richard Stallman wrote:
If, OTOH, your only goal is to persuade Debian to accept the GFDL
with invariant sections as free enough for inclusion in our
distribution, I don't see that such a discussion could ever bear
fruit without a concrete
On 2003-09-22 15:14:45 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does the DFSG definition of freedom that applies to program
(nobody question that) help us to draw the line at the correct place
also for documentation?
Trivially, all Debian developers who have passed PP should have
agreed to
On 2003-09-22 12:34:27 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, when I read a text, I have all the means necessary to understand
how the idea works. Not with a program unless I get the source.
It depends on the program, but if you have the source, you do not feel
that you need to the
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:58:27AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer
would remove the political statements one could find in it.
Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot
be modified.
These two
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:58:27 -0400
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer
would remove the political statements one could find in it.
Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot
be modified.
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A few weeks ago someone was trying to argue that nobody would do
this, and that invariant sections were designed to solve a
nonexistent problem. Now we know the problem is not just
theoretical.
No, it's still a theoretical
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If, OTOH, your only goal is to persuade Debian to accept the GFDL
with invariant sections as free enough for inclusion in our
distribution, I don't see that such a discussion could ever bear
fruit without a concrete proposal spelling
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:58:01 -0400
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If, OTOH, your only goal is to persuade Debian to accept the GFDL
with invariant sections as free enough for inclusion in our
distribution, I don't see that such a discussion could ever bear
fruit
[RMS not CCed]
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:57:37AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
Not long ago, people were trying to reassure me that if invariant
sections were removable, nobody would remove them. I guess not.
This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections
to be
Mathieu Roy, 2003-09-22 11:40:13 +0200 :
Logiciel is a correct translation of software in most of the
case. And there's no word to translate software in its widest
sense -- probably because nobody in France ever needed that word.
Note that the issue with software have nothing to do with
Mathieu Roy, 2003-09-22 16:50:18 +0200 :
[...]
In other terms, do we consider the fact that we cannot modify a
political essay in a documentation so harmful that we would prefer
stopping delivering this documentation?
That is indeed the question.
Yes indeed. And the answer, as far as
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think that section titles are a problem--it would not be
hard to put them in a program.
In a *binary executable* ?!?! That's what I'm talking about here.
I am not sure if you are right; this might be impossible or it might
be
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
None of these differences correctly classifies Hello as both a program
and documentation, as far as I can tell.
Hello is an example program.
Yes... and thus both program and documentation.
It is difficult
to deal with such
On Sun, 2003-09-21 at 18:33, Richard Stallman wrote:
If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering
more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent
copy along with each Opaque copy, could indeed be read differently
than the GPL. I
101 - 121 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
