Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 14:13, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-09-23 00:45:52 +0100 Andrew Saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[2] Okay, this was just an extreme example. However: since I
personally
believe that, Invariant sections or no, the term Open
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 01:08, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 14:13, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-09-23 00:45:52 +0100 Andrew Saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[2] Okay, this was just an extreme example. However: since I
personally
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
I still did not get the point. Many many people seems to enjoy Britney
Spears. Does it mean that Britney Spears is wonderful?
Musical (or other) tastes are almost entirely matters of opinion.
Correct.
Many people in France thinks that
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Something can be popular and also completely wrong.
If you would have read the thread, or my opinions on 'open source'
versus 'free software' (consider this an exercise in Googling), you
would know *I
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 08:08:59AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
I still did not get the point. Many many people seems to enjoy Britney
Spears.
Only with the sound off...
--
G. Branden Robinson|I've made up my mind. Don't try to
Debian GNU/Linux |confuse
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:56:27AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lun 22/09/2003 ? 09:46, Glenn Maynard a ?crit :
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:47:26AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
IBM distributes the Linux driver and the binaries in a tarball that
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet, 2003-09-22 20:40:07 +0200 :
Given the amount of discussion this topic has started, perhaps
it might be a good idea to do it anyway, if only to reduce
the confusion for those who are not native speakers of English.
In the Debian Project, 'software' means anything
Le lun 22/09/2003 à 16:04, Sam Hocevar a écrit :
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
If the binaries were entirely written using assembly code, the binary
here equates the source.
This is very rarely true. Even assembly code has variable and function
names, comments and
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections
to be unremovable as well as unmodifiable.
To serve the ends of GNU, perhaps. But it doesn't seem to serve
the needs of the larger Free Software community.
It depends. If there a mutual one-to-one correspondence
between assembler line and DSP processor command it is, mainly, a
differences in format.
Most (almost all?) non-trivial assembly code contains things like
variable names and comments.
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.
And what were
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Debian project is dedicated to the Debian OS. Without this
collection of software, the Debian project is purposeless.
If the Debian project does not follow the rules that the Debian
project wrote itself for the Debian OS, the Debian project is
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My girlfriend photography sitting on my computer is not free
software. That's not something I think important to be shared.
And it can't be part of Debian as long as it's not free.
I'm not saying there should never be non-free stuff--only that the
DFSG
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:51:14PM +0200, Roland Mas wrote:
- un logiciel can even be used to mean a software program, whereas
the phrase a software sounds awkward to me in English (but then
again, I'm not a native English speaker, and maybe
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As far as the logo, the name Mathieu Roy isn't free in the
DFSG-sense. Neither is the Debian name. I don't see why the Debian logo
should be either.
I don't believe the logo needs to be free; I think the way it is being
handled is
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 08:32:55PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But Debian contains essays, logos, and licenses that cannot be
modified. These are not programs; are they software?
The
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I value freedom in documentation just as much as I do for programs. I
value it so much that I designed the GFDL specifically to induce
commercial publishers to publish free documentation.
You don't value the freedom to modify the whole book. You
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. But it is true that you cannot take
text from a GFDL-covered manual and put it into most free programs.
This is because the GFDL is incompatible with the
In chiark.mail.debian.legal, you 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.
If the *whole* doc was DFSG free, we would
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell proposed another interpretation, in which certain
things that are included in the Debian package files are not part of
Debian for this purpose. That way, you don't have to apply the DFSG
to them.
No, I did not, and you know it. I
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Many free documentation licenses won't permit use of the text in
GPL-covered free programs, and practically speaking, this means I
can't use them in any of the programs I might want to use them in.
Whether the manual's text could be used in a free
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You've asked me to explain why the criteria for free documentation
licenses should be different from free software licenses (or, as you
would perhaps put it, free computer program licenses). I would rather
ask why they should be the same, since they
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you are aware of the existence of unmodifyable essays and logos in
debian main, please file an RC bug against the package in question.
You seem to be saying that if our political statements, which are
included as invariant sections,
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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] writes:
But if they were only removable without being
modifiable, then yes, removing them would be the only way to include the
accompanying documentation while still ensuring that all bits in Debian
guarantee the freedoms that we require.
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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.
DFSG prohibits such unmodifiable
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Someone else criticized the idea (though no one had proposed it) of
giving the FSF special consideration; now you seem to be saying just
the opposite, that you believe in giving the FSF less cooperation that
you would give to anyone else. The
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Many people, including the author of the DFSG, have stated that they
believe that the DFSG was intended to apply to documentation as well.
The number of people arguing that documentation should not fall under
the standards of freedom set out by the
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think
it needs to be possible to use text from manuals in a program.
A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals.
And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as
text
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your casual suggestion to pick whichever seems better leaves out the
object: better for whom? For the Free Software community? For the
Free Software Foundation, whose goals are quite different?
That is a cheap shot, because it reflects
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.
Notice that the first person said DFSG
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
32 matches
Mail list logo
