* Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-27 10:53]:
The following persons have agreed to serve on a committee regarding
the FSF - Debian discussion:
I wholeheartedly support the formation of this committee. In order to
foster the discussion, I am willing to pledge some of Debian funds for
the
* Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-09-28 16:35]:
A good candidate would also be familiar with debian-legal's analysis
of the GFDL. Any of N Nerode, D Armstrong, or A DeRobertis would
serve well -- Branden Robinson would, I suspect, be objectionable to
the FSF, and Thomas Bushnell is
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 12:19:33PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
No one has shown any evidence that the interpretation you're drawing
(in which Debian should laboriously find and purge itself of things
like a README.why file in which an author quotes heart-rending email
from his sister who
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 10:44:38AM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
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
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Slipping between two definitions can be used to perform a
rhetorical trick: first get agreement that All X's are Y's under
the common definition of X, then change the definition of X and
carry over the earlier agreement using the new definition. For
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 02:38:26PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
(emphasis mine, of course) you'll notice it refers to the program.
So these do not imply that snippets in the tarball are under the
GPL, because they aren't in fact part of the program. In other words,
it is not a
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 12:02:21PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
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
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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 to someplace that says
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:01:19AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
* If the answer to the above is no, should we distribute them
anyway, simply because we don't have them in a free form?
Hi. I think my first reply to this mail didn't get to my
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 12:02:21PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
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
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 10:44:38AM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
+LIBCHK END USER LICENCE+++
BY RETRIEVING THIS DISTRIBUTION OF LIBCHK, YOU ARE CONSENTING
TO BE BOUND BY THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ALL OF THE
TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, DO NOT INSTALL THE PRODUCT,
[RMS not CCed]
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 05:39:13PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
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
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 01:06:37PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
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,
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 04:00:36PM +1000, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
I would like to invite Don to participate in this committee. As per
the constitution (5.1.1), I cannot make him an official delegate since
he's not yet a Developer. However, Debian has always welcomed
Branden Robinson wrote:
I don't have any problems with Don personally, but I personally would
rather we had a full-fledged Debian Developer as our other delegate to
this committee.
i tried to volunteer[1] but i have not seen that message hit the list
yet.
[1] Message-ID: [EMAIL
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 01:29:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
That way there would be no need to regard this delegate as a junior
partner to Mako, and we'd have a representative who had gone through
the stages of the NM process, pledged to uphold the Social Contract, and
who is formally
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:35:32PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Not everyone that is a Debian developer has gone through the NM process or
pleged to uphold the social contract. I, for instance, became a Debian
developer after sending an e-mail to Bruce and waiting for him to create my
I wrote:
... we won't go on a snippet witch hunt, but we also won't
encourage snippets or even really talk about them. That would be
my preference.
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] replied:
I fail to see how this [argument] substantially differs from the one I
already made:
Well this
I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free
software.
I should have said the GNU Project rather than the FSF, since the
GNU Project led to FSF and has always been larger.
When the GNU Project started, there was no other organized effort
to make software free. We
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free
software.
I should have said the GNU Project rather than the FSF, since the
GNU Project led to FSF and has always been larger.
When the GNU Project started, there was no
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, I think this creates a bit of cognitive dissonance. So,
presumably, does Bruce Perens, who has called upon us to kick non-free
to the curb.
I mean, come on. We expect people to intuitively understand
distribution as something other than
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:53:21PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Well this is good. So we'd agree that, as a practical matter, we
should not file bugs about snippets, not worry about them, not talk
about them, and just leave snippet-related issues to the discretion of
individual package
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 10:44:38AM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
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
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:35:32PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Not everyone that is a Debian developer has gone through the NM process or
pleged to uphold the social contract. I, for instance, became a Debian
developer after sending an e-mail to Bruce and waiting for him to create my
account.
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:53:21PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
I wrote:
... we won't go on a snippet witch hunt, but we also won't
encourage snippets or even really talk about them. That would be
my preference.
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] replied:
I fail to see how this
I'm sorry, I really didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I thought
that was what you were saying.
You seem to be proposing that we deliberately close our eyes to DFSG
problems we may encounter, as long as the problem encountered is
small.
That is not my position! As I hope you would
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 14:53:21 -0600, Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I wrote:
... we won't go on a snippet witch hunt, but we also won't
encourage snippets or even really talk about them. That would be
my preference.
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] replied:
I fail to see how
The difference that I see boils down to this: while it might be
morally upstanding and forthright to investigate every file in every
package for the licensing terms and make sure that they are, in
fact, 100% Free Oats, this is a task of such size and scope as to be
impractical to accomplish
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That doesn't mean we regard people who were born British subjects as
eligible for the office of president today.
Some such people are, of course, since one can be a dual national.
The requirement is that you be a natural born citizen, not that you
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 08:12:25PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
| I think people are underestimating a couple things:
And I think that you are grossly exaggerating what are essentially
non-problems.
| - the lack of benefit of removing snippets (so far no convincing
|practical advantage
On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 21:12, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Currently we to my knowledge have one (1) package containing
dingleberries, which I will define as materials that we feel
must be removed for license reasons from the upstream tarball in
order to make the debian
On 2003-10-02, Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- the enormous number of snippets. I would be surprised if fewer
than 10% of our source tarballs contain snippets. Maybe a lot more.
In the interests of furthering the discussion, can I suggest limiting
the discussion further,
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 08:12:25PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
The difference that I see boils down to this: while it might be
morally upstanding and forthright to investigate every file in every
package for the licensing terms and make sure that they are, in
fact, 100% Free Oats, this
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 02:30:04PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Is Mr. Hill a frequent reader of debian-legal? I know I have not seen
him posting here.
I do not post here often but I read -legal regularly and am up to the
date on the issues.
I believe I was approached for a number of
34 matches
Mail list logo
