On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 03:14:24AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-09-30 02:11:43 +0100 Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To be fair, the joke in poor taste is that we demand people speak
English
on this list, but my thoughts on that are
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:39:35AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
*** A snippet is a file in a source tarball which:
Oooh, ooh, can we put xroach back in as a snipet? Its not technical ---
its a small toy --- and its not free (as we found out years after we
started distributing it). Why
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 05:02:00PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 12:22:31PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Scanning all our packages for such snippets would be a truly
gargantuan task.
And yet at the same time you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) a tapoté :
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you want to criticize the FSF based on things you can imagine we
might do, I am sure you can imagine no end of nasty possibilities.
The only answer necessary to them is that they are false.
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 08:37:07PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
You don't even have to go through that much of a hassle.
Old-Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That could of been forged.
Received: headers can be forged, too...
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux --
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- Several persons of Debian stated on that list that they would drop
any political text of GNU in GNU packages they may maintain.
Not any political text and not just of GNU nor just in GNU
packages, but any non-free content in any packages,
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) a tapoté :
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you want to criticize the FSF based on things you can imagine we
might do, I am sure you can imagine no end of nasty possibilities.
The only answer
On 2003-09-30 05:25:50 +0100 Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This appears to be a variation on the If we can't all be rich then we
should all be poor idea, which I reject.
It's not. It's the level playing field idea.
Besides, I'm quite capable of finding ways to make fun of
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 11:01:33AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-09-30 05:25:50 +0100 Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This appears to be a variation on the If we can't all be rich then we
should all be poor idea, which I reject.
It's not. It's the level playing field idea.
Branded wrote:
I will both consent and interests of users and unoriginal. You
Да, Бранден, отличился :)
Интересно, что бы ты делал, если большинство разработчиков Дебиана были
русскими?
;)
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
On 2003-09-30 14:41:27 +0100 Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Да, Бранден, отличился :)
Интересно, что бы ты делал, если большинство разработчиков Дебиана были
русскими?
Very roughly, losing lots in translation: Yes, Branden, different. :) Would
you do that if most DDs were
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your thesis contains two contradictory points. Branden has responded
to one of them, citing the other, and pointed out the
contradiction. That is the entire point of his question.
The two points that are in conflict are:
1) These works were
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) a tapoté :
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you want to criticize the FSF based on things you can imagine we
might do, I am sure you can imagine no end of nasty possibilities.
The only
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 08:37:46AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your thesis contains two contradictory points. Branden has responded
to one of them, citing the other, and pointed out the
contradiction. That is the entire point of his question.
Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let's say we have a barrel of oats with some chocolate sprinkles mixed
in. Sifting through and removing all the chocolate sprinkles would be
a lot of work. But knowing that there are some chocolate sprinkles in
there (that no one ever worried
On Monday, Sep 29, 2003, at 21:11 US/Eastern, Thomas Bushnell, BSG
wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That could of been forged.
Note to self: when forging Anthony DeRobertis, spell it could of.
Damn it, he's caught on to my anti-forgery tricks! Now I'll have to get
a
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 02:54:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 11:41:52PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
[snip]
See above; the concern is not over any specific piece of code (in that the
only ones I can point to, I'm fairly sure the license can be clarified
for), but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
A good candidate would also be familiar with debian-legal's analysis
of the GFDL.
This would only be the case if we had to prove that invariant sections are
outside of the DFSG. I don't think we will have to argue about that,
it's pretty obvious. But
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) a tapoté :
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you want to criticize the FSF based on things you can imagine we
might do, I am sure you can imagine no end of nasty possibilities.
The only answer
On 2003-09-30, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 08:37:46AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
- Several persons of Debian stated on that list that they would drop
any political text of GNU in GNU packages they may maintain.
Mathieu, you're lying. Provide citations of any Debian Developer
doing so -- provide citations of a
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 08:09:25AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Won't communication inevitably be more difficult if you see one of its key
benefits as nobody is really proficient with the language? Some concepts --
for instance, philosophy -- generally require a lot from a language, and
seeming
Hi debian-legal,
I would like to know if the following license meets the DFSG and is ok for me
to upload the software to main(or if not, what needs to change). The software
is lsblibchk, a tool for checking the LSB compliance of a runtime
environment or build environment. The source was
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 03:24:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-09-30 14:41:27 +0100 Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Да, Бранден, отличился :)
Интересно, что бы ты делал, если большинство разработчиков Дебиана были
русскими?
Very roughly, losing lots in translation: Yes,
MJ Ray wrote:
Very roughly, losing lots in translation: Yes, Branden, different. :) Would you do that if most DDs were
Russians? (I see Yes, Branden, Debiana, russian and some other words
that I looked up.)
I'm impressed, MJ. The more exact translation will be:
Excellent, Branden. It is
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 08:06:12PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:01:19AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Burden of proof arguments are, at best, very trick to make -- I
suggest you not rely on it. Certainly I don't buy it in this case.
Unless you can actually point
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 04:37:42PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
So you are now retracting your original argument, and instead claiming
that developers chose to ignore this problem *without* investigating
the details? In future please state your two-line arguments instead of
using eight-line
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 05:38:19PM +0200, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
The problem is that Debian has made an explicit promise that it will
remain 100% Pure Oats, and that its priorities are its users and the
Pure Oats community. Should we ignore the needs of users who have chosen
Debian
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
- Several persons of Debian stated on that list that they would drop
any political text of GNU in GNU packages they may maintain.
Mathieu, you're lying. Provide citations of any Debian Developer
Le mar 30/09/2003 à 19:38, Fedor Zuev a écrit :
What I *have* seen is assertions that removable-but-not-modifiable
text should be removed, as it is not DFSG-free.
Do you know many political texts of GNU, which is freely
modifiable?
Do you know about something interesting to say?
--
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:32:20 -0500, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:37:37 + (UTC)
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure going point-by-point through the text of the license
is the best way to proceed; I feel like the main point gets a
Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem is that Debian has made an explicit promise that it will
remain 100% Pure Oats ...
We're getting into semantics here, to some extent.
The DFSG talks about software. It is referring to software as the
term is usually understood in
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2003-09-30 05:25:50 +0100 Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This appears to be a variation on the If we can't all be rich then we
should all be poor idea, which I reject.
It's not. It's the level playing field idea.
It's not level.
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unless you can find some evidence in the -private archives that the GNU
Manifesto was specifically mentioned and a conclusion reached, I
I do agree that history, and precedent, and the practices of others,
are a weak guide. But we should not ignore
b) if you wish to make changes as defined in clause 2 and 3, and
distribute a modified version of this package, then
clauses 3c and 4c are required
This seems to me to be problematic. Normally the Artistic License is OK
because 3a and 4b provide a very simple, free
Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
The phrasing of almost all license boilerplate
(eg the GPL boilerplate) allows them.
Nothing licensed under the GPL can be non-modifiable. So I'm not sure what
you mean by this
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
[No MFT was set, so not Cc:'ing...]
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Matt Taggart wrote:
libchk End User Licence
___
[SNIP]
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the Artistic License which comes with this
Kit, with the following
You are criticizing Debian based on things you can imagine we might
do, and have imagined no end of nasty possibilities.
I have hardly criticized Debian at all in this discussion. I was
trying to convince Debian developers that they should regard
GFDL-covered manuals as free.
I have
The Free Software Foundation built the free software community,
years before Debian was started,
This is at least much of a nasty cheap shot as what I said. And
you've done it before.
It is not a shot at all. I was defending the FSF from an
accusation, not attacking Debian.
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
The phrasing of almost all license boilerplate
(eg the GPL boilerplate) allows them.
Nothing licensed under the GPL can be non-modifiable. So I'm not sure
what you mean by this
Okay, it's a rather technical point.
If you look at the
The word software as used in general discourse is quite specific.
Examples: software engineer, database software, software
development tools, Free Software Foundation, software market,
proprietary software, real-time software, software productivity
metrics, software testing, etc. To whit:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 12:02:21PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
It's not level. Esperanto is much easier for those who already know
the language. The only level playing field would be to choose a
language that *nobody* already speaks fluently. Perhaps, say,
Klingon?
Nope, Klingon
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you know many modern (not public domain) political texts
of any source, which is freely [unlimited] modifiable?
When I first ran across the GPL, it was such a surprising license
that I printed it out and showed it to a friend (who was less
impressed.)
On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 16:58, D. Starner wrote:
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you know many modern (not public domain) political texts
of any source, which is freely [unlimited] modifiable?
When I first ran across the GPL, it was such a surprising license
that I printed it out
Sorry it's taken so long to respond, looks like I missed this mail when my
mailserver was down.
Thanks for the input. I've spoken with Alan Schwartz and there will be adding
the full history to the copyright file with the next release. He is also going
to look at the differences between the
Joel Baker wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 02:54:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[snip]
If some copyright holder somwhere feels his privileges are being
infringed, then the onus is on them to bring the issue to our attention.
We have been anything but careless. I do not think it is
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I didn't say that. I said we built the community, which we did by
pushing for free software when nobody else did. Of course, many
others have contributed since then.
I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free
software.
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have only criticized Debian for one thing, and that is the practice
of distributing non-free software (programs). This is something
Debian has done for many years, not something I imagine it might do.
I don't think you understand the distinction
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 05:41:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
We've already had this survey. Can you perhaps say why you are taking
yet another, why you think the conclusions might be different, and
what you think the survey is intended to show?
I believe he was responding to the
50 matches
Mail list logo
