On Tuesday 23 September 2003 09:24, Josselin Mouette wrote:
PS: Am I the only one with the impression every single thing must be
repeated to RMS AND yeupou AND Fedor Zuev AND Sergey foobar and any
other blind GFDL advocate who is told Debian is BAD, because they want
to drop FREE (it is
I've put a copy of the GFDL with descriptions of various issues at
http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/fdl.html . It's likely that I've missed
things, made mistakes or phrased stuff badly, so feedback would be good.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 11:15:18PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you have additional links to suggest, please do so in reply to this
message (replying to the list is fine).
There's also:
On Friday 26 September 2003, at 14 h 23,
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Compare:
http://web.archive.org/web/20021128102620/http://www.gnu.org/links/links.ht=
ml
with:
[ http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html ]
Funny, FSF does not mention Debian or FreeBSD anymore, but it
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 08:00:08PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
That isn't ignoring the DFSG, it's just using the GPL's definition of
Source: the preferred form for modification. If I use the Gimp to
make an image and delete the intermediate xcf files, the only
remaining source forms are
First of all, I would like to publicly thank RMS for engaging in a
sustained and illuminating conversation on this list. He has been
confronted with an outrageously low signal-to-noise ratio. The
thoughtful and well-reasoned messages have been buried in a mass of
counterproductive picayune
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
1. Is this MP3 file software or hardware?
This is one is definitely worse: you explicitely point out which
definition of the word software you think is the most usual, by asking
to refer to this definition.
Well, yes: I'm being upfront
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On 2003-09-26 21:48:48 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Is this MP3 file software or hardware?
This is one is definitely worse: you explicitely point out which
definition of the word software you think is the most usual, by asking
to
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Friday 26 September 2003, at 14 h 23,
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Compare:
http://web.archive.org/web/20021128102620/http://www.gnu.org/links/links.ht=
ml
with:
[ http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html ]
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Based on long-standing Debian tradition and practice, this is
decidedly and demonstrably not the case! Don and others were perhaps
writing in haste.
Can you provide a concrete example of such a snippet which is not
under the licence applied to the
Le ven 26/09/2003 à 08:35, Bruce Perens a écrit :
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 11:27:06PM -0700, bruce wrote:
I met with Eben Moglen the other day. I have some other FSF folks on my
list that I haven't been able to speak with yet, and will try to get to
on Friday. I want to talk with them some
On 2003-09-27 09:28:31 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, my definition of ad hominem is shared by ancient roman history
teachers -- excuse me but I think that this topic they deserve to be
trusted by comparison to these simplistic fallacious blabla webpages.
This makes so
On 2003-09-27 09:20:01 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you some background in sociology?
Have you some background in psychology? If so, you should know that
people try to pick the narrowest class by default and will likely
answer Is this MP3 software? with It's music. That
On 2003-09-26 08:04:12 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
0) Is printed Emacs Manual in bookstore a software or hardware?
Not necessarily either.
1) Is Emacs Manual recorded on CD-Audio a software or hardware?
Not necessarily either, but I forget exactly what CD-Audio is.
2) Is
it's extremely questionable to try to interpret
preferred form for modification as preferred form for modification,
or any form, no matter how unreasonable it is to edit, if the preferred
form for modification has been lost.
The preferred form for modification is not the form we'd like to
Hi,
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:50:37 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I have occasionally received requests in private mail for some links
to a document summarizing Debian's position on the GNU FDL as it
relates to the DFSG.
I think we need to have a position statement,
For instance, controling for bias
should be done once you already collected the data, not during this
collection of _raw_ data, if you do not want to alter too much the
_raw_ data.
You clearly do not have a background in statistics.
Unfortunately your point of view does not reflect
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 07:31:14PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
A /non-modifiable/ text could not be included in Debian, a
/modifiable/ one would most likely be.
is a load of hooey. Inclusion of snippets is not a violation of the
DFSG. Such an overly-literal interpretation of the
On 2003-09-26, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Back to the DSP binaries: I remember that at one point there were DSP
binaries included in the Linux kernel source. Is that still the case?
AFAIK, this is one good reason that Debian does not distribute
pristine kernel sources: the
On 2003-09-26, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The conflict is around the need professed by FSF to hitch political speech
to the cart of software documentation, and the fact that Debian, while it
may have been designed in part to achive a social or political goal, was
designed to deliver
On 2003-09-27, Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Based on long-standing Debian tradition and practice, this [removing
non-modifiable texts] is decidedly and demonstrably not the case!
Don and others were perhaps writing in haste.
It is long-standing tradition; however, whether it
There wasn't supposed to be a link to the Debian web site on
www.gnu.org, because it lists non-free software packages. Except in
the Free Software Directory, we do not link to sites that specifically
suggest the use of any non-free program, or that say how to get a copy
of one.
This policy has
Zedor Fuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will both consent and interests of users and unoriginal. You
can believe that personally You do not use any more abstract important
cases, this list software is not be counted copyrightable. Please for
the document by European copyright regime;
On 2003-09-27, Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Zedor Fuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will both consent and interests of users and unoriginal. You
can believe that personally You do not use any more abstract important
cases, this list software is not be counted copyrightable.
Barak Pearlmutter said on Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 07:31:14PM -0600,:
In a recent message to this list, RMS mentioned that people had stated
that Debian would remove all non-modifiable but removable text from
Debian packages:
If Debian does not, somebody else will, and I guess that this is
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
1. Is this MP3 file software or hardware?
This is one is definitely worse: you explicitely point out which
definition of the word software you think is the most usual, by asking
to refer to this
* Richard Stallman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030927 17:16]:
This policy has existed as long as our web site. The links to such
sites were mistakes; I found out about them as a result of the recent
discussion, but the removal of these links has nothing to do with
that; we are just following our
Quoting Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm sorry, but I can't parse this, nor the remainder of your post.
Look at the name. Evidently someone is making a joke in poor taste
about people whose native language is not English.
I have another explaination: he changed his identity and
The following persons have agreed to serve on a committee regarding the
FSF - Debian discussion:
Eben Moglen, Attorney for the Free Software Foundation.
Henri Poole, Board member, Free Software Foundation.
Benj. Mako Hill, Debian.
I am seeking another candidate from the
On 2003-09-27 12:37:52 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You must try to avoid bias when designing the data collection
Clearly.
This disagrees with your earlier comment.
What is called here controlling for bias is indeed introducing
bias -- a big one.
I did not defend it.
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 11:05:52AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-09-27 09:20:01 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you some background in sociology?
Have you some background in psychology?
He's French. His poststructuralism will trump your reproducible results
at every turn.
--
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 01:37:52PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Avoiding bias means trying to collect _raw_ data.
There is no such thing as raw data in this context.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`-
Mahesh T. Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I became aware of the concepts of free software, Debian, the FSF and
the real meaning of 'free as in freedom' on doing some follow up
reading after coming across other files in this very same directory
(while using another distro). According to the
Can you provide a concrete example of such a snippet which is not
under the licence applied to the entire package by the COPYRIGHT,
COPYING, or AUTHORS file and restricts modification or removal?
^(2)^(1)
(1) No, since such a snippet is *by
Please do not attempt to make the Debian has no principles but the
DFSG, and the DFSG is only a set of guidelines, therefore Debian has
no principles and can do anything argument, because it's nonsense.
Okay. I didn't make that argument, but as you request I will not make
it in the future.
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 2003-09-27, Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Based on long-standing Debian tradition and practice, this [removing
non-modifiable texts] is decidedly and demonstrably not the case!
It is long-standing tradition; however, whether it should
Mahesh T. Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Debian does require the *right* to remove such snippets.
rights specific to Debian are not DFSG free.
Absolutely Correct! When I said Debian does require the *right* to
remove such snippets I did not mean to imply that the right might be
exclusive to
Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Okay - that's not a bug because they're just little harmless
snippets which are informative and interesting, are not functional,
are *removable*, and merely accompany the package but do not
constitute an integral part of it. By long-standing Debian
Mahesh T. Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Debian does require the *right* to remove such snippets.
rights specific to Debian are not DFSG free.
Absolutely Correct! When I said Debian does require the *right* to
remove such snippets I did not mean to imply that the right might be
exclusive to
On 2003-09-27, Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, presuming debian-legal becomes satisfied that I don't
need to do anything about these files, I'll either mark this bug
wonfix, or more likely, close it.
Of course. When I filed the bug, I was under the impression that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 27 September 2003 03:31, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Debian has a longstanding practice of respect for upstream authors.
For instance, if the author of a GPLed program includes a statement in
a README please if you like this program I'd
Fedor Zuev wrote:
First, try to answer to several simply questions.
FYI, these are *my* answers, not necessarily everyone's answers.
0) Is printed Emacs Manual in bookstore a software or hardware?
The lump of paper and ink is hardware. Including the various splotches
of ink resulting from
Glenn Maynard said:
We can interpret DFSG#2 to mean the form closest to source that still
exists if we want, but it's extremely questionable to try to interpret
preferred form for modification as preferred form for modification,
or any form, no matter how unreasonable it is to edit, if the
Jan Schumacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] (using an expired key) writes:
Fair enough. However, all of these statements are removable, and their
modification is probably not prohibited by the license.
The flow of the argument was: one example of Debian's respect for
upstream authors is not removing
Mahesh T. Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Barak Pearlmutter said on Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 07:31:14PM -0600,:
In a recent message to this list, RMS mentioned that people had stated
that Debian would remove all non-modifiable but removable text from
Debian packages:
If Debian does not,
45 matches
Mail list logo
