On 2003-08-27 18:23:49 +0100 Josselin Mouette
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alfie's post reminds me that I need clarification on some point: the
fact that the Debian logo, which is shipped within many of our
packages,
is not DFSG-free.
I agree. This seems not to be free software, as it tries
On 2003-08-27 21:14:42 +0100 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I would only suggest s/text/content/, so that non-texual material
(illustrations and so forth) are also unambiguously covered.
content is rather, uh, vague. How about going the whole hog and
doing s/read/enjoy/ in the
On 2003-08-28 01:28:54 +0100 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Enjoy is not a term I would use to describe the process of
experiencing, say, Derrida's _Limited Inc._, but if that work were
freely licensed, I would certainly be able to access, read, and
otherwise use it.
The trouble is
On 2003-08-27 22:19:06 +0100 Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nevertheless, lack of something that can be pointed to as official
[...]
Have ftpmasters rejected any FDL-licensed works yet?
[...] Otherwise, vital packages like glibc are going to have
release-critical bugs.
Don't they
On 2003-08-27 22:17:27 +0100 David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For example, the computer software become copyrightable only
in the late 70-s - early 90-s, after 30+ years of free existense.
And if that were not true, it's unlikely we'd have the
On 2003-08-28 03:41:47 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use documentation in the strictest sense here
[...] free publication license. Sorry for the confusion.
Documentation is not a subset of publication to you? A new twist
on an old flamefest.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only
On 2003-08-28 09:55:58 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Comment: documentation is not software, and DFSG is made with software
in mind. [...]
Please read
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg00690.html
for more information on what was in mind when DFSG
On 2003-08-28 17:30:36 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I _have_ read the history. But in spite of Bruce words the DFSG just
doesn't apply plainly to e.g. documentation. [...]
You said DFSG is made with software in mind and implied that
documentation is not a subset of software.
On 2003-08-28 21:51:41 +0100 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Op do 28-08-2003, om 20:02 schreef MJ Ray:
Ye gods! Who knew that software was such a contentious word?
Agreed. Perhaps we should...
... Oh, wait. I already suggested we'd do so.
...and I said yes, but you should do
On 2003-08-28 19:40:08 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030828 20:35]:
What's your threshold of statistical significance? I'd like to know
for
the purposes of commentary on my final survey reponse summary,
which I
can produce about 12 hours
On 2003-08-29 14:28:54 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
1/ The statement that you were objecting to here does not use we
at all, so defining we is irrelevant.
I replied to Josselin who wrote the following:
If providing any sort of crap
On 2003-08-29 14:57:26 +0100 Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is only meaningful if the sample is unbiased.
Oh, that's a bit strong. It would still have some meaning, just not
one that's useful ;-) The question is: is it an unbiased sample of
those who would vote in a GR on this
On 2003-08-29 15:36:42 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are several issues.
- This survey was made during aout, where more than usually people can
be on vacation -- yeah, I was :)
I was on holiday for some of August too. I suspect that is
uncorrelated with views on FDL.
numbers of possible outcomes. My initial suggestion of
chi-squared would have tested for a relationship between
developer/non-developer and the option chosen, which might be
interesting, but wasn't asked for.
About the author: MJ Ray was awarded a Bachelor of Science degree in
Mathematics with first
On 2003-08-29 16:09:45 +0100 MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] I can't see either happening.
Should have read either change. Sorry to point it out, but there
are some picky people in this thread.
On 2003-08-29 14:17:12 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm completely capable to read a book and make a summary, make a
speech about it ... there's no way to forbid that - since I have the
freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
That is not a derived work. You can use proprietary
On 2003-08-29 13:52:39 +0100 Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only way you can write your own text based on the old one is if
the license permits you to do so. [...]
And we can have a fun debate about whether you can still call that
plagiarism but it's not really relevant to
On 2003-08-29 15:53:09 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because the DFSG is not DFSG compliant.
AFAICT, the DFSG is under the OPL with no options enabled and that
licence is considered DFSG-free. Am I missing something?
On 2003-08-29 15:09:53 +0100 Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The discussion _has_ been finished for quite a while. All we are
seeing now is people who haven't bothered to read the last few years
of debian-legal.
Apologies for my part in that. I think it does take some effort to
see
Please stop cc'ing me. Read the code of conduct.
On 2003-08-29 17:32:33 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But describing a software is not the most interesting thing. While
describing and analysing a book is the most interesting thing you can
do with a book (apart from reading it,
On 2003-08-29 18:57:16 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can't your mailer delete duplicate?
Yes.
I do not want to be guessing
whether the person I'm replying to subscribed to the list each time I
send a mail to the list.
You do not have to. Read the code of conduct. You also
On 2003-08-29 09:44:58 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
Just a small reminder that you've not presented such a law yet (at
all, I think, and definitely not that we've had independently
verified). Some treat computer programs differently
On 2003-08-29 13:03:28 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On 2003-08-29 12:04:18 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Readers of this list (not only developers) have stated their strong
belief that the GFDL does not follow the DFSG.
I'm
On 2003-08-29 22:54:27 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Talking of licenses when thinking about how manuals and software can
be different or not complicates the debate more than I thought. [...]
No-one disagrees that they can be different, but you disagree that
they can be the same.
On 2003-08-29 19:05:58 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please point out which parts of Emacs documentation are
invariant. If I'm not mistaking, these parts express some personal
feelings. Personals feelings are not something that can be enhanced by
someone else.
I'm not convinced.
On 2003-08-29 19:36:24 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and so you can regive his speech (you can use the exact same wording
if you want).
I am pretty sure that you are wrong on this, too. Sorry.
On 2003-08-29 20:52:27 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To make this message more clear to the people on that list: Josselin
usually criticize every messages I post he seen on the website
I think some of this list would like to say: LEAVE YOUR HANDBAGS AT
THE DOOR. This list is
On 2003-08-29 22:49:57 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are not about to list
which laws you can broke by doing that but whether the freedom the
GFDL
brings are enough or not.
Enough for what? We've concluded that it's not enough to be included
in Debian under the current
On 2003-08-29 21:01:40 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
May I for instance take a copy of Debian and redistribute it by
_only_
changing the DFSG text, adding a line saying that the GFDL qualified
documentation as free documentation?
Probably (modulo any trademark guff), but if you
On 2003-08-29 21:37:12 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact that Richard do not see freedom for documentation like
proeminent people of Debian do not mean that Richard is corrupted.
I have to agree with you here. I'm don't think that the fundamentals
of Richard's position on
On 2003-08-30 10:44:07 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I said before, I think the GFDL provide the freedom that matters
for a documentation.
I agree with you for the documentation part, but I don't think it
gives the freedom that matters for the whole work and that's needed.
On 2003-08-30 12:19:04 +0100 Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Don't forget to pick up How to lie with statistics while you're at
it; nobody should be allowed to listen to statistics without having
read it at least once.
Oh, I didn't want to encourage people to start using the tricks in
Hi,
A few comments.
On 2003-08-30 09:46:45 +0100 Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- additionaly, the GFDL is not GPL-compatible so one cannot mix GFDL
_works_ and GPL _works_
This is actually beside the point, I think.
I'll personaly never been in favour of a big GFDL documentation
On 2003-08-30 16:08:03 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's up to the author of the documentation to decide what he thinks
important to be in the documentation he's writing.
If you think that, how about: it was up to the authors of the DFSG to
decide what it applies to.
[...]
On 2003-08-30 23:27:44 +0100 Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...and I said yes, but you should do it properly and define all the
words,
just to be on the safe side. Got anything new to say, or is the day
stuck
again?
If someone proposes to go out for a walk because it's such a
On 2003-08-31 09:45:01 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you classify some forms of political statement as more worthwhile?
Which political statements should Debian accept? Which should it
reject?
Debian already accept political statements. Please, a social
contract
cannot be
On 2003-09-01 03:22:33 +0100 Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sections, and spread misinformation about non-free software we
distribute.
To accuse someone of dishonesty is a grave accusation.
To accuse someone of accusing someone of dishonesty is pretty serious,
too. You
On 2003-09-01 14:50:40 +0100 Mika Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) If one includes public-domain material in a GPL work, does one have
to state what material is in the public domain?
I'm not sure, but would say yes.
2) Are there any GPL-compatibility issues when the data is licensed
On 2003-09-01 17:00:57 +0100 Mika Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL
indirectly implies that public domain code does not have to be marked
as
such.
Yes, as long as you are comfortable with the appearance of GPLing it,
which
On 2003-09-01 17:42:28 +0100 Mika Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bah. It also applies in general to all software.
Is data a subset of software?
In general, no. In this case, yes, assuming we are only talking about
things that will be uploaded to Debian.
[...]
Thanks, but it's probably
On 2003-09-09 07:22:57 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another one would be from Debian to make a difference between non-free
software and non-DFSG compliant documentation.
To do this, a precise partition between documentation and software
would need to exist. Because they have a
On 2003-09-09 10:11:19 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not *in* Debian, but *shipped by* Debian. For you, there's no
distinction between GNU Emacs manual and Macromedia Flash?
Not in the way under discussion here: neither is free software.
This is not at all absurd. When you tell
On 2003-09-09 12:26:23 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If nobody here see any distinction between the GNU Emacs manual and
Macromedia Flash, I do not think that an agreement can still be
possible.
That was not what was said. Likewise, if no-one can see the
similarities, I do not
On 2003-09-09 17:02:26 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So basically you're still debating with the encrypted issue that we
already know it will be fixed if the issue is confirmed by lawyers
from the FSF?
We cannot assume this until it is confirmed. It may not have been the
best
On 2003-09-09 17:29:41 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(non-free := everything, except it is free; free := meets the
DFSG
So a country were you are free to kill a girl without any legal risk
is a country DFSG compliant?
That is not what has been said to you many times. Despite
On 2003-09-10 11:28:39 +0100 John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Moreover, there is evidence that the FSF will investigate and address
this
issue.
I see only evidence that they will investigate.
At least, we still have a question mark about transparency (might not
be relevant) and a
On 2003-09-11 09:07:07 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A poll gives an overview of the feelings of people participating to
the poll. It does not at all prove that something is right or wrong.
It was stated GFDL is non-free even without invariant sections, due
to the anti-DMCA
On 2003-09-11 11:48:21 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's basically not possible to discuss two phrases without having
along with them parts of the previous mail. It clearly puts the
phrases out
of their context and make them senseless.
You are a past-master at this.
-
On 2003-09-12 10:28:38 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
because it's out of the scope of
_software_, indeed, unless you pretend that any work on earth is
software).
Mathieu can say this as much as he likes, but it does not make it
true. It is not necessary to pretend that all works
On 2003-09-12 11:09:21 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you have an extraordinary large definition of software,
unfortunately not shared by all the dictionnaries I know.
Please review the previous threads on this topic. Amongst other
things, you will find:
- your
On 2003-09-12 13:05:37 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I completely agree with these principles. Unless you can prove that I
disagree with the social contract, please stop defaming.
Please demonstrate to myself and Andreas off-list where he defamed
you. Unless you can prove that
On 2003-09-12 17:43:49 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since Robinson, Nerode and other free beer zealots does not
show, AFAIK, any clear-cut principles of freedom (and Robinson
explicitly declines that DFSG is a sufficient definition), any
attempt of FSF to make compromise
On 2003-09-12 19:18:18 +0100 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
took me almost an entire day to write, and a few weeks to conceptually
prepare. That's quite discouraging.
It was MIME'd, base64'd, marked as attachment instead of inline and in
a charset that I don't use. I didn't detach
Thoughts on WDL:
Is opiniated really a word or a smelling pistake? There's probably
some better name. They also don't seem to meet FSF's requirements.
The labelling requirements for removed sections seem nasty too, adding
more unmodifiable parts to the document.
I still don't like the
On 2003-09-12 23:16:17 +0100 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's been brought to my attention, however, that 'opiniated' is a
strange construct in the English language, and that 'opinionated'
would
be better. I'm not a native English speaker;
I am native English, but I think the
On 2003-09-12 21:41:52 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Really, I do not believe that you did not read FSD. All the
more so you menyioned it below.
Please, why do you even write this? I can only think that you are
trying to insult me.
I am aware what is meant by free beer
On 2003-09-14 12:08:02 +0100 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's no markup or placing requirement; you could put them in small
print somewhere in the document; at the first page, at their original
place, or perhaps on the back cover. I specifically did not make any
other requirement
[I assume that I am in Fedor's killfile, as I had no reply.]
On 2003-09-14 18:55:02 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] And, especially, rules about how to
package a modified version[*], is about a price as long as they
don't effectively block your freedom to release modified
On 2003-09-15 09:13:31 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's pretty clear. You may claim that the Academie Française and all
the French people use a corrupted definition of Logiciel (it's not
that the etymology would says). [...]
It's amusing that the definition of the AF disagrees
On 2003-09-18 01:30:06 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Life of a program short, and this subject is not of great
importance for them. But literary works usually lives much longer.
Fedor seems not to have noticed: programs are literary works.
On 2003-09-18 01:43:22 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am sorry. As I already said, I just can't explain the
subject more comprehensible than I already did. So, if you still
can't learn the difference between free as speech and free as
beer, I have not any cure to help you.
On 2003-09-17 20:34:13 +0100 Brian W. Carver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's good to hear. Of course another related concern is
forward-looking. It
is a terrible waste of scare resources to have Debian create a
DFSG-free
manual every time a GFDL-licensed manual is produced for some new
piece
On 2003-09-18 12:05:55 +0100 Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Manuals are not free software, because they are not software.
They may be software. No-one claims that manuals == software and I
am tired of FDL proponents arguing against that point that nobody
made.
The DFSG very
On 2003-09-18 21:43:52 +0100 Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not quite. Texts of licenses and logos typically fail DFSG tests.
Licence notices escape for various reasons. Logos that fail DFSG
should be reported as a bug.
And what about research papers? Do you want to ban them,
On 2003-09-19 19:37:59 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
As has been previously pointed out, fair use is far from a universal
concept.
Berne Convention, art. 10 par. 1
Par 2 says that the extent is a matter for national legislation,
On 2003-09-19 22:06:34 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GNU Documentation under discussion _is_ in the category of
political/philosophical/historical texts. Only these texts can be
invariant in the GFDL.
Sorry, it is the entire work which must be DFSG-free, not only some
smaller
On 2003-09-19 22:00:01 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm a bit puzzled if you are about to claim that you truly _require_
to be able to modify the GNU Manifesto while, at the same time, not
giving the right to anyone to print an Official Debian Logo on a
tshirt is something
On 2003-09-19 13:22:10 +0100 Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've decided not to do that. The development of GNU licenses is not a
Debian issue.
I wonder if the only FDL consultation comment posted on their site
that gets any sort of reply was from a GNU project member? For the
On 2003-09-20 04:48:25 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, I made insufficient quoting. Discussion was not about
fair use in general, but about one specific case of quotation. See
my reply to Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet.
This subthread is about fair use in general. Maybe
On 2003-09-20 04:22:59 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is very vague concept and yes, in this vague form exists only in US
and, maybe, China)
Thank you for admitting your error, albeit in an oblique manner.
Again, if you look for the fair use in general, you should
take all
On 2003-09-20 05:03:54 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You may point to any relevant cases, or clarifications from
official bodies, or something similar?
Most of the relevant case law is not available online without
subscription, but for clarifications on why fair dealing is
On 2003-09-20 08:50:21 +0100 Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you are willing to disregard the meaning of some of the words in
the DFSG in order to reinterpret it, there is more than one way to do
so.
Sadly, it is the FSF who disregard the meaning of software and
support
On 2003-09-20 13:42:31 +0100 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
least) is that the Debian Project could end up being better friends
with
the Open Source Initiative than with the FSF;
That truly would be a worst case while OSI ignore free software issues
and welcome software
On 2003-09-21 15:41:02 +0100 Roland Mas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the same way as you failed to convince anyone that software and
documentation are different.
Please can both sides try to keep their wording tight? Failing to do
so only allows this to stretch out further. Software and
On 2003-09-21 14:30:33 +0100 Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To point out what the words of the DFSG actually say is surely
appropriate for understanding it.
I agree. We have tried to point this out to members of FSF and GNU,
but with little success.
I don't think that a message
On 2003-09-21 14:29:54 +0100 Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The DFSG explicitly
codifies my specific decision about TeX,=20
It does nothing of the sort; there is no mention of the word
'TeX' in
the DFSG.
Section 4 does precisely that, though without mentioning
On 2003-09-21 11:12:18 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Way more inconsistent than the GNU project that always
follows its rules, for Software (Program) and Documentation.
Although I like GNU and all it does, this is not true. GNU has had
licensing bugs in the past (although ones I
On 2003-09-21 17:43:46 +0100 Andreas Barth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here you are:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
That is the RMS essay Free Software and Free Manuals not the GNU
Free Documentation Definition. An opinion essay is no more a
definition than a set of guidelines
On 2003-09-21 19:07:27 +0100 Andreas Barth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
_is_ the essay the definition.
The essay does not give a clear definition, IMO, which is part of the
problem: non-RMS people aren't sure exactly what they are trying to
do.
On 2003-09-21 18:55:00 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not consider a bug as a philosophical failure but a technical
one.
This makes no sense. You said that GNU always follows its rules,
while I corrected you because some GNU projects have erroneously
included non-free
On 2003-09-21 21:15:25 +0100 Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, that's not a logical conclusion. It's [...] slippery slope
fallacy.
It's no less a fallacy than claiming software is controversial and
worthy of special definition.
Software is not a controversial word in English
On 2003-09-21 23:33:41 +0100 Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Defining all these thing as software is a peculiar way to use the
word.
Not at all. It is the original and proper meaning, as far as I can
tell. It seems to be a neologism created to cover all things stored
in the
On 2003-09-21 23:33:28 +0100 Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You seem to be saying that if our political statements, which are
included as invariant sections, could be removed from our manuals, you
would make a point of removing them.
Please do not extrapolate wildly from his words.
On 2003-09-22 07:33:48 +0100 Andreas Barth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, but at least I understood software at start of discussion more
as a synonym to programms, but I'm not a native english speaker.
I am sorry that software has been mistranslated frequently, but this
is not unusual. Many
On 2003-09-22 07:30:41 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And do you really think that every software (of your wide definition)
you can have on computer is part of the Operating System? The goal of
Debian is to provide an Operating System, isn't it?
See
On 2003-09-22 06:58:19 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since Debian use the translation Logiciel for Debian French pages,
it means that the word software must be clearly defined by Debian.
If logiciel truly does not mean the same as the English word
software, then it should
On 2003-09-22 04:00:32 +0100 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
IRS = Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. bureaucracy in charge of
I am aware what IRS is in the US, but Mathieu is French and I think
their taxes are collected by some part of MINEFI. I cannot find what
French IRS is, so
On 2003-09-22 09:27:52 +0100 Andreas Barth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. However, as software is a so fundamental term to Debian, it
would perhaps be better to make an appropriate (semi-)official
statement anywhere.
It seems a little odd to expect Debian to contain an official
statement
On 2003-09-22 10:38:18 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I feel free enough when I can redistribute as I will a
political essay from someone else. If I feel a need to edit that
essay, I just start writing my own essay
Some people feel the same about software in general. It is
On 2003-09-22 10:41:16 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
* Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030922 08:02]:
I do not see either why RMS's political essays should be free in the
DFSG-sense either, even when included in a documentation.
On 2003-09-22 10:47:11 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Free Software is known in France as Logiciel Libre. I'm not sure that
you will find many supporters of Logiciel Libre that really thinks
that Free Software is not about specifically software programs.
This is expected, because
On 2003-09-22 10:52:22 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, it is more confusing when talking in English to mention a well
known kind of institution in one major english-speaking country than
talking about French specific institutions that, I'm sure, everybody
is familiar with... It
On 2003-09-22 11:21:35 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The FSF always has been about computing, way before Debian even
exists.
The FSF apparently claims that it is only concerned with program
freedom.
and that is possibly how most LL supporters will know the word.
From what you
On 2003-09-22 10:05:15 +0100 Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
Commercial or normally-proprietary
On 2003-09-22 11:16:04 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe speaking English on that list encourage a cultural
dominance.
Not really IMO. It's just inconsiderate behaviour.
[...]
If you already made a donation to the FSF or to the SPI,
you should know what IRS is.
Why? In the
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
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 2003-09-23 07:31:14 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So any member of GNU must resign from Debian or GNU? Interesting.
I am surprised people don't accuse you of slippery slope as quickly
as I was accused recently.
[...] So, does the DFSG definition of freedom help us to draw
201 - 300 of 1366 matches
Mail list logo
