Re: Non-free package licenses and replacements
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: In linux.debian.legal, Niklas Vainio [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now I'm asking for suggestions for replacements and comments on whether some packages should be either moved to main or removed completely because of the license or what kind of changes to the license we could suggest to upstream. The page is at http://www.iki.fi/nvainio/debian/non-free.html [...] [doc-rfc-*] The RFC packages could be replaced for most people by an installer that downloads the RFCs from an archive or mirror if they want a local copy. The only people who would then be left out would be people without network connectivity. (Alternately, they could just be removed from the archive; it's not particularly hard to get them if wanted.) Putting in main a package whose only purpose is to install proprietary software is making a joke of main. Even if Microsoft Office was freely downloadable for Unix, would an installer for it fit in main? And what is an installer? A script that do a wget + dpkg -i? Reinventing badly apt-get in order to put non-free inside main? We could put such installer for any non-free software inside main, this is a trick, not a long-run solution. For the RFCs, if Debian cannot live with different degree of freedom depending on the nature of the software it brings (RFC are not programs, and by nature, there is no point in being able to modify freely a standard like RFCs), the only way to go for Debian is to stop distributing completely RFCs. -- Mathieu Roy +-+ | General Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org/ | | Computing Homepage: http://alberich.coleumes.org/ | | Not a native english speaker: | | http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english | +-+
Re: Non-free package licenses and replacements
Niklas Vainio [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I've put up a web page listing possible replacements for packages currently in non-free. There are still lot of blanks - please give suggestions. Perhaps this page can help in the discussion about removing non-free. Also included is explanation why the package is in non-free. This is based on the summary Craig Sanders posted in debian-vote some time ago. I have added comments from mailing lists and some of my own. In the discussion it was noted that status of some packages is unclear and we might not have permission to distribute them at all. Now I'm asking for suggestions for replacements and comments on whether some packages should be either moved to main or removed completely because of the license or what kind of changes to the license we could suggest to upstream. The page is at http://www.iki.fi/nvainio/debian/non-free.html [mwavem] This package purpose was to provide in debian support for soundcards shipped by IBM in some thinkpad (like 600E). IBM freed the code some years ago and it is included in linux kernel since the late versions of the 2.4. I'm not sure there is still a point in distributing this package. But in any case, it is GPLed, so... -- Mathieu Roy +-+ | General Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org/ | | Computing Homepage: http://alberich.coleumes.org/ | | Not a native english speaker: | | http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english | +-+
Re: Bug#218073: ITP: dvdrtools -- DVD writing program
Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Julien Delange [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist * Package name: dvdrtools Version : 0.1.5 [...] c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.) I do not interpret that as a need to change the status message to show that this software is a fork. It just talk about a copyright notice, copying conditions and warranties, nothing about the fact that the software is forked or not. It would anyway be very problematic to interpret this license that way. Any big modification can be seen as a fork... I don't know, but read together with If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors' reputations. it is not that insensible that appropriate copyright notice should reflect the fact that is a fork. It should print at least one more copyright holder by comparison to the original version. Somehow, it reflects the fact that is a fork. [snip, does not apply to current packages in debian-archive] At the bug removal, it talks about a restricted code for quality assurance * Begin restricted code for quality assurance. * * Warning: you are not allowed to modify or to remove the * Copyright and version printing code below! * * If you modify cdrecord you need to include additional version * printing code that: * * - Clearly states that the current version is an * inofficial (modified) version and thus may have bugs * that are not present in the original. * * - Print your e-mail address and tell people that you * will do complete support for this version of cdrecord. * * - Tell the users not to ask the original author for * help. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=193619 I'm not sure at all this is GPL-compatible or DFSG-compliant. Does someone already look into that question? One thing is sure, it has nothing to do with GPL 2c. Redirecting to debian-legal. The intent of the code is the same as the tainted-stuff in the Linux Kernel, to make it easy to differ between original Code and modified code especially in bug-reports. I get the intent, I'm more puzzled about the method you are not allowed to modify or to remove the [...] code below. (PS: Please add me in Cc:) -- Mathieu Roy +-+ | General Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org/ | | Computing Homepage: http://alberich.coleumes.org/ | | Not a native english speaker: | | http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english | +-+
Re: GFDL and Anonymity --- another problem?
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Several parts of the GFDL (e.g., 4b, 4i) seem to prohibit anonymous modifications to a document. Quoting 4b: List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, If this requires an actual name, it seems this might fail the Chinese[1] Dissident Test. Compare this to GPL 2a: You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. I think you can reasonably be interpreted to include pseudonyms, thus preserving anonymity, or even not putting any name at all. A license is valid because there is a known copyright holder that explicitely said that his work can be distributed under this license. 0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. So I wonder how it would be possible for a license to be valid with an anonymous copyright holder. The copyright holder can be an individual or a group, but in any case an entity recognized by the law. Please, take a look a the section How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs of the GPLv2. How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms. To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the copyright line and a pointer to where the full notice is found. one line to give the program's name and an idea of what it does. Copyright (C) name of author [...] Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail. If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this when it starts in an interactive mode: Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) year name of author Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'. This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `show c' for details. [...] You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your school, if any, to sign a copyright disclaimer for the program, if necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names: Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program `Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker. signature of Ty Coon, 1 April 1989 Ty Coon, President of Vice I would not be surprised if in many countries software with no author is in fact a proprietary software. [Funny to see how some people here are more interested in finding new issues before making any constructive proposal to fix the existing ones] -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: GFDL and Anonymity --- another problem?
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Thursday, Oct 9, 2003, at 11:49 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote: A license is valid because there is a known copyright holder that explicitely said that his work can be distributed under this license. So I wonder how it would be possible for a license to be valid with an anonymous copyright holder. I'd think so. Certainly the copyright is valid, and people can and do release, Why is it certain? e.g., books under pseudonyms. A book under pseudonym is not anonym. The fact that you do not know what is the real identity of Emile Ajar does not make of his books published by an anonymous. You quoted the GFDL 4b: List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, Well, what makes you think that in this case pseudonyms would not be allowed? The copyright holder can be an individual or a group, but in any case an entity recognized by the law. Sure. But he doesn't have to identify himself, and certainly not by his actual name. I'm not able to find in the GFDL text any occurence of actual name. I searched for name in the GFDL and found only the following lines: 39 A Secondary Section is a named appendix or a front-matter section of 88 A section Entitled XYZ means a named subunit of the Document whose 91 specific section name mentioned below, such as Acknowledgements, 162 C. State on the Title page the name of the publisher of the 220 give permission to use their names for publicity for or to assert or 231 copy. If there are multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but 233 adding at the end of it, in parentheses, the name of the original Please, take a look a the section How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs of the GPLv2. I'm talking about modifications to a program, not an original program, so this isn't quite relevant, but... This is relevant to know which information must be at least in a GPLed file. one line to give the program's name and an idea of what it does. Copyright (C) name of author The only effect of leaving off the proper copyright notice (in the US, at least) would be that people could more easily claim innocent (did not know work was under copyright) infringement. Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail. Electronic mail can be fairly (or even completely) anonymous; and personally, I've never added a postal address to my GPL notices. I doubt it really matters. I would not be surprised if in many countries software with no author is in fact a proprietary software. I have no idea, though I don't see why that would be the case. It could just be that I'm a little biased by the US's --- and, indeed, the Internet's --- tradition of anonymous and pseudonymous works. Anonym != pseudonym. If nobody is able to confirm that he granted some rights over a work (because nobody recognize being author of this work), there is no reason to believe that you have some rights over this work. If in the document it is clearly stated that there is no copyright holder on earth, sure nobody would be able to sue someone. In any other case, an unfriendly copyright holder can suddenly appears at any time. But it remains to be checked whether it is valid to claim that you give away your rights as author now and for ever. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: GFDL and Anonymity --- another problem?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) a tapoté : Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The copyright holder can be an individual or a group, but in any case an entity recognized by the law. Sure. But he doesn't have to identify himself, and certainly not by his actual name. I've seen lots of files copyrighted by Monty or Xiphophorus. Does anyone know who they are? It can be a team. It seems perfectly ok as long as you can identify members of this team. Xiphophorus is a company, isn't it? IMHO, it's just silly to not use your real name. What is there to fear? Hum, I suppose it is useful when you are doing something illegal in the country where you live. And it is also useful when someone wrote the code for a company (which is the actual copyright holder). -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Le mer 08/10/2003 à 00:39, Gabucino a écrit : We don't want to receive the endless flow of mails asking about why the newest, apt-get'ed MPlayer doesn't play ASF/WMV files (a very significant part of the streaming media on the Internet). If we don't want to include this support, this is not your problem. E.g. xine in Debian has WMV9 support stripped off, and there would be no reason for mplayer to include it if there are legal issues with it. Debian actually forgets the legal issues in the case of xine (please don't argue, a year has passed since this argument of mine was raised first, and no effect to this very day), so *please* don't come with this line. Another issue is that the xine authors have always been cooperative instead of ranting about this and that. Anyway, after all successive problems we encountered with mplayer, the maintainer will have a hard time convincing the ftpmasters that his package is 100 % free software, and free of patent issues. You can call this discrimination, I will call this careful attention towards some people who already proved to be incompetent regarding legal issues. While I completely agree with the rest of this message, there is no reason to threat mplayer in a very special way: if no one can give a reason to reject mplayer, there is no reason to reject mplayer, like any other project. While mplayer must be checked carefully, if mplayer is currently DFSG-compliant, it should not be complicated to convince ftpmaster to let Debian users having mplayer. The historical account of the mplayer team should not cause rejection of mplayer. Regards, -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: Request for licence assessment: spellcast
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Here's the entire debian/copyright file from the package (version 1.0-14): ---[BEGIN spellcast/copyright]--- This package was debianized by Ben Gertzfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 23 Sep 1998 18:43:26 -0700. It was downloaded from http://www.eblong.com/zarf/spellcast.html Original Copyright: The original paper-and-pencil version of this game was created by Richard Bartle ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). This implementation is by Andrew Plotkin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). It is copyright 1993 by Andrew Plotkin. The source code may be freely copied, distributed, and modified, as long as this copyright notice is retained. The source code and any derivative works may not be sold for profit without the permission of Andrew Plotkin and Richard Bartle. After discussion with Richard Bartle and Andrew Plotkin via email, they decided it was okay to charge a nominal copying fee if Spellcast was sold as part of a CD set. This software is still non-free software. Please check DFSG #1 (and #7). Here's the relevant emails: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: spellcast To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 06 Oct 1998 02:42:27 -0700 [...] The problem that I have with this is that it doesn't allow commercial redistribution - in practice, putting all of our CD vendors at risk of a copyright infringement suit. I understand where the designer of the game, Rickard Bartle is coming from - he doesn't want anyone to exploit his game design to make millions for themselves without giving him a cent. But it does mean that it's not free enough for Debian (IMHO). It is way worse than not being free enough for Debian. It's not just for the Debian CD vendors. A Free Software can be sold by someone without giving the original author a cent: asking otherwise is a misunderstanding of the Free Software definition. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: GFDL
[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. You are criticizing Debian based on things you can imagine we might do, and have imagined no end of nasty possibilities. When we tell you they are false, you just continue saying them. - Several persons of Debian stated on that list that they would drop any political text of GNU in GNU packages they may maintain. - But even if Debian do not drop the GNU political/philosophical/... texts from the packages, what will do the other distro, way more popular than Debian, which does not even recognize the collection of software they ship as GNU/Linux? -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: snippets
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On 2003-09-29, Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (2) No practical problems have arisen from allowing snippets to be included. No one has proposed any gedanken practical problem. OK, here's one: what if the Japanese government wants to make a completely localised version of emacs? They would be unable to, because they would not be able to translate the GNU Manifesto, which does not yet have an official translation into Japanese. They could probably prepare a summary in Japanese, but that is different from giving a translation. They can provide a translated version. They only must add the original text along, which is not a real burden with this kind of documents (it does not change the usability). Can you provide a real use case where the GNU Manifesto is really a trouble for the user? -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: committee for FSF-Debian discussion
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté : [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes: 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 Debian side. A good candidate would be able to approach the discussion with a constructive and dispassionate attitude. 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, He does not fit to the description above. and Thomas Bushnell is a GNU developer as well. Isn't it a good reason to have him in such committee? Doesn't it prove that he have great interest in both projects and so have reasons to be constructive? -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: snippets
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On 2003-09-29, Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, here's one: what if the Japanese government wants to make a completely localised version of emacs? They would be unable to, because they would not be able to translate the GNU Manifesto, which does not yet have an official translation into Japanese. They could probably prepare a summary in Japanese, but that is different from giving a translation. They can provide a translated version. They only must add the original text along, which is not a real burden with this kind of documents (it does not change the usability). No they can't: the permission notice at the top of /usr/share/emacs/21.3/etc/GNU on my system says: - Copyright (C) 1985, 1993 Free Software Foundation, Inc. Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim copies of this document, in any medium, provided that the copyright notice and permission notice are preserved, and that the distributor grants the recipient permission for further redistribution as permitted by this notice. Modified versions may not be made. - Hum, this is apparently very specific to the manifesto... As long as I know, it's the only text that have such copyright note in all www.gnu.org. I do not know why. It may be historic but it sounds problematic, indeed. But what happens when the manifesto is included in a GFDLed manual, which clearly allows translation, as long as the original text is provided? Note that permission to make modified copies (including translations) is explicitly not granted. Conceivably make a translation falls under a fair use like statute in some countries, but I don't know of any. Unfortunately in France, for instance, it's not allowed to make a translation without clear consent from the original author. To get back to your example, would it lower the usability of emacs if the Japanese government is unable to provide the GNU manifesto in japanese? It would only lower the interest of this text being shipped with emacs to japanese people, IMHO. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: FSF has stopped linking to Debian website
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : * 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 policy. If you find anything on www.gnu.org that doesn't follow this policy, please report it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, we can say exactly the same for Debian, just substitute web site with Debian, links with inclusion, However, Debian discourages the usage of non-free software, but the FSF encourages the usage of non-free documentation. So, it's obvious who has more reasons to remove something. PLEASE try to understand that different definition of important freedom involved here. You should said instead: However, Debian discourages the usage of non-free software according to Debian and GNU but the FSF encourages the usage of free documentation according to GNU, non-free according to Debian. That way, things are less obvious. But I wonder which goal we are reaching with these removing games anyway. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
[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 about in which domain I'm placing the question. Simply asking Is this MP3 software? doesn't give any meaningful data, because you can't control for bias on the part of the individual. Well, what you call controlling for bias is in fact controlling the data. Have you some background in sociology? You know, there's are interesting books that explain some acceptable methodology to follow when doing interviews and wanting meaningful data (in a little bit scientific and honnest way). 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. Is this MP3 software? seems to be a correct question: it does not propose any definition of software to follow, so the questioned one must answer by explaining partly what he considers to be software. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
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 refer to this definition. ITYM implicitly. If it were explicit, the question would be: Is this MP3 file software, where software is defined as? Then again, given the level of mindgames and word games that you have engaged so far, I might be missing your private definition of the word implicit. 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. Well, my definition of logiciel is shared by the Académie Française, which is the authority in matter of French vocabulary. Well, my usual definition of software is at least shared by most of non-french the persons I've ever meet. I would not call these definitions private. In this case, the point of the question was explicit: both words software and hardware were named and presented as alternative answers. However, the definition underlying was implicit, correct. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: FSF has stopped linking to Debian website
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 ] Funny, FSF does not mention Debian or FreeBSD anymore, An explanation has been added http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/links/links.html.diff?r1=1.28r2=1.29diff_format=hcvsroot=www.gnu.org * OpenBSD was removed because of mpg123... Well, it cannot imagine that it was not possible to convince OpenBSD people to replace it with mpg321. Strange. http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/links/links.html.diff?r1=1.27r2=1.28diff_format=hcvsroot=www.gnu.org * NetBSD and FreeBSD links were removed because they have proprietary software packages that the distribute on their respective websites. http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/links/links.html.diff?r1=1.26r2=1.27diff_format=hcvsroot=www.gnu.org For NetBSD, I think that's it: http://www.netbsd.org/gallery/software.html For FreeBSD, I did not found the problem on the website. Anyway, it's not a big surprise that *BSD refers to non-free software since the BSD licenses permits building non-free software with their code. * Debian has been removed because of the non-free part. http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/links/links.html.diff?r1=1.24r2=1.25diff_format=hcvsroot=www.gnu.org It has been done 5 weeks, 4 days ago. I hope this has nothing to do with the GFDL issue, which should be treated as a separated issue, if we are not planning to start a war. Sadly, it sounds like a divorce is near. We all have something to loose here. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
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 reality. You must try to avoid bias when designing the data collection Clearly. What is called here controlling for bias is indeed introducing bias -- a big one. Avoiding bias means trying to collect _raw_ data. When you question someone, he should not be able to clearly know what answer you expect from him. , else you may alias different factors and The biggest factor of bias here is the author (of the question) point of view. waste a lot of money. It is about money here? Why talking about money here? -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: GFDL
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : [RMS not CCed] On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 07:13:31PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: FYI, that's not going to convince anyone. We could all speculate about what might or might not convince certain other persons, but doing so is attempting to speak for them, so let's not do it. Hmm. By declaring himself not on speaking terms with [me], Didn't RMS presumptively conclude that anything I could possibly say would not convince him of anything, and thus he is attempting to speak for me? The reason why he does not want to talk with you have nothing to do with your arguments/point of view. I believe that he explained this choice, go read the mailing-list archives. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: GFDL
The reason why he does not want to talk with you have nothing to do with your arguments/point of view. Oh, well, that's a relief. It's much better that he dislikes me due to my height or the color of my skin or something. Did I said that? I'll give you a hint, Mathieu, since you have a thick skull: All RMS knows about me are my arguments. I've never met the man. Apparently you need an hint too: this is about your harsh and aggressive attitude. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté : Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Software is not a controversial word in English (roughly inverse of hardware in one sense). Some people advocate a bizarre definition of it in order to further their agenda. If you're going to define common words just because someone objects to the normal meaning being used, you'll get some bozo that objects to the word social and claims it only applies to the welfare state. That's clearly ungood. Software is a controversial word in English. In an informal survey, two out of two people surveyed (my officemate and myself) agreed that we would not, by default, call an arbitrary collection of bits software (the particular example in the survey question was an MP3 file); but that we would agree to use a different definition of software than the one we are accustomed to in certain contexts. But your question, Is this MP3 file software? is itself biased. Consider the alternatives: 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. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
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 Source will *still* be more widespread, Do you have numbers to back the claim that it is more widespread? I thought only English had the free/free ambiguity enough to create a market for the more ambiguous term open source. I know that the damned term is being imported into other languages, sadly, but I didn't think it had got to the point of majority yet! If you have no such data, please refrain from that claim. It borders on trolling, given your to-list. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22free+software%22 - 4,840,000 hits. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22open+source%22 - 7,210,000 hits. And I'm pretty sure free software is used a lot more than open source in documents that have zero to do with free software or open source, in the sense of this discussion. And completely anecdotal, I'm the only person I know of that uses free software around here (University of Minnesota). All the professors use open source (or rarely, public software, freeware, or some other term), as do my friends and classmates. I still did not get the point. Many many people seems to enjoy Britney Spears. Does it mean that Britney Spears is wonderful? Many people around me call the system we are using Linux while none of us would be able to truly make the difference if we were using another kernel with our GNU system, in most of the cases. Many people in France thinks that Republic is something heavily linked to Democracy, despite the fact the Republic model was clearly an oligarchy. Something can be popular and also completely wrong. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
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 Republic is something heavily linked to Democracy, despite the fact the Republic model was clearly an oligarchy. 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 agree with you* What difference does it make? You can agree with me about this subject and however present arguments that I consider pointless: for instance, what does it mean if an expression is popular? , and so you didn't need to write a bunch of embarassingly stupid and incorrect examples. These examples are correct. Musical taste is not a matter of popularity. For the kernel example, unless you assume that most users are familiar with kernel design, most people use a popular term to describe something else than the kernel. And the fact that in France many people ignore the concept they are refering to makes sense too: the word Republic is popular but misused. So invariant sections are a failure both philosophically and pragmatically, which is typical of non-free things. Was the message you are answering to talking about invariant sections? -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Etienne Gagnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Mathieu Roy wrote: LOGICIEL: n.m. Ensemble de travaux de logique, d'analyse, de programmation, nécessaires au fonctionnement d'un ensemble de traitement de l'information Emphasis (opposé à matériel) /emphasis. (Emphasis mine). A translation of the emphasized text is: (opposite to hardware). Apparently you forgot to read/understand the rest of the phrase. No, I did not. Dictionaries try to enumerate all the usual meanings of words. When I teach my Computer Architecture course (in French, I'm in Montreal), I have to make a distrinction between hardware and software, in the first lectures. I use, the term logiciel to mean software, in the broad (yet seldom used) sense, which is indicated above in the definition between parentheses (i.e. not hardware). In other words, ask yourself: what is the opposite of matériel (hardware) in French? Yes, French defines logiciel as the opposite of hardware. There are no other terms, as far as I know. I agree that it is not common to attach this semantic to this word, but it is allowed. Please do not assume that every single word (in French, or in English) has a single meaning (semantics). Most words have a variety of meanings, that can change in a very subtle manner, depending on their context of use. Logiciel is such a word. I never said the contrary. On that list, people pretend that in English the common sense in to use software about anything on a computer but hardware. This is not the common sense in French, at all. (Please refer to the Academie Française's definition that I previously copy/paste here, which is the authority on the topic.) Etienne PS: Mailing-list usage policy mandates that you not CC me unless I ask for it. Correct, but please would you like to set an appropriate X-Followup header so my mailer do not put you by default in To:? As you seem to be a new maintainer (NM) (What's the point? I seen many very official maintainer for a long time having the same problem, and no one was daring telling them that they misbehave.) -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: Starting to talk
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : 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 this. Any who agreed but do not agree should know the process for resignation. So any member of GNU must resign from Debian or GNU? Interesting. Of course, delivering documentation that is non-free software would be harmful to the project, as it would break our published commitments to our users. I agree on that. Did I wrote delivering documentation that is non-free software? Apparently you misunderstood my question which still seems to me pretty clear. So, does the DFSG definition of freedom help us to draw the line at the correct place also for documentation? -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, I think that the question is not really what the DFSG allows. Because it's pretty clear that the DSFG does not allow GFDLed documentation with Invariant section. The question is: do we think that tolerating this non-DFSG essays in some GFDLed documentation is more harmful to Debian than removing these GNU manuals? Of course! Leaving them in main weakens our principles and opens the door to abuse. Moving the manuals to non-free doesn't mean they are no longer available. It should. non-free is not part of Debian, like the official logo. I personally don't care very much if the Emacs and Emacs Lisp manuals don't get rewritten as free software. I'll get them from non-free and at least it's being honest about the freeness of the content. Get over out, it's not a huge deal. Ok. That's a point of view I can understand. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : * Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030922 15:09]: The point is whether every software needs to be free or just program and their documentation. So, you finally admited that software includes also digital photos of your girlfriend. Wow. You apparently missed a part of the discussion. I understood that you were using a very large definition of software since a while now. Now, then next question is very clear for debian-legal: The Social Contract (and the DFSG) say that all software in Debian must be 100% free. So, the answer for Debian is: Every software. I think this question too simplistic. The current situation is the fact that we have manuals with some part that will never be DFSG-compliant. It was important to ask to ourselves if, in this case, removing these manuals is more harmful than letting these manuals. Now there is an answer, which not only about the law (Is it DFSG compatible? - it is not) but also social (Is it better to keep these manuals despite their non-DSFG part? - the answer is no also). If it makes no difference for you, it does for me - and I'm maybe not the only one. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : 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 (roughly inverse of hardware in one sense). Some people advocate a bizarre definition of it in order to further their agenda. If you're going to define common words just because someone objects to the normal meaning being used, you'll get some bozo that objects to the word social and claims it only applies to the welfare state. That's clearly ungood. Since Debian use the translation Logiciel for Debian French pages, it means that the word software must be clearly defined by Debian. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Sunday, Sep 21, 2003, at 03:18 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote: The essays and logos in question are in fact not part of Debian. But some of them are produced by Debian. Which essays does Debian have that aren't free? If there are any, I think that should be fixed. 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 do not see either why RMS's political essays should be free in the DFSG-sense either, even when included in a documentation. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Sunday 21 September 2003 19:55, Mathieu Roy wrote: I do not consider a bug as a philosophical failure but a technical one. Did you really pass PP ? And you? A bug is an error, not something made on purpose. There are others words for this kind of problem. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: GNU is perfect and French IRS, was: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : 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 software in the past. With your strange habbit of cutting a phrase from its context, it's impossible to discuss seriously. What is your point, that some people at GNU made some mistakes? Probably, like everywhere else on earth. So what? -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Sunday, Sep 21, 2003, at 03:20 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote: But is the upstream author of these *Bugs*. Does it means that Debian have an implicit policy which is making non-free software is ok unless you distribute it? I'm not sure what your asking, but I think it'd be safe to say Debian strongly believes in the right to private modifications. And do you consider the official logo as a private modification? -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: Unidentified subject!
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : 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 computer, when the WW2-ish phrase stored program was not adequate. The first known use in print is John W Tukey in the January 1958 edition of American Mathematical Monthly, with a short and vague explanation as interpretive routines, compilers, and other aspects, contrasted with hardware. As with any neologism, it may have fuzzed a little, but the contrast with hardware is constant. 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? Apparently it's clear that Debian do not consider that his very own logo must be free software -- that's right, you do not need a logo at all to have a complete free operating system. If Debian already recognize that non-program software can be non-free without that being a problem, why refusing to include a documentation that include a non-program software (technical documentation is likely program)? Likewise, in the term Free Software Movement and Free Software Foundation, software refers specifically to computer programs. Our criteria for free software licenses concern licenses for computer programs. I am not familiar with the Free Software Movement organisation and can find no record of it. The Free Software Foundation uses an odd definition of software. Maybe because the software that must be included in a Free Software Operating System is mostly programs and documentation... 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 deal with different situations. Why should they be different? The freedom to adapt other literary works is no less necessary than the freedom to adapt programs. I suspect we have opinions on that, if your views are similar to the other GNU project members who support FDL and have participated on this list. So, you recognize that in fact you want every literary works to be DFSG-compliant, software or not. It totally explains why you need a so broad definition of software. As a matter of fact, you are no longer discussing about an Operating System. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: [OT] Suing for hot coffee
Karl E. Jorgensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 07:51:34PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote: Coffee at 180 degrees is a distinct item from coffee. Coffee is not properly served at 180 degrees What are you talking about? When coffee comes out of a good coffee machine, it is near boiling. Coffee enthusiasts even measure the temperature to make sure that it is extremely hot [1]. My water heater for tea is set at 203, and we serve it right away. McDonalds was far from unreasonable. Is it really 180° Farenheit... or Celsius? In the first case, sure it does seems so hot. 180 Celsius is ... quite hot. Unless you manage to keep it under rather excessive pressure, I guess that you will end up with a dry coffee mug that is difficult to wash. And a lot of steam... If it's 180°C in the coffee machine under some pressure, it can goes around 99°C at the atmopheric pressure in the served closed cup and stay at a very high temperature for long, enough to get seriously burned 5 minutes later. If it's only 100°C in the coffe machine, it will probably go down fastly, too fastly to get serious harm after 5 minutes. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : 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 languages have false friends, yet we do not spell out all of them just in case. And there are more complex issues than false friends... Some words are polysemic but have monosemic translations. For instance, gratuit is a correct translation of free. But libre is also a correct translation of free. And gratuit does not mean at all libre. Logiciel is a correct translation of software in most of the case. And there's no word to translate software in its widest sense -- probably because nobody in France ever needed that word. Note that the issue with software have nothing to do with false friends. Logiciel and software have nothing in common. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: Unidentified subject!
Steve Dobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Mathieu On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:30:41AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : 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? The Social Contract is about producing the Debian system and other works that provide a useful platform for our users. The Operating System is just part of that work. I see it as the result of that work. So, you recognize that in fact you want every literary works to be DFSG-compliant, software or not. It totally explains why you need a so broad definition of software. Yes, wouldn't it be much nicer to live in a world where everything is free. I agree. But 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, by quoting eventually the original one. And if I must quote almost all the original one, it means that I have no so many things to add and I would just make a commentary about it. I do not see any urgent freedom to protect here, apart the freedom to redistribute a document. Someone can grant anybody to modify his political essays, but I do not think that not giving this right is similar than forbidding anybody to access the code of a program, to modify it and redistribute it. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
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. Because we require them to be free if we include them in Debian? Hum, you do not follow a rule _just_ to follow the rules, do you? There was a reason to promote free software, and I'm not sure that the whole issue was about political essays, but about programs and their documentation. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : 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 probably be reported as a bug against Debian's French translation when used in its place. (I think that programaro (group around programs AIUI, translated by some as collection of programs) or softvaro (imported word) should be used instead of programo (lit. program) for its EO translation.) Logiciel truly means program (it can surely include the technical documentation). But it is a very acceptable translation for software in the narrow sense (which seems to be the most common sense, however). 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. Anyway, if you are no longer talking about programs, you are no longer talking about Operating System and even no longer talking about computing. Because if you propose rules to handle documents sitting on a computer which are not programs or their documentation, there's no reason not to apply these rules to the same documents in a non-software form. So maybe you are right (I do not share your point of view) but anyway this is off-topic for Debian and for Logiciel Libre. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: GNU is perfect and French IRS, was: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : 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 And this fact do not allows you to make assumptions. I think their taxes are collected by some part of MINEFI. I cannot find what French IRS is, so maybe he did just goof and think he was on a USian list. Very confusing 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 is very sensible. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : 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 FSF encourages a misuse of the word software The FSF always has been about computing, way before Debian even exists. and that is possibly how most LL supporters will know the word. From what you say, logiciel appears fine for their purpose. It is already very hard to promote the Logiciel Libre in France. I think that emcumbering it with your view described at the end of this message would not be helpful at all. Because as you see, it is possible to support Logiciel Libre and, however, do not agree with your view described at the end - the link between the two point of view is not obvious. Anyway, if you are no longer talking about programs, you are no longer talking about Operating System and even no longer talking about computing. Huh? Software is trivially always about computing. Your argument against the GFDL invariant section applies to texts in a non-software form. So basically, your point of view is not specifically computing related. Because if you propose rules to handle documents sitting on a computer which are not programs or their documentation, there's no reason not to apply these rules to the same documents in a non-software form. That is my view, but again we are drifting outside the scope of Debian, so I will not pursue this. This view clearly have an influence on your usage of the word software in the Debian case. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : 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. Because we require them to be free if we include them in Debian? Hum, you do not follow a rule _just_ to follow the rules, do you? Mathieu claims to see no need for derived works of political essays despite all of the suggested reasons which are broadly similar to those for free software I do not agree with your point of view, that's all. in general. I think Andreas cannot be blamed for using desire to include them in Debian without compromising our commitments as a reason to make the case for DFSG-free-ness. It does not compromise any desire to keep the Operating System Free. But, sure, it compromise your desire to make any literature text free as Free Software, whether it stands on a computer or not. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: GNU is perfect and French IRS, was: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : 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 is very sensible. This is simply incredible. A frenchman encouraging US cultural dominance! Clearly, it is less confusing to refer to a generic term, such as tax authority, than a particular country's fairly obscure name for it. I only know it from the USian literature I have read. If a frenchman who frequently points out that he is not a 1L speaker of English refers to an acronym, I assume that it is some global or a local French thing. If I were to speak of HMCE, at least people would have a chance of finding it in a search based on my domain. Maybe speaking English on that list encourage a cultural dominance. However, in our word, in this century, speaking French would not allow me to talk with so many people from different countries, specifically on that list. So I speak English, and I do try to use examples that anybody can understand. If you already made a donation to the FSF or to the SPI, you should know what IRS is. I think that this case is probably pretty common, on this list. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : 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 documentation. Basically the other things sitting a computer are not part of the OS. My girlfriend photography sitting on my computer is not free software. That's not something I think important to be shared. and that is possibly how most LL supporters will know the word. From what you say, logiciel appears fine for their purpose. It is already very hard to promote the Logiciel Libre in France. I think that emcumbering it with your view described at the end of this message would not be helpful at all. That view is not a requirement for support of free software. I agree. Your argument against the GFDL invariant section applies to texts in a non-software form. So basically, your point of view is not specifically computing related. This does not invalidate the reasoning for the software form. I believe that it can be generalised, but it is not necessary to believe that. I think it's necessary to believe that. Why typing a text on a computer should change the freedom given? A free software code printed on a paper should be free software, even if it's not software... [I advocate free works in all media] This view clearly have an influence on your usage of the word software in the Debian case. Like hell. My school computing lessons have a larger influence. In this debate, I mean. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: Unidentified subject!
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : 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. About programs do you mean? 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. And rewriting an implementation is not at all likely rephrasing two words. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Monday 22 September 2003 12:36, Mathieu Roy wrote: My girlfriend photography sitting on my computer is not free software. Who cares about the licence of your girlfriend photographs ? Are you willing to put them in main ? The point is that the photographs on your computer are _software_. Whether they are free or not has absolutely no link with the current thread. The point is whether every software needs to be free or just program and their documentation. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Etienne Gagnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Mathieu Roy wrote: Since Debian use the translation Logiciel for Debian French pages, it means that the word software must be clearly defined by Debian. Mathieu, I would suggest that you to carefully read Le petit Robert's definition for logiciel. (For those of you that are not French speaking, Le petit Robert is one of the most respected French language dictionaries.) In the 1983 edition (on my desk) I read: LOGICIEL: n.m. Ensemble de travaux de logique, d'analyse, de programmation, nécessaires au fonctionnement d'un ensemble de traitement de l'information Emphasis (opposé à matériel) /emphasis. (Emphasis mine). A translation of the emphasized text is: (opposite to hardware). Apparently you forgot to read/understand the rest of the phrase. So, Debian's use of the word logiciel in french seems quite in line with the English semantics used by people on debian-legal. Please, try to pretend to any educated French person that his Bible on his computer is a Logiciel :)) -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Starting to talk
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Monday 22 September 2003 14:32, Mathieu Roy wrote: The point is whether every software needs to be free or just program and their documentation. The point is whether every software IN DEBIAN needs to be free. You are right, that's the question. Free, in think that everybody agree, but under which definition of freedom? 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? In other terms, do we consider the fact that we cannot modify a political essay in a documentation so harmful that we would prefer stopping delivering this documentation? That is indeed the question. I think personally that it is harmful to do so and harmless to let that essays where they are, since they do not interfere with the program and documentation usability. What do you think? Saying it's not DFSG-compliant is not an answer. Apart from MJ Ray, which think that any document should follow the Free Software rules, software or not, nobody against the GFDLed text inclusion clearly stated his point of view. People are complaining about this discussion being endless. But they just have to say what they are thinking good or bad for Debian in this case, not just what is their interpretation of a text. Right, in this case -project is maybe a more appropriate place, but it is here where the discussion started. Regards, -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not see either why RMS's political essays should be free in the DFSG-sense either, even when included in a documentation. As someone asked in another thread: Did you really pass PP ? What does this question mean? Does Debian impose on applicant to believe that a political essay should be ruled by the DFSG? I do not think so. If it is an implicit law, please make it explicit. However, I know what is the DFSG and I know what I should do when contributing for Debian and what I should not do. I am a very lawful person. Now, I think that the question is not really what the DFSG allows. Because it's pretty clear that the DSFG does not allow GFDLed documentation with Invariant section. The question is: do we think that tolerating this non-DFSG essays in some GFDLed documentation is more harmful to Debian than removing these GNU manuals? That's the question. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: Starting to talk
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Why do I have the impression to be in an infinite loop ? Because you are confronted with a situation where your arguments, that you repeat and repeat, do not convince your interlocutor (me in this case)? You know, there is an easy way out, if you're fed up. Apart from that, you did not answered to my question. Why? Do I need to repeat my question? -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) a tapoté : Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In that sense, there is nothing but software in Debian. But Debian contains essays, logos, and licenses that cannot be modified. These are not programs; are they software? The essays and logos in question are in fact not part of Debian. But some of them are produced by Debian. Which means basically well, we need to make these logos non-free, we consider making these logos enough ethical, but we do not distribute them in main because of the DFSG. It completely defeats the purpose of the DFSG: the goal of the DFSG is to rule Debian, in order to build a complete Free OS, by stating what is acceptable in a Free OS and what is not, isn't it? When you're forced to disregard the DFSG when working for Debian (because, please, making an official logo is FOR Debian) and that do not pose to you ethical problem, it means that the DFSG is too ambiguous and do not serve its purpose by drawing the line at the wrong place (being a pain instead of insuring the important freedoms). -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Richard Stallman wrote: The Social contract uses the that which is not hardware definition of software. The words of the social contract clearly equate software to programs. I disagree about this interpretation, which suggests that your interpretation certainly isn't clear. In that sense, there is nothing but software in Debian. But Debian contains essays, logos, and licenses that cannot be modified. These are not programs; are they software? Licenses are, for the most part, a legal necessity, in much the same way that Debian contains copyright statements that may not be removed. Essays and logos that cannot be modified are likely to be bugs - it is only recently that we have become aware of the extent and scale of the problem. But is the upstream author of these *Bugs*. Does it means that Debian have an implicit policy which is making non-free software is ok unless you distribute it? Easy. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Roland Mas [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Mathieu Roy, 2003-09-21 09:20:11 +0200 : When you're forced to disregard the DFSG when working for Debian (because, please, making an official logo is FOR Debian) and that do not pose to you ethical problem, it means that the DFSG is too ambiguous and do not serve its purpose by drawing the line at the wrong place (being a pain instead of insuring the important freedoms). Maybe you don't understand that there's a difference between the Debian project, as an entity consisting of people, and the Debian operating system, as a collection of software. The DFSG obviously applies to Debian-the-OS, not Debian-the-project (since Debian-the-project also produces stuff not in Debian-the-OS, namely contrib and non-free packages). Or if you do, please be more specific which Debian you're referring to in your future posts. I was specific enough. 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 somehow inconsistent. Way more inconsistent than the GNU project that always follows its rules, for Software (Program) and Documentation. If the Debian project rules cannot be always followed by Debian Developers when they are working to achieve the Debian goal (the Debian OS) and are not doing any harm to this goal (the Debian OS), these rules are flawed. What the Debian project is currently doing when he publish his official logo is likely saying well, DFSG cannot apply to any software part of Debian, unless you play with the words by pretending that the _official logo_ is not part of Debian because it's not packaged in main (funny to consider that the symbol of a project is not part of the project, very unusual). At the contrary of what is often said here, the DFSG are not so clear when it comes to this kind of complex cases. This logo issue can be seen like a political leader's wife asking the man of the street to give coins to some kind of IRS while she get very expensive holidays paid by the State. Sure, both things are not clearly linked, but when you ask people to behave, you should behave everytime too. And if you are not able to follow your own principles, you have to review these principles that apparently does not fit for you, despite your goodwill. Regards, -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Roland Mas [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Mathieu Roy, 2003-09-21 12:30:21 +0200 : The Debian project is dedicated to the Debian OS. Without this collection of software, the Debian project is purposeless. It is indeed dedicated to the Debian OS, but it doesn't do only the Debian OS. It also does contrib and non-free. And user support. And collaboration with other projects and distributions. And collaboration with standards organisations. And (a bit of) political lobbying (see the large red stuff against software patents on http://www.debian.org/). All these activities are in the Debian project because of the Debian OS. Even contrib and non-free, which are normally not part of Debian (project or OS). If the Debian project does not follow the rules that the Debian project wrote itself for the Debian OS, the Debian project is somehow inconsistent. The DFSG are for the Debian OS. Not for the Debian project. Please stop mixing these two notions, they are not identical. You failed to convince me. But if it helps you to see things that way, feel free to do it... Way more inconsistent than the GNU project that always follows its rules, for Software (Program) and Documentation. I'm not sure the GNU project is more consistent than the Debian project is: its major goal is to provide freedom to the users, yet it publishes non-free documentation This is a mistake. It publishes free documentation according to GNU, non-free according to Debian. Please pay attention to the fact that different definitions exists of some concepts. If the Debian project rules cannot be always followed by Debian Developers when they are working to achieve the Debian goal (the Debian OS) and are not doing any harm to this goal (the Debian OS), these rules are flawed. Do you realise that the Debian project has more than one goal maybe? The Debian OS may be the main one, but it is not the only one. Which other goals? What the Debian project is currently doing when he publish his official logo is likely saying well, DFSG cannot apply to any software part of Debian, unless you play with the words by pretending that the _official logo_ is not part of Debian because it's not packaged in main (funny to consider that the symbol of a project is not part of the project, very unusual). It's not playing on words. It's just how things are. When you buy a car from brand X, you don't get any rights on the trademark X, or on the X logo. Yes, and I do not claim that the logo Renault on my car is not part of my car. At the contrary of what is often said here, the DFSG are not so clear when it comes to this kind of complex cases. Yes they are. They apply to stuff in main. Period. This logo issue can be seen like a political leader's wife asking the man of the street to give coins to some kind of IRS while she get very expensive holidays paid by the State. Sure, both things are not clearly linked, but when you ask people to behave, you should behave everytime too. That's a bit far-fetched, isn't it? Or are you also implying that the Debian project members shouldn't ever be allowed near non-free software either, even for their daily job? If their daily job is paid by Debian and for Debian (excluding non-free and contrib, which are not in any sense par of Debian) , I think they should not be using proprietary software. And if you are not able to follow your own principles, you have to review these principles that apparently does not fit for you, despite your goodwill. And that's how the FSF and the GNU project produce non-free documentation, is it? Oh, sorry, I forgot, the freedom criteria only applies to software released as software, not software embedded in documentation. Yes, you forgot that there are several definitions of freedom around. Don't get me wrong: I have a tremendous respect for the FSF and the GNU project and what they do, but they shouldn't give Debian lessons on consistency of policies. I speak for myself. And anybody on earth is entitled to talk about Debian or the FSF. Submit bugs where our policies are not being followed, yes. Tell us they are inconsistent, no. Not before the GFDL problem is fixed. Your policies are also mine, as I'm a Debian applicant and a Debian user. And at this point I think that some parts of the policy are not as clear one may think at start. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Roland Mas [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : It's not playing on words. It's just how things are. When you buy a car from brand X, you don't get any rights on the trademark X, or on the X logo. Yes, and I do not claim that the logo Renault on my car is not part of my car. So you accept the idea of getting a car (and the right to use it) from Renault and not being allowed to use the logo, but reject the idea of getting an OS (and the right to modify) from Debian and not being allowed to modify the logo? I never said that the licensing of this logo was not understandable. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Lukas Geyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : And that's how the FSF and the GNU project produce non-free documentation, is it? Oh, sorry, I forgot, the freedom criteria only applies to software released as software, not software embedded in documentation. Yes, you forgot that there are several definitions of freedom around. Yes, of course, Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush both defended the freedom of the Iraqi people, they just had different definitions. Do you think we should not judge on those different definitions? We can have a definition on your own. The definition of freedom shared by most people seems different that Bush's and Hussein's ones ; sure. I think Debian has been quite open to criticism from outside, contrary to the FSF's total ignorance of all the comments on the GFDL when it was drafted. The discussion seems to have come to the core issue now, and it is that Debian's definition of freedom is stricter than that of the FSF. Right. Submit bugs where our policies are not being followed, yes. Tell us they are inconsistent, no. Not before the GFDL problem is fixed. Your policies are also mine, as I'm a Debian applicant and a Debian user. And at this point I think that some parts of the policy are not as clear one may think at start. Which parts are unclear? You seem to be dragging this out and trying to pretend the issue is still unclear. Which is not clear is the fact that Debian developers admit that at some point they need to make, themselves, software less free than the DSFG would accept, they seems to find the fact that they make software non-DFSG compliant totally acceptable when working for Debian... and they just says that the problem is the inclusion in main. If we are about to consider that a non-free logo is completely harmless, what is the problem of including it? If we do not use and include proprietary software, it's because we consider that harmful, isn't it? -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: [OT] Suing for hot coffee
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote: Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Give me a break. Coffee is hot. It is made with boiling water. This is not a case of a McDonalds employee spilling coffee on someone else. This is someone not being careful and spilling it on themselves. Coffee at 180 degrees is a distinct item from coffee. Coffee is not properly served at 180 degrees What are you talking about? When coffee comes out of a good coffee machine, it is near boiling. Coffee enthusiasts even measure the temperature to make sure that it is extremely hot [1]. My water heater for tea is set at 203, and we serve it right away. McDonalds was far from unreasonable. Is it really 180° Farenheit... or Celsius? In the first case, sure it does seems so hot. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : 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 have seen have been fairly minor), just as Debian has. They do correct them, just like Debian does. I do not consider a bug as a philosophical failure but a technical one. man of the street to give coins to some kind of IRS while she get very What does IRS stand for in France? I can't find a decoding of that. I forgot 2 words, - IRS registered charity Reply off-list, please. Give me a break. If you want off-list, post off-list. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A solution ?!?
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Saturday 20 September 2003 02:16, Nathanael Nerode wrote: You seem to be suggesting that this would satisfy the distribution terms of the GFDL. Are you really suggesting this? If so, we may have a solution. Unfortunately, the invariant sections are not the only issue for non-freeness of GFDL. Please, try to be constructive. The invariant section is the only (apparently) philosophical issue. The others issues are clearly practical, it's easier to get rid of it. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 11:06:34PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: The GNU Documentation under discussion _is_ in the category of political/philosophical/historical texts. Only these texts can be invariant in the GFDL. Could you explain in what way the Distribution section of the emacs manual is a political/philosophical/historical text? It contains many statements of fact which can easily become outdated and untrue: If you have access to the Internet, you can get the latest distribution version of GNU Emacs by anonymous FTP FTP is on its way out, and might be entirely replaced by HTTP in another decade. And you are sure that this phrase is part of an Invariant section? You can also order copies of GNU Emacs from the Free Software Foundation on CD-ROM. Presumably this will become on DVD at some point, or some other CD-ROM replacement. I remember when this part talked about tapes. And you are sure that this phrase is part of an Invariant section? (The Foundation has always received most of its funds in this way.) This can change at one stroke when Bill Gates dies and leaves all his money to the FSF. Apparently it was needed to one more time remind which kind of text can be invariant. Indeed. a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) political/philosophical/historical is only part of it, the GFDL also mentions commercial position regarding the subject or related matters, whatever that is. Maybe the postal addresses fall under that category. When you look at which kind of text IS marked invariant in the manuals under discussion, you'll find that the FSF has a much broader idea of Secondary Sections than the one you're using in your arguments. Can you be more specific? An example perhaps? -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 06:47:31PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: When you look at which kind of text IS marked invariant in the manuals under discussion, you'll find that the FSF has a much broader idea of Secondary Sections than the one you're using in your arguments. Can you be more specific? An example perhaps? I gave you one: the Distribution section of the Emacs manual. That's what I was quoting from. Emacs 21.3+1-3, to be precise. Ok, so for this distribution section, I agree, it should not be invariant as it is almost technical (how do I get more information...), and the point of view of RMS about that would be interesting. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Manuals are not free software, because they are not software. The DFSG very clearly treats software and programs as synonymous. And we very clearly treat everything in Debian as software (see the first clause of the Social Contract). That clause appears to neglect the fact that there are things other than software in the system. It seems to say that all the software must be free software. Aaargh! Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software = Debian Will Remain 100% Software If I buy something in the supermarket that is advertised as 100% cow's milk I expect to get 100% milk. I don't expect to get 85% cow's milk, 15% goat's piss and the piss-poor excuse that 100% of the milk is from cows. If you live in a country which include in his definition of Milk the goat's piss, well, you'll surely be disappointed when doing your day-to-day shopping. Replace milk by chocolate and you'll see that it's not just an pure invention of mind but a real case. So what matters most is the definition you follow. However, Debian has a pretty clear definition, according to supposedly Bruce Perens's statements. According to this clear definition, the official Debian Logo should go in non-free. Does everybody on that list, that thinks that GNU political/historical/philosophical/ texts must be DSFG compliant to be distributed by Debian, also thinks that the Debian logos must be DFSG compliant? To refresh your mind, let's quote the very explicit http://www.debian.org/logos/ page: Although Debian can be obtained for free and will always remain that way, events such as the problem with the ownership of the term Linux have shown that Debian needs to protect its property from any use which could hurt its reputation. Debian has decided to create two logos: one logo is for official Debian use; the other logo falls under an open use type license. The French translation is a lot more funny: Bien que Debian puisse être obtenue gratuitement et qu'il en sera toujours ainsi, des événements tels que le conflit au sujet de la propriété du terme « Linux » ont prouvé que Debian avait besoin de protéger sa propriété intellectuelle de tout usage pouvant porter préjudice à sa réputation. Debian a décidé de créer deux logos : l'un est pour l'utilisation officielle de Debian; l'autre a une licence permettant un usage libre. If I retranslate it back in English, in the original version I would replace to protect its property by to protect its intellectual property (interesting concept!) and an open use type license by a free usage license (let's say a free software license!). I note that none of this two texts clearly states that the official logo have no Free use (Free as defined by Debian), but just talk about Debian official use instead. Here comes the Debian Official Logo License. I will not make fun by explaining how it's not DFSG compliant: Debian Official Use Logo License Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest 1. This logo may only be used if: * the product it is used for is made using a documented procedure as published on www.debian.org (for example official CD-creation) * official approval is given by Debian for its use in this purpose 2. May be used if an official part of debian (decided using the rules in I) is part of the complete product, if it is made clear that only this part is officially approved 3. We reserve the right to revoke a license for a product Permission has been given to use the official logo on clothing (shirts, hats, etc) as long as they are made by a Debian developer and not sold for profit. So the next step seems obvious to me, Debian have make a choice: - follow the strict definition of DFSG promoted by many persons on that list and move the Official Debian Logo to non-free. - think about an another policy for logos or political/philosophical/historical texts. (PS: I will not read off-topic mails. And, no, discussions ad hominem is not on-topic.) -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Le ven 19/09/2003 à 17:39, Mathieu Roy a écrit : However, Debian has a pretty clear definition, according to supposedly Bruce Perens's statements. According to this clear definition, the official Debian Logo should go in non-free. We don't ship the official (jar+swirl) Debian logo in main. If you find it in a package, please report a serious bug against it. Good point. However, does not it mean that Debian recognize that in some case some software (in the large sense) can be non-DFSG and still acceptable? 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 completely fine for you. And, finally, if I correctly understood this page, if I get an official Debian CD, with this Logo as cover, I'm not able to provide a copy of this official Debian CD unless I completely follow a process documented at www.debian.org. For instance, if www.debian.org is not available to me (server down, no internet connectivity) and that I forgot the exact process, I'm not legally able to make that copy to a friend with the official logo. Well, it sounds as annoying than being forced to have 3 pages in a manual that anyway nobody is forced to read. And that's funny to claims that this logo is not part of main while it's the cover of the CD containing main. But sure, once printed, it's no longer software (in whatever sense of term). So in fact, a text/document have to be free only if it's on a computer? Is it the point? If Debian was making hardware (books!) in the future, it would be ok for Debian to provide, itself, along the with CD, proprietary manuals or even the GNU manifesto? Is it important to be able to modify a text only when this text is typed on the computer? All the reasons mentioned about how it's important to be able to modify a non technical text in the manual are only valid when the manual is not printed? It's very hard to understand for someone that consider computers as just tools. For me, printed or not, a Program must be Free Software, the technical parts of a manual must be Free Software. Fortunately, Debian only ships software... It saves time. (PS: I think that the purpose of this non-DFSG logo is perfectly sensible.) -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : So the next step seems obvious to me, Debian have make a choice: - follow the strict definition of DFSG promoted by many persons on that list and move the Official Debian Logo to non-free. - think about an another policy for logos or political/philosophical/historical texts. One could do that, but it wouldn't help because the FSF documentation under discussion is neither a logo nor in the category of political/philosophical/historical texts. The GNU Documentation under discussion _is_ in the category of political/philosophical/historical texts. Only these texts can be invariant in the GFDL. And the invariant option is the only philosophical issue (the rest are practical issues). Are we going round in circles here? Apparently it was needed to one more time remind which kind of text can be invariant. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: Wolfenstein 3D license
OF ID ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS TO THIS WARRANTY, OR ADDITIONAL WARRANTIES ON BEHALF OF ID. Exclusive Remedies. The Software is being offered to you free of any charge. You agree that you have no remedy against ID, its affiliates, contractors, suppliers, and agents for loss or damage caused by any defect or failure in the Software regardless of the form of action, whether in contract, tort, includinegligence, strict liability or otherwise, with regard to the Software. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Texas. Copyright and other proprietary matters will be governed by United States laws and international treaties. IN ANY CASE, ID SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR LOSS OF DATA, LOSS OF PROFITS, LOST SAVINGS, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT OR OTHER SIMILAR DAMAGES ARISING FROM BREACH OF WARRANTY, BREACH OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, OR OTHER LEGAL THEORY EVEN IF ID OR ITS AGENT HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, OR FOR ANY CLAIM BY ANY OTHER PARTY. Some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages, so the above limitation or exclusion may not apply to you. General Provisions. Neither this Agreement nor any part or portion hereof shall be assigned, sublicensed or otherwise transferred by you. Should any provision of this Agreement be held to be void, invalid, unenforceable or illegal by a court, the validity and enforceability of the other provisions shall not be affected thereby. If any provision is determined to be unenforceable, you agree to a modification of such provision to provide for enforcement of the provision's intent, to the extent permitted by applicable law. Failure of a party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute or be construed as a waiver of such provision or of the right to enforce such provision. If you fail to comply with any terms of this Agreement, YOUR LICENSE IS AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATED and you agree to the issuance of an injunction against you in favor of Id. You agree that Id shall not have to post bond or other security to obtain an injunction against you to prohibit you from violating Id's rights. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ THIS AGREEMENT, THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THIS AGREEMENT, AND UNDERSTAND THAT BY CONTINUING THE DOWNLOADING OF THE SOFTWARE, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THIS AGREEMENT'S TERMS AND CONDITIONS. YOU FURTHER AGREE THAT, EXCEPT FOR WRITTEN SEPARATE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN ID AND YOU, THIS AGREEMENT IS A COMPLETE AND EXCLUSIVE STATEMENT OF THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF THE PARTIES. THIS AGREEMENT SUPERSEDES ALL PRIOR ORAL AGREEMENTS, PROPOSALS OR UNDERSTANDINGS, AND ANY OTHER COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN ID AND YOU RELATING TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS AGREEMENT -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
software definition
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) a tapoté : Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This was very often written in that thread but it is wrong. To be stored on a FTP server or burned on a CD, you just need to be digital. You do not need to be software. The Bible does not become software once you type it in vi or Emacs. [This confusion between software and digital seems very prevalent in Debian. I share Mathieu's regrets about it.] Perhaps people who aren't native English speakers have learned the wrong definitions? Software is distinguished from *hardware*, and thus refers to bits as opposed to atoms, and it is irrelevant what the particular bits represent. Of course in the early days of computing, most the only software on computers consisted of programs, and so a lot of people got confused. Software is translated into Logiciel in French, which means program actually. The French name for Free Software is Logiciel Libre. It makes no room for confusion: when you believe in Logiciel Libre, it does not mean at all that you think that magically every text that is copied on a computer change it's nature (like the Bible stopping to be a theological text to be a software) If this translation, endorsed by the FSF France I think, as been picked, it's surely not a mistake but because Logiciel is really what need to be free in an operating system -- it is the operating system. Do you think every text you type on your computer should be worldwide shared? Finally, apparently english dictionnaries we can get for instance via kdict define software in a way do not contradict the translation Logiciel: WordNet (r) 1.7 [wn] software n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or rules and associated documentation pertaining to the operation of a computer system and that are stored in read/write memory; the market for software is expected to expand [syn: software system, software package, package] [ant: hardware] The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (09 FEB 02) [foldoc] software programming (Or computer program, program) The instructions executed by a computer, as opposed to the physical device on which they run (the hardware). Code is closely related but not exactly the same. Programs stored on non-volatile storage built from integrated circuits (e.g. ROM or PROM) are usually called firmware. Software can be split into two main types - system software and application software or application programs. System software is any software required to support the production or execution of application programs but which is not specific to any particular application. Examples of system software would include the operating system, compilers, editors and sorting programs. Examples of application programs would include an accounts package or a CAD program. Other broad classes of application software include real-time software, business software, scientific and engineering software, embedded software, personal computer software and artificial intelligence software. Software includes both source code written by humans and executable machine code produced by assemblers or compilers. It does not usually include the data processed by programs unless this is in a format such as multimedia which depends on the use of computers for its presentation. This distinction becomes unclear in cases such as spread sheets which can contain both instructions (formulae and macros) and data. There are also various intermediate compiled or semi-compiled, forms of software such as library files and byte-code. Some claim that documentation (both paper and electronic) is also software. Others go further and define software to be programs plus documentation though this does not correspond with common usage. The noun program describes a single, complete and more-or-less self-contained list of instructions, often stored in a single file, whereas code and software are uncountable nouns describing some number of instructions which may constitute one or more programs or part thereof. Most programs, however, rely heavily on various kinds of operating system software for their execution. (1998-06-04) -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On 2003-09-14, Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps people who aren't native English speakers have learned the wrong definitions? [...] b) Bruce Perens, the principle author of the DFSG, has clarified that it was intended to apply to everything on a Debian CD. So I think it's clear which definition is controlling here. No, it makes thing less clear, in fact. - If everything that is on a Debian CD is software, it may means that any text that can be included (for instance the Bible) is software for Debian. - But it may also means that the only content that can be on a Debian CD must be software under the definition that I copied from two dictionnaries in the mail I just sent. In this case, Bruce statement would just mean that the Bible cannot be included in Debian. The GNU GPL text is more clear, as it uses the word mostly the word program, instead of software. In fact, each time that making the distinction between software and program makes sense, this is program which is picked. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: Common software (was: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal)
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 10:41:33AM +0200, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 22 lines which said: He, that's really a nice term. I like it at first sight much more than free software or open source software. (I'm a German, but may have read too many english books.) It is nice in French, too, and it carries the memory of many important historical events (La Commune was the name of the first elected public body in Paris during the French Revolution). Hum. While the word libre is pretty clear (without confusion with free as beer), I'm not sure I would like to use a name picked by the creators of our current oligarchy, well inspired by the roman's one. But that's pretty off-topic. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
is debian political?
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Debian is both technical and political. I refer you to the Social Contract which says We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software community. We will place these first in our priorities. Note the free-software community there. And that is relevant how? I parse that as technical needs of What the hell is a political need? The last thing people need is politics. You may claim that as a non-English guy, I do not understand the word politic. But this word takes his origin from Ancient Greek and I have some knownledge about Ancient Greece. And unfortunately, anything that is about how a social group is ruled is politic -- basically, it's about the polis. So Debian is indeed political, because when you cares about what people need, you are in politics, whatever the fact that this word may no longer be trendy (at the contrary of the word technical, sure). -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: software definition
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 08:31:37AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: Software is translated into Logiciel in French, which means program actually. The French name for Free Software is Logiciel Libre. It makes no room for confusion: when you believe in Logiciel Libre, it does not mean at all that you think that magically every text that is copied on a computer change it's nature (like the Bible stopping to be a theological text to be a software) Wow. You're still arguing that freedom isn't important if it's not about programs [Wow, you are not able to read.] Apparently you seen freedom isn't important in a paragraph that tells you that the Bible is still a theological text, even when the Bible is stored on a computer device. Can you elaborate? , and that we should give it up freely since it's not the focus of the FSF Can you quote me saying that in the message you replied to? , and going on and on with definitions that have zero relevance to the spirit of the issue. Sure, definition of the word software is *completely* irrelevant in a message that is a reply to a message about the definition of this word. Can you remind me what was your point, apart from 'I do not agree'? -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: Software definition, was: A possible GFDL compromise
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On 2003-09-15 07:40:04 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - But it may also means that the only content that can be on a Debian CD must be software under the definition that I copied from two dictionnaries in the mail I just sent. [...] For one, I cannot understand where you get this requirement. Curiously, dicofr.com claims that logiciel was defined in 1967 by Philippe Renard as a direct replacement for the English meaning, as the intangible part of the computer, but then goes on to say it is now a synonym for program. My nearby copy of Larousse and francophonie.hachette-livre.fr only have the program meaning. Maybe French has become corrupted, similar to some English dictionaries? Someone with more resources I do not need dicofr to define the word Logiciel. But anyway, the following is the definition of the Academie Française: 1)*LOGICIEL n. m. XXe siècle. Dérivé de logique. INFORM. Ensemble structuré de programmes remplissant une fonction déterminée, permettant l'accomplissement d'une tâche donnée. Logiciel de traitement de texte, de dessin. Logiciel éducatif, pédagogique. Logiciel de simulation, de jeu. Le logiciel d'exploitation d'un ordinateur. Il s'est substitué à l'anglais Software, qui n'a plus à être employé. 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). But the French language is made by the French and by the Academie Française. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: Software definition, was: A possible GFDL compromise
Keith Stephen Dunwoody [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On 15 Sep 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On 2003-09-15 07:40:04 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - But it may also means that the only content that can be on a Debian CD must be software under the definition that I copied from two dictionnaries in the mail I just sent. [...] For one, I cannot understand where you get this requirement. Curiously, dicofr.com claims that logiciel was defined in 1967 by Philippe Renard as a direct replacement for the English meaning, as the intangible part of the computer, but then goes on to say it is now a synonym for program. My nearby copy of Larousse and francophonie.hachette-livre.fr only have the program meaning. Maybe French has become corrupted, similar to some English dictionaries? Someone with more resources I do not need dicofr to define the word Logiciel. But anyway, the following is the definition of the Academie Française: 1)*LOGICIEL n. m. XXe siècle. Dérivé de logique. INFORM. Ensemble structuré de programmes remplissant une fonction déterminée, permettant l'accomplissement d'une tâche donnée. Logiciel de traitement de texte, de dessin. Logiciel éducatif, pédagogique. Logiciel de simulation, de jeu. Le logiciel d'exploitation d'un ordinateur. Il s'est substitué à l'anglais Software, qui n'a plus à être employé. 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). But the French language is made by the French and by the Academie Française. I think you missed the point. I believe the point was that logiciel was originally intended as a replacement for software, but now seems to be more of a replacement for program. I think you missed the point. I think that it has been a replacement for program from the start. The etymology of the word says so. Hence not being a replacement for Software in the DFSG. L'Academie can say it is a replacement for software all they want, but if it doesn't mean the same thing, then it clearly isn't. It's a replacement for software for French people. I never heard a French guy taking care of the distinction between Hardware and Software like you do. Whether a document is stored on a computer or not seems to be a big matter only for non-French people. For me and for any persons I know, we consider as part of an Operating System only what permits it to run (program and documentation). Buty, to get back to Debian, the Debian definition of Software is definitely not Logiciel. That's ok. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : * Richard Stallman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030912 02:20]: I considered this possibility in the 1980s, not as an option but rather as a potential problem. So I developed a method to make sure this would not happen: invariant sections. The danger has not gone away, so we still need invariant sections. That's really end of discussion. If this clear wordings stands also for the FSF, than there is nothing how the manuals can become free. [become free _SOFTWARE_] -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 10:15:57AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: That's really end of discussion. If this clear wordings stands also for the FSF, than there is nothing how the manuals can become free. [become free _SOFTWARE_] No, he didn't say that, he said become free. The freedoms that are important for software are also important for documentation. This has been pointed out numerous times, and I've yet to see any interesting arguments otherwise. Debian is about Free _Software_. It's pretty clear that GNU does not consider that political/philosophical/historical texts, which can be part of a documentation, should be ruled like Free _Software_. Debian at the contrary only speaks about Free _Software_ and does not define how should be ruled political/philosophical/historical texts. Despite the fact that many people in Debian consider that the world should be ruled by the Free Software definition originated from GNU, it's not something obvious and something that Free Software contributors needs to believe in -- because it's out of the scope of _software_, indeed, unless you pretend that any work on earth is software). To reply on-topic, to rephrase in a neutral way what was said by someone else: The wording of Richard was clear, *there is nothing how the* political/historical/philophical parts of the *manuals can become free* software. Basically, it means that probably numbers of GNU manuals will go in non-free. It's a pity for people that think like GNU that political/philosophical/historical texts are not software and should not be ruled like Software, but there's nothing left to do. It clearly reflect a major differency in spirit between GNU and a number of Debian members: - GNU has defined Free Software and said that this definition is only about Software. - Debian has defined Free Software and said that this definition is about everything in Debian. By extension, it means that a number of Debian members are allowed to think that this definition is absolutely not only about Software. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : * Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030912 10:20]: Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : * Richard Stallman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030912 02:20]: I considered this possibility in the 1980s, not as an option but rather as a potential problem. So I developed a method to make sure this would not happen: invariant sections. The danger has not gone away, so we still need invariant sections. That's really end of discussion. If this clear wordings stands also for the FSF, than there is nothing how the manuals can become free. [become free _SOFTWARE_] become free in the sense of Debian. And that means: free according to the DFSG. Hum, you mean in the sense of the Debian Free _SOFTWARE_ Guidelines? -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
GFDL compromise - Deadend.
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : 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 are software, just to know that all works in Debian are software. What is true, definitely for Debian and probably in general, is that these works on computer are software. Once again, people who disagree with Debian's definition of free software may have to collect some things that they think free from outside Debian: this is not new. The difference is not in spirit, but semantics: GNU has defined software as a synonym for programs which seems odd to me and seems to open a can of worms about literate programming, opinion pieces on sources, ktp. Software: (computer science) written programs or procedures or rules and associated documentation pertaining to the operation of a computer system and that are stored in read/write memory (from WordNet 1.7). I think you have an extraordinary large definition of software, unfortunately not shared by all the dictionnaries I know. For most people on earth, I do not think that software defines theses works (philosophical/political/historical texts) that may be on computer. However, you can have your own definition of software. But it's seems to me just a poor way to defend what seems to be your true feeling: that every texts, of every kind, on computer or not, should follow the Free Software rules. Regards, -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: GFDL compromise - Deadend.
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : 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 preferred definition is not shared by all dictionaries; - your preferred definition still includes FDL-covered works in its definition of software; And do not include the FDL invariant section. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: GFDL compromise - Deadend.
Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : I think you have an extraordinary large definition of software, unfortunately not shared by all the dictionnaries I know. For most people on earth, I do not think that software defines theses works (philosophical/political/historical texts) that may be on computer. However the FSF have decided to include these philosophical/political/historical texts as part of the associated documentation pertaining to the operation of a computer system. This therefore makes them part of that associated documentation, and thus includes them in your own quoted definition of Software. Discussion of whether or not they fit the Debian Free Software Guidelines is very relevant. If those texts *were not* part of the software documentation (and therefore Software), and were a document distributed separately, we wouldn't even need to have this discussion. Sure. But being part of a documentation does not change the nature of a text. The philosophical/political/historical text really document the software. But do not at all pertain to the operation of a computer system (how could it be?). However, you can have your own definition of software. But it's seems to me just a poor way to defend what seems to be your true feeling: that every texts, of every kind, on computer or not, should follow the Free Software rules. My personal feeling... Software is computer programs and all associated documentation, data files, etc. Debian is a distribution of software so should include nothing not matching this definition. Ok, so it should not include philosophical/political/historical texts, whatever the fact they may be invariant or not. That's something I can understand. Philosophical, political and historical texts, when included in a program's documentation, are part of that software. I do not agree. If I quote Kant in a History Scientific paper, it does not makes this Kant's text I quoted an History-related related text. It would still be a philosophic text, included in a History-related text. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
defaming now?
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : * Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030912 11:50]: Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : become free in the sense of Debian. And that means: free according to the DFSG. Hum, you mean in the sense of the Debian Free _SOFTWARE_ Guidelines? Perhaps you should read the Social Contract, http://www.debian.org/social_contract and re-do your Philosophy and Procedures. There stands e.g. | the applicant must agree with these principles I completely agree with these principles. Unless you can prove that I disagree with the social contract, please stop defaming. But I don't think that you'll bring here the proof of your defaming behavior so I'm going to proves that my point of view about philosophical/political/historical text is not at all contradicting the social contract: 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software. As there are many definitions of free software, we include the guidelines we use to determine if software is free below. We will support our users who develop and run non-free software on Debian, but we will never make the system depend on an item of non-free software. No problem for me. Philosophical/political/historical text included in some manuals are not software. It does not creates dependancies and it does not change the right to use/read/modify/distribute the software. It has no consequences on software usability or functionalities. I think it would be interesting to consider making distinction between software and manuals but I know that this distinction does not exists currently and I'll never include invariant philosophical/political/historical text in my contribution to Debian, because I accepted to follow the Debian rules (I never said that I would disregard the rules when contributing to Debian) 2. We Will Give Back to the Free Software Community 3. We Won't Hide Problems Nothing involved here. 4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software 5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards I think our users need good manuals but I'm not sure they have troubles with the invariant section as they are. That's why I'm writing here, trying to find out if there was a middle way between the GNU position and the Debian position. Now I clearly understand that this issue is probably not going to be resolved and that the GNU manuals will probably enter non-free, because they are truly non-free _software_ because of some parts of their content, because these parts were not meant to be free _software_. But it does not at all mean that I did not accepted to follow the DFSG when contributing to Debian, despite the fact that I'm totally fine with political/philosophical/historical non-being free _software_. I remind you that when you agree to follow principles of a group, you agree to follow this principles when you are contributing to this group. What you do in your life apart from the group is your problem -- but indeed generaly when you volunteer, it means that the rules of the group are totally fine for you. I volunteer also for the GNU project. But it happens from time to time that I have to use non-free software, despite the fact that I dislike non-free software. But I would never do that in my volunteering activity for GNU. If you truly think that everybody volunteering for a project must respect totally the rules of this project in whatever they do in their life, it means that every contributor to Debian and GNU (there's plenty of persons in this case) must resign from one of the projects. It means also that a contributor to Debian should stop volunteering if he have to contribute in his professional life to a proprietary software, despite his feelings in favor of Free Software. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Keith Dunwoody [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Mathieu Roy wrote: Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 10:15:57AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: That's really end of discussion. If this clear wordings stands also for the FSF, than there is nothing how the manuals can become free. [become free _SOFTWARE_] No, he didn't say that, he said become free. The freedoms that are important for software are also important for documentation. This has been pointed out numerous times, and I've yet to see any interesting arguments otherwise. Debian is about Free _Software_. It's pretty clear that GNU does not consider that political/philosophical/historical texts, which can be part of a documentation, should be ruled like Free _Software_. Debian at the contrary only speaks about Free _Software_ and does not define how should be ruled political/philosophical/historical texts. Despite the fact that many people in Debian consider that the world should be ruled by the Free Software definition originated from GNU, it's not something obvious and something that Free Software contributors needs to believe in -- because it's out of the scope of _software_, indeed, unless you pretend that any work on earth is software). Look, I think we're getting tired of this argument, that documentation distributed by Debian isn't software. Please review the mailing list archives for why documentation in Debian is software. -- Keith, who sincerely hopes we'll stop seeing the same arguments rehashed time and time again. I think there is evidence now of the fact that this issue is not going to be fixed in a near future, so I agree, the debate is now sterile. Please, note that in the mail you just replied to, it was not said that that documentation distributed by Debian isn't software but that political/philosophical/historical texts isn't software. I did not picked this phrasing to save time when typing. Regards, -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: defaming now?
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : No problem for me. Philosophical/political/historical text included in some manuals are not software. If that is true, but one would be prepared to put manuals with such text in Debian, then surely that doesn't agree with the first term of the social contract, *even* according to Mathieu's preferred definition of software. I agree with Mathieu that one only needs to uphold the contract in Debian work (despite my view), but he seems to be trying to get those texts in Debian. To me, this seems to indicate disagreement with the contract. I tried to understand what would be the best for users, which is an important point of the Social Contract. But now I admit that the GNU view of the subject cannot be working with the Debian view of the subject, because GNU is not going to provide manuals without these invariant sections and because Debian is not going to ships texts with these invariant sections (whatever their nature). -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 07:12 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote: Please review the archive. GFDL is non-free even without invariant sections, due to the anti-DMCA clause. This has been discussed recently and it was so not clear. The poll held recently made it very clear. Who has changed their position since then? 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. Right now I listed 3 problems: - invariant section ... an option not necessarily used - anti-DMCA clause... maybe unwanted issue (that can be fixed by the FSF if the problem is confirmed) - transparent clause... complex question. Wouldn't be a problem if a GFDLed document is only modifiable in a format that itself requires non-free software? People provided examples of practicals problems with the GFDL as it handle the problem right now. But how could be fixed this problem and still making sure that the documentation will be modifiable without non-free software (just an example)? The 1st problem will not find a compromise. It expresses a big difference of consideration of the documentation between GNU and Debian. Fortunately, this problem does not make the GFDL 'non-free software according to Debian', but makes the Invariant option 'non-free software according to Debian'. So it's not something that should put GFDLed documentation out of main, as long as they do not use that option. The 2nd and the 3rd ones could be fixed in a way that satisfy both GNU and Debian, IMHO. Is there another big issue I forgot? -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 12:29 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote: So a country were you are free to kill a girl without any legal risk is a country DFSG compliant? Please cite the specific paragraph of the DFSG that has _anything_ to do with killing people. None. Because DFSG is about free _software_. Not about any freedom you can imagine. Basically, the freedoms I think important for a software are expressed at gnu.org of at debian.org. The freedoms I think important for documentation are expressed at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html If you feel the DFSG is not appropriate for documentation, propose changing the Social Contract on -project. By reading -legal, I do not think it would have any success. So it's not an option right now. But to be able to discuss about this whole issue, I think important to keep in mind that - not everything on earth is software - people may completely agree on freedom that matters for software - people may disagree on freedom that matters for political / historical text and it does not means they are corrupted. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : * Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030911 10:20]: Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 12:29 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote: So a country were you are free to kill a girl without any legal risk is a country DFSG compliant? Please cite the specific paragraph of the DFSG that has _anything_ to do with killing people. None. Because DFSG is about free _software_. Not about any freedom you can imagine. Why do you than say something about killing people here? If we use the word free or freedom here, we usually speak about free(dom) in the sense of the DFSG. (That's called context. In my referenced mail I even said explicit what I mean by the words free and non-free, as I defined them, in the hope that even you won't missunderstand them.) 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. DFSG is about Free Software, we all agree about that. Debian is only about Free Software. Like GNU. But GNU delivers philosophical/political/historical text along with software, to explain his position about Software. And apparently, there's no problem to include these philosophical texts in Debian as long as these text would be treated as Software, ruled by the Free Software definition originated from GNU. But GNU does not consider these philosophical/political/historical texts like Software and so do not think interesting to make them ruled by the Free Software definition. - Maybe GNU should consider the option to provide its manuals in two versions, one without philosophical/political/historical texts, one as the current manuals. It would enable GNU/Linux distributions to choose between just delivering Free Software or delivering philosophical/historical/political texts explaining Free Software along with Free Software to contribute to the GNU ideals fame. There is a risk for GNU: most of the distros may choose to only contribute to Free Software by delivering and making Free Software. But there's an obvious advantage: having GNU manuals that already contain mainly technical documentation that must follow rules likely similar to Free Software rules according to GNU (almost part of the software) still distributed in most GNU/Linux distro. Which is a goal of GNU, to make a complete OS, which usually includes documentation related to the software shipped. It would be annoying to work against the GNU project goals in order to promote the GNU project goals. - Maybe Debian should think about the fact that Debian does not only deliver Software. Yes, in the real world a political text is not a Software -- at all. The fact that even philosophical/political/historical texts should be ruled by the Free Software rules to be ethically acceptable for a number of Debian Developers, in my humble opinion, shows a desire which is completely out of the scope of both Debian and GNU: extending the Free Software rules to almost any kind of work (music, literature). When following this goal, not stated by Debian, it's pretty logical to consider Richard Stallman as corrupted (someone used this word several time on the list about Richard), despite the fact he did not changed his position on Free Software. It particulary makes sense to feel betrayed when the author of the GNU Manifesto tells you that it's only about Software, while you want to extends it to everything. This implicit desire, present in many Debian Developers heart (I bring no proof with me, I would take some time but that something I'm able to do -- It's my real work in real life), makes, I think, impossible to discuss the subject. Because when one tells he does not think important to be able to modify a political text, the other one answer that it must be the case for Debian -- while he is probably think it should be the case under whatever circumstances. If he was not the case, it's likely that he would answer that these texts do not belongs to Debian. And it's, I think, why this GFDL is so annoying for many people always referring to practical issues (anti-DMCA clause, transparent copies clause) when it's not possible to discuss what disturb them most (the invariant section). So the only solution that would help both GNU and Debian is the risky solution I mentioned in - Maybe GNU should I'm sure it would be lot easier to find way to fix the practical issues without the burden of the disagreement about how political/historical/philosophical texts should be ruled. Which is something off-topic for both GNU and Debian
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:24:00PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: As Debian provides links, for apt-get, to non-free software, which are distributed by debian but 'not considered as part of debian', would it be acceptable for debian to provides links, for apt-get, to 'non-DFSG documentation', which would be distributed by GNU and 'not considered as part of Debian'? That would be fine - until we pass the GR to get rid of non-free once and for all (partially at RMS' behest, I will add). I don't see why, if we're cleaning up our act in distributing items non-compliant with our social contract, we'd keep one part and throw out another. Sure. But I'm not sure the deletion of non-free for Debian servers will happen soon. So my proposal can be a temporary solution, like non-free inclusion. Another one would be from GNU maintainers to release two versions of their manuals: - the complete GFDLed one - a GPLed one where the invariant section are removed But I see many reasons against this solution. If this kind of solution can be accepted, it will probably take some time. Another one would be from Debian to make a difference between non-free software and non-DFSG compliant documentation. It means that debian would be providing in main manuals DFSG compliant and in another place documentation less-free according to the DFSG but still mostly free. (if it's possible to argue that the GNU FDL is not DFSG-compliant, it's a bit hard to claims it's proprietary documentation). There's no way out if the two sides stands strictly on their position. And the affected ones will be users at first (lacking good documentation because of an invariant section that is maybe not something they consider as non-free), the debian developers (forced to write from scratch new documentation), the GNU developers (losting an user base for their documentation). It would allow users (something that Debian cares about) that do not want 'non-free software' at all but accept 'free-documentation as defined by the GNU project' to be able to use apt-get easily, easier than if 'free-documentation as defined by the GNU project' was mixed with 'non-free software'. The GNU project is free to set up it's own apt-get repository to distribute items which it feels should be in the Debian archive but which we can't distribute. You'll have to work out some way to publicise it to users, since, as you have to understand, we can't have any part in recommending non-free software to our users[1]. I agree with your first phrase. Unfortunately I cannot agree with the last one: Debian already recommends non-free software to users by provide apt-get links to these softwares, even if in theory non-free is not part of Debian. And it leads me to another question for the list: when thinking about the GFDL, the answer from the list is 'the GFDL is not DFSG-compliant', but should we consider that GFDLed documentation is equal to non-free software, by disregarding the license itself which provide freedoms that no non-free software provides? It's a bit strange to study line by line a license text to find reasons of DFSG-non compliance and suddenly, because of one potential problem (you're not forced to use invariant options!), concluding that this license is completely non-free, isn't it? -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:24:00PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: I think that Richard addressed already several of the recurrent questions from debian-legal. Can we move forward in this direction? Which question is left? Why don't you review the mail I sent and see for yourself? This is the conclusions of the last mails I got from you on the list: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 01:41:48 -0500 One last question for now: since I do not want to leap to any conclusions, how am I to interpret your recent (but consistent) practice of no longer responding directly to my mails, but instead mentioning them only by reference, and speaking to me only in the third person? Wed, 3 Sep 2003 14:21:12 -0500 Are you to be the sole arbiter of whether that additional information is useful or not? [...] What's your definition of harsh treatment? Do you think there is an objective one upon which both the FSF and the Debian Project can agree, or do you reserve the right to be the lone applicator of this term? I think it perfectly illustrates what kind of debate seems sterile to me. I do not think that attacks ad hominem can help when the situation is already problematic. Instead of asking someone to justify his feelings, propose something. For instance, in the last part I quoted, instead of discussing whether you're were harsh or not, whether Richard was right to thinks your treatment harsh or not, why don't you just tell if you think there is an objective one upon which both the FSF and the Debian Project can agree? The reply you sent to me is also harsh to me. I asked Which question is left? and you replied Why don't you review the mail I sent and see for yourself?. - it does not at all answer to the question - it proposes an obvious, non-constructive, solution - proposing an obvious solution to someone is almost calling him a fool If I asked Which question is left, it was not to go backward and continue discussing in the spirit of your mail exhange with Richard. So, on purpose, I asked Which question is left in the light of what I said. So now, please, Branden, try to speak about 'what you feel for yourself', 'what you want to do'. But if you continue to speak about 'how this persons looks into your eyes', 'how this person is fair or unfair', Richard will not be the only one disregarding your mails. Now it's me that ended to speak about you and not the ideas expressed. That's the problem, when someone misbehave (by talking of persons instead of ideas), you have only two options: ignore him (what Richard do), reply to him by misbehaving in the same way (what I've just done). If the situation cannot be changed, the only sensible solution is to ignore you, which would be a pity because, usually, when there no emotional messing, I think you provide very interesting input. Regards, -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : [...] And the affected ones will be users at first (lacking good documentation because of an invariant section that is maybe not something they consider as non-free), This is not a new effect: users who disagree with our definition of free software already don't have some things they may consider as free in Debian. Not *in* Debian, but *shipped by* Debian. For you, there's no distinction between GNU Emacs manual and Macromedia Flash? the debian developers (forced to write from scratch new documentation), They are not forced to do that, but may choose to. Sure. the GNU developers (losting an user base for their documentation). This is entirely down to the GNU developers and the remedy is in their own hands. We cannot make any progress if each part claims it's entirely up to the other part, while both parts have sensible arguments. [...] I agree with your first phrase. Unfortunately I cannot agree with the last one: Debian already recommends non-free software to users by provide apt-get links to these softwares, [...] If linking were recommendation, then FSF recommends SCO, the FIPR and kelkoo because it links to them on http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/sco/questioning-sco.html http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/audio/audio.html and http://patron.fsf.org/2003-patrons.html respectively. This is clearly absurd. This is not at all absurd. When you tell people they can find non-free software at -this address-, you advertise for this non-free software. When you do a Ph.D about NSDAP, when you quote Mein Kampf, you're not advertising for this book (please, do not try to get godwin points by yelling godwin bla bla, I have no argument against your logical comparison). To synthetise, you argue that a link is never a recommendation because somes links are not recommendations. This is truly absurd. Debian has non-free software packaged for it on its mirrors, but it is not recommended and moves are underway about that, so please stop pushing at the open door. Maybe the word recommends is a bit too strong, but is it the problem? In my eyes, the problem right now is not whether non-free is appropriate in Debian or not. The problem to me is simple: we provide non-free stuff (yes, we do provide it, despite the fact it's not considered as part of debian) and we're about to claim that GFLed documentation, which may not at all having any invariant part, is non-free stuff. It seems weird to me. Someone said that GFLed documentation without invariant sections can be made non-free if someone getting a copy of the documentation add invariant sections. What does it change? Do we consider BSD software as non-free software because they do not forbid a software to become (wholy) invariant? As I understand it, invariants are not the only problem So what are the others problems (on purpose, I ignore problems that already got a decent answer)? -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Keith Dunwoody [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Mathieu Roy wrote: It seems weird to me. Someone said that GFLed documentation without invariant sections can be made non-free if someone getting a copy of the documentation add invariant sections. What does it change? Do we consider BSD software as non-free software because they do not forbid a software to become (wholy) invariant? Please review the archive. GFDL is non-free even without invariant sections, due to the anti-DMCA clause. This has been discussed recently and it was so not clear. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : 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. 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. This is not at all absurd. When you tell people they can find non-free software at -this address-, you advertise for this non-free software. So FSF advertises for SCO, according to your reasoning? After all, they give an address for SCO. Do the FSF tell go there get the SCO brand new software? I argued that links are not recommendations by countering your apparent proposition that any link is recommendation. I never said that, please quote me saying that or forget it. and we're about to claim that GFLed documentation, which may not at all having any invariant part, is non-free stuff. No, we claim that FDL-covered documents are not free software. Is this mail a software? If I put this mail in a CVS, does it make this mail a software? You can claim that documentation are not free software because there are indeed not software, free or not. Beside from that, what is your problem with GFDLed documentation without any invariant parts? (apart from the DRM issue which do not seems to be on purpose problematic - and so which can be fixed, if the problem is confirmed) Whether or not it is free stuff is abstract and difficult to discuss in the absence of a free stuff definition. People have tried during this thread, but generalising from the free software definition does seem to reach the conclusion that FDL-covered works are not free stuff. If you are careful, you may show that the documentation part is free stuff, but you cannot take the documentation part alone from the work, so the work is still not free stuff. This is not directly relevant, though. Do you mean that it's not possible to just distribute a GFDLed documentation alone? I do not understand what work refers to, what documentation part refers to. And you noticed that the expression free stuff is ambiguous but you use it. Puzzling. It seems weird to me. Someone said that GFLed documentation without invariant sections can be made non-free if someone getting a copy of the documentation add invariant sections. ...in the absence of other problems, this would not be enough to prevent the original from being free, as you correctly explain. Ok. So we can get over this invariant problems for manuals/doc which have no invariant section (yes, it exists). -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : * Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 11:20]: Not *in* Debian, but *shipped by* Debian. For you, there's no distinction between GNU Emacs manual and Macromedia Flash? There is exactly one: We are allowed to distribute the manual, but not the Flash player. So installation of the second needs some ugly tricks, and perhaps it would be better to create a new archive non-free-installers for this (and similar code). I see many others differences. Am I dreaming or you can modify almost the GNU Emacs manual, you can distribute largely this manual (modified or not), you have the preferred form for modification of the GNU Emacs manual. It does not sounds so similar to be. I find more differencies than similarities between the two. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : * Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 11:20]: And it leads me to another question for the list: when thinking about the GFDL, the answer from the list is 'the GFDL is not DFSG-compliant', but should we consider that GFDLed documentation is equal to non-free software, by disregarding the license itself which provide freedoms that no non-free software provides? It's a bit Sorry, but there is certainly non-free software that provide freedom equally to GFDL. Name one. (Note that when you speak of the freedom brought by the GFDL, you cannot consider that the invariant option is surely used) . Should we consider to put this code also in main? I say no to this. If something is not DFSG-free thant it can not be put into main. Did I, in my previous mail, proposed that? -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Beside from that, what is your problem with GFDLed documentation without any invariant parts? (apart from the DRM issue which do not seems to be on purpose problematic - and so which can be fixed, if the problem is confirmed) There is also the definition of transparent forms. I can't distribute GFDL'd documents I write in Openoffice or LyX. The fact that you cannot write GFDLed document with OpenOffice or LyX (which are not at all in a preferred form for modification) does not make documentation GFDLed that others persons wrote, in the preferred form for modification, non-free. If you write a GFDLed document with OpenOffice, you must provide along with the OpenOffice version another version, in a preferred form for modification. It's an obligation you accept to follow when you decide to license under the GFDL a documentation. But we're not about to list the reasons why some persons may or may not choose the GFDL, are we? -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : * Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 13:35]: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : No, we claim that FDL-covered documents are not free software. Is this mail a software? If I put this mail in a CVS, does it make this mail a software? The term software is used here (and at a lot of other places) as representation of works in machine-readable form. This means that this mail is software. But: Most of the mails here are not copyright-able at all, and thus have no license status and can be included everywhere and even in main. Really? If I send a script in a email without license notice, it makes it free software? If I post a poem in a email, does it means it suppress copyright laws? This is highly doubtful. When you have no license that grants you rights, given by the copyright holder, it's usually the copyright laws that are applied. And without explicit permission, you have none. Is there a sensible explanation that would makes mails not copyright-able? -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : We have the DFSG for exactly this reasons: We (meaning the Debian Project) can't decide what software is allowed in main by personal preference, independent whether it's mine, the of the DPL or the RM Basically, if your involved in Debian, your personal preference should be near from the Debian position. So there's no complete independance between DFSG and Debian developers feelings. That said, I never asked to decide what software would be allowed on a case by case basis, depending of the connections of the authors with debian persons. I asked to think about a possible distinction for Debian between non-free software and GFDLed documentation. And the DFSG draw a sharp line: Either a package matches the DFSG, then it could be part of Debian, and be uploaded to main. Or a package doesn't match. Then it can't be part of main. There is nothing else to discuss at d-l And nothing will ever change? The distinction I'm talking about is not in the DFSG, that's correct. Now, do we refuse it because DFSG is a block of marble or because we think that there no valid reason to change? The second option seems more sensible to me, that's why I'm try to check if there can be valid reason to change or not. But apparently you prefer the first option, claiming that there is nothing else to discuss at d-l. If everybody apart me feels like you, we can drop the A possible GFDL compromise subject, because there won't be any compromise. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : * Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 13:50]: Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : * Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 11:20]: And it leads me to another question for the list: when thinking about the GFDL, the answer from the list is 'the GFDL is not DFSG-compliant', but should we consider that GFDLed documentation is equal to non-free software, by disregarding the license itself which provide freedoms that no non-free software provides? It's a bit Sorry, but there is certainly non-free software that provide freedom equally to GFDL. Name one. qmail. Unfortunately, you are wrong. I'll just give the most obvious reason: For a GFDL documentation, you do not need the author approval to distribute modified versions. (please, do not assume that invariant sections exists in every GFDLed software) -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Beside from that, what is your problem with GFDLed documentation without any invariant parts? (apart from the DRM issue which do not seems to be on purpose problematic - and so which can be fixed, if the problem is confirmed) There is also the definition of transparent forms. I can't distribute GFDL'd documents I write in Openoffice or LyX. The fact that you cannot write GFDLed document with OpenOffice or LyX (which are not at all in a preferred form for modification) does not make documentation GFDLed that others persons wrote, in the preferred form for modification, non-free. The OpenOffice or LyX forms _are_ the preferred forms for modification. I wrote my thesis in LyX, and I certainly wouldn't prefer to work with LaTeX. The problem is that the GFDL does not specify preferred form for modification, it specifies a format that is suitable for revising the document straightforwardly with generic text editors. LyX and OpenOffice are not generic text editors. If you write a GFDLed document with OpenOffice, you must provide along with the OpenOffice version another version, in a preferred form for modification. It's an obligation you accept to follow when you decide to license under the GFDL a documentation. It is a restriction on how I can use and transform the document, rendering the GFDL non-free. If _I_ (note the I) publish a manual under the GFDL, as plain text, with no invariant sections, you're allowed to modify it and redistribute it. At this point, you cannot claim it's non-free. But if you start modifying my manual under the GFDL with OpenOffice, the license _I_ chose force you to provide _along_ with your modification something _I_ can reuse myself (even if I have not OpenOffice). Because GFDL is not a BSD like license, it does not permits you to do transform the documentation into a binary only distribution (or something near). It does not restrict how you can use and transform the document, it forbids you to forgot to provide the source that anybody having a computer can reuse, when you redistribute it (basically, it defines how you must redistribute it at least). You last phrase is just like if you were saying: the GPL force me to distribute the source code, it is a restriction on how I can use and transform the source code, rendering the GPL non-free. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Mathieu Roy said: Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : There is also the definition of transparent forms. I can't distribute GFDL'd documents I write in Openoffice or LyX. The fact that you cannot write GFDLed document with OpenOffice or LyX (which are not at all in a preferred form for modification) does not make documentation GFDLed that others persons wrote, in the preferred form for modification, non-free. So the GFDL not only restricts you from storing works in certain formats (those restricted by DRM measures), but even from creating them in certain formats in the first place? Oups, I forgot to be supra-explicit. Please add to The fact that you cannot write GFDLed document with OpenOffice or LyX the following without providing an copy in a suitable form for modification without having the software you are using. If you write a GFDLed document with OpenOffice, you must provide along with the OpenOffice version another version, in a preferred form for modification. It's an obligation you accept to follow when you decide to license under the GFDL a documentation. This is not an excessive burden? In order to release a GFDL'd document, I have to learn how to create paragraph markup in a GFDL-sanctioned preferred format, rather than just clicking Bold in OpenOffice? I have to learn how to create tables in TeX, rather than letting LyX take care of that? I believe that OpenOffice can export a document into a text file, which is suitable for modification with a text editor. But in fact, OpenOffice format may be even considered as acceptable: A Transparent copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy, represented in a format whose specification is available to the general public, that is suitable for revising the document straightforwardly with generic text editors or (for images composed of pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some widely available drawing editor, and that is suitable for input to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input to text formatters. A copy made in an otherwise Transparent file format whose markup, or absence of markup, has been arranged to thwart or discourage subsequent modification by readers is not Transparent. An image format is not Transparent if used for any substantial amount of text. A copy that is not Transparent is called Opaque. Maybe we can consider that your OpenOffice file is suitable for input to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input to text formatters. But basically, you are still looking for technical potential issues which, if you can legally confirm the issues, would be changed by the FSF because these potential issues are not on purpose. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : I asked to think about a possible distinction for Debian between non-free software and GFDLed documentation. You're asking about a distinction between non-free software and non-free software. No. (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? I'm sorry but being free is meaningless. You're always 'free to do something' (when you say I'm free, you basically implicitely express what we consider now basic freedom (freedom of speech etc)). There are freedom that are not given (freedom to kill, to hurt) for obvious reasons. When you think about freedom, you have to list what freedom are required in order to be able to live, work and make a better society. I think that the following article explains well why not everybody agree that texts and softwares require the exact same freedom: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html Well, do you think it would be adaequate to put e.g. qmail into main? Not at all. I share the views expressed in the link I gave at the beginning of this mail. It clearly explains which freedoms seems most important for a software to me, requirement not met at all. What software would be acceptable for you to put into main? Any and only software DFSG-compliant Can you draw a sharp line, so that we are able to discuss about this? Basically, the freedoms I think important for a software are expressed at gnu.org of at debian.org. The freedoms I think important for documentation are expressed at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html But only GNU speaks of documentation. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
OT Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 11:11:19AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : [...] And the affected ones will be users at first (lacking good documentation because of an invariant section that is maybe not something they consider as non-free), This is not a new effect: users who disagree with our definition of free software already don't have some things they may consider as free in Debian. Not *in* Debian, but *shipped by* Debian. For you, there's no distinction between GNU Emacs manual and Macromedia Flash? This is fallacious reasoning. One can make a distinction between unlike things without asserting or implying that all things so distinguished are identical in all other respects. Example: * Moose have antlers. * Rabbits do not have antlers. :. Rabbits are not moose. * Moose have antlers. * Cats do not have antlers. :. Cats are not moose. Your argument above asserts: :. Rabbits are cats. To see why this is so, substitute the DFSG test for the antler test. That the GNU Emacs Manual and Macromedia Flash Player both fail the DFSG does not mean they are identical in all other respects. The mere fact that they both fail the DFSG tells us nothing else about them. I must confess to some disappointment in the cogency of your reasoning. Literally ad hominem means targeting the man (how he looks like, sure, to take the more simplistic case... but also how he writes, how behaves). Save me your lessons which has nothing to do with computing. I did not say that you were doing fallacy (so forget all the nice web pages about logical fallacies) -- it would requires you to be really involved in the debate. This whole mail you sent is only about my argument which above asserts [...]. Unfortunately but there's no argument or assertion in a question. And the interrogative form denotes a question (there's no sign of irony in this phrase). You are a major contributor to Debian, surely a great developer, but I just cannot understand how to talk with you about something different than persons in this GFDL thread. So naturally, the wisest solution for me is to avoid any replies to you (and globally to avoid the GFDL-thread since I got now a picture of the points of views) It leads me to support Bruce's proposal -- a draft made by a small group of persons from both FSF and Debian, proposed here, would surely be helpful. Regards, -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
GFDLed and preferred form
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : It is a restriction on how I can use and transform the document, rendering the GFDL non-free. If _I_ (note the I) publish a manual under the GFDL, as plain text, with no invariant sections, you're allowed to modify it and redistribute it. At this point, you cannot claim it's non-free. Sure I can. I can't incorporate it into my thesis, which is written entirely in LyX. Unless you find a way to make it suitable for modification to non-LyX users. Isn't is possible to do an html export or something like that? But if you start modifying my manual under the GFDL with OpenOffice, the license _I_ chose force you to provide _along_ with your modification something _I_ can reuse myself (even if I have not OpenOffice). Because GFDL is not a BSD like license, it does not permits you to do transform the documentation into a binary only distribution (or something near). It does not restrict how you can use and transform the document, it forbids you to forgot to provide the source that anybody having a computer can reuse, when you redistribute it (basically, it defines how you must redistribute it at least). I _am_ providing the source. The preferred means for editing my thesis is with LyX. The problem is that the GFDL doesn't think that an open format easily modified with free software qualifies. I'm not especially familiar with LyX but I though it was similar or based on LaTeX. As LaTeX files are ok for the GFDL, shouldn't be the same? No, I am saying that the GFDL has a screwy definition for source. I think it's pretty complicated task to come up with a perfect license and that the current GFDL can surely be enhanced in his letter. But the spirit seems fine to me. It would be interesting to have a clear list with a distinction between problem in the letter and problems in the spirit, in regard to Debian. In the FAQ, there no strict distinction of this kind, it talks about invariant section mainly http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html I think that this invariant question should be taken apart. it's easier to see what would require a change in the letter in the GFDL for the GFDLed manual without invariant sections to be considered as free documentation by Debian (yes I wrote documentation). -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : * Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030909 11:20]: And it leads me to another question for the list: when thinking about the GFDL, the answer from the list is 'the GFDL is not DFSG-compliant', but should we consider that GFDLed documentation is equal to non-free software, by disregarding the license itself which provide freedoms that no non-free software provides? It's a bit Sorry, but there is certainly non-free software that provide freedom equally to GFDL. Name one. (Note that when you speak of the freedom brought by the GFDL, you cannot consider that the invariant option is surely used) The old LPPL. I would say that the LPPL is not equal. Because it requires you to change the name of the files you modify and that's a direct problem when using LaTeX. It's not just like carrying a text in some place while you are not forced to read it, it falls directly within that overall subject (LaTeX usage). -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) a tapoté : It isn't unfair, precisely because I think it's a two way street. This is the standard that applies to both sides. Are there questions you think Debian hasn't answered? Has Debian announced that it will ignore whatever you say because you have been cruel and dismissive towards us? Nope, we're still here. By reading Richard, I did not understood that he will ignore whatever *some-people* say because they have been cruel and aggressive. I understood that he will ignore whatever *some-people* say until they stop to be cruel and aggressive. Did I miss the point? Maybe. Anyway, this kind of debate (about how someone is good or bad) is usually endless and sterile. I think that Richard addressed already several of the recurrent questions from debian-legal. Can we move forward in this direction? Which question is left? How the invariant section may not be free-software according the DFSG but free-documentation according to the GNU project? Well, I'm not sure it's possible to find a way out of this problem. As Debian provides links, for apt-get, to non-free software, which are distributed by debian but 'not considered as part of debian', would it be acceptable for debian to provides links, for apt-get, to 'non-DFSG documentation', which would be distributed by GNU and 'not considered as part of Debian'? It would allow users (something that Debian cares about) that do not want 'non-free software' at all but accept 'free-documentation as defined by the GNU project' to be able to use apt-get easily, easier than if 'free-documentation as defined by the GNU project' was mixed with 'non-free software'. PS: I speak in my name only (it should be obvious, but I know this is not for everybody). -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
