for mentioning Netbeans, Tom. This is exactly the application
I had in mind. I chose it over Eclipse for my Java development and
I'd like very much to be part of main some day.
Regards,
--
Jérôme Marant
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
the issue?
Thanks.
Regards,
--
Jérôme Marant
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Le vendredi 01 décembre 2006 18:44, Mike Hommey a écrit :
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 12:03:46PM +0100, Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
I watched Sun's Simon Phipps' talk at debconf 2006 few weeks ago.
It was mentioned that the choice of venue was useless and would be
removed
Unless they upgrade the license of such software, I guess?
Which would be relicensing and requires agreement from all contributors,
as any other relicensing.
Exactly. But it should not be a problem for Sun products I'm thinking
about.
Thanks.
--
Jérôme Marant
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
the general license than the
rest, because there's no place to put a separate license statement
in these files.
emacs.icon
emacs.xbm
gnu.xpm
gnus-pointer.xbm
gnus-pointer.xpm
gnus.pbm
gnus.xpm
letter.xbm
splash.pbm
splash.xpm
splash8.xpm
[MAIN] I think they are GPL.
Thanks!
--
Jérôme
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) writes:
Files in the /etc directory of emacs21 which may be legally problematic
follow.
Thank you very much. This is an impressive piece of work.
I'll take some time to read it cautiously and come back if
any question.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant
(and could even suddenly
become only available for a fee).
Savannah was born for this very reason...
Other similar project-hosting services?
Any suggestions?
https://www.gna.org/
Gna does not accept GPL v2 only projects either.
--
Jérôme Marant
Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The following files have already been identified as offending:
etc/{CENSORSHIP,copying.paper,INTERVIEW,LINUX-GNU,THE-GNU-PROJECT,WHY-FREE}
Following are are nonfree documents found
January 1987 Boston Globe]
with no license notice given, and authorization to reprint does not
necessarily include authorization to modify.
I would not be surpised this one really lacks a proper license.
Thanks.
--
Jérôme Marant
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Jérôme Marant:
Far away from flamewars and heated discussions, the Emacs maintainers
(Rob Browning and I) are in a process of moving non-free files to
a dedicated package.
What about the Texinfo documentation? Currently, it's GFDL plus
invariant
been identified
(they are all located in /usr/share/emacs/21.4/etc), so a second
review would be welcome.
The following files have already been identified as offending:
etc/{CENSORSHIP,copying.paper,INTERVIEW,LINUX-GNU,THE-GNU-PROJECT,WHY-FREE}
Thanks in advance for your help.
--
Jérôme Marant
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
They are out of the scope of the DFSG. They are neither programs nor
documentation: they are speeches and articles which are logically
non modifiable without the consent of their author.
Whether they are around or not is irrelevant to the
(Please respect MFT)
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 10:13:39PM +0200, Jrme Marant wrote:
They are out of the scope of the DFSG. They are neither programs nor
documentation: they are speeches and articles which are logically
non modifiable without the consent of their author.
Sorry, you're
and address
in order to bypass killfiles.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant
shall
never be used in jokes :-(
Thanks for reading.
Best Regards,
--
Jérôme Marant
jokes and serious discussions,
then you have a real problem in your life. You're overreacting
and you always feel offended. I'm afraid, I can't do anything for
you.
Now, please stop reminding this joke whenever we want to discuss
seriously between gentle men.
Friendly,
--
Jérôme Marant
If you
could understand if
someone who was not fluent in English misinterpreted it that way.
I think you got it. It was too ambiguous for me. Thanks for the clarification.
I've been deceived.
--
Jérôme Marant
he
said that on purpose, and wants the social contract to be changed.
I don't need a spokesman.
--
Jérôme Marant
was not about GFDL manuals.
--
Jérôme Marant
Quoting Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be
acceptable (like Free Software advocacy), others not.
My goodness. And we thought we already had flame-war problems!
We don't agree? So
, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not Debian could permit
and/or support various invariant screeds? I have a feeling l.d.o
would simply explode!
Hey, non-software-related invariants would be rejected, at least. :-)
--
Jérôme Marant
files in Emacs doesn't make Debian less free, because
they neither programs nor documentation so out of the scope of DFSG.
--
Jérôme Marant
Quoting Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said:
^^^
Considering your attitude, I'm not going to discuss this with you
any longer.
--
Jérôme Marant
of someone's speech and tell everyone that you
wrote it, and so on.
There are limits everywhere in everyone's freedom.
We shall not distribute it.
This is an extreme vision of freedom I do not share.
--
Jérôme Marant
Quoting Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 05:35:13PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Quoting Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said:
^^^
Considering your attitude, I'm not going
won't make Debian more free, IMO.
--
Jérôme Marant
Quoting Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 03:18, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Quoting Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
etc/emacs.1:under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License,
Version
1.1
...
Requesting removal of GNU Emacs manpages now? Better move
to print publishers, who will most likely prefer
the GFDL terms to the GPL terms.
One thing we are sure about, is that, according to RMS, FSF is aware
of the GPL compatibility problem and is going to work this out, as soon
as it gets enough manpower.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant
Hi,
Since Emacsen are GPL-licensed, do Emacs modes have to be shipped
under a GPL-compatible license? I discovered one of them which
could be problematic.
Thanks.
--
Jérôme Marant
En réponse à Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since Emacsen are GPL-licensed, do Emacs modes have to be shipped
under a GPL-compatible license?
Pretty much. It is possible to write stand-alone elisp code that only
uses Emacs internals
elisp packages do! :-)
OK.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant
En réponse à Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 09:37:31AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
What is the best way to convince GNU people to change their
licenses?
(without being pissed of, that is).
I'm not sure GNU people need to be convinced. The only person I
know
for its
obnoxious licence. And anyone can quote me on that. :-)
It's time for you to start a new manual, isn't it? :-)
--
Jérôme Marant
the FSF or are you going to rebel?
--
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://marant.org
. I don't want to have to put it into my (hypothetical)
context-sensitive help file for emacs, which consists of extracts from
Sure. I understand.
--
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://marant.org
En réponse à Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jérôme Marant wrote:
Again, moving a program to non-free will motivate people to
write a free equivalent.
(I've been asked politely not to raise this argument again :-)
Actually, moving a program to non-free has historically been much more
likely
okay? No, because you used a mechanism
to effectively get around (circumvent) the license requirements.
Even if it were allowed, forcing that on developers makes it non-free.
OK Thanks.
--
Jérôme Marant
En réponse à Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
No you don't care: you don't use Emacs.
I do. I even code for it. I use the manuals all the time, and I'm
bothered by the hypocrisy of it.
Peter, as a GNU Emacs user, I know this. This was not directed
to you.
--
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL
? Well, the GPL allows that in GPL-compatible derived
works _without_ including invariant bits of code.
No, code + documentation.
--
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://marant.org
likely knowingly circumventing the
license.
I did not understand your explaination (English speaking issue I guess).
--
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://marant.org
, then the whole thing cannot be distributed
even in non-free. The GFDL is very incompatible with the GPL.
This is a better reason.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant
on Thu, 15 May 2003 16:21:48 -0400
A syntax error was detected in the content of the message
The MTS-ID of the original message is:
c=ca;a=govmt.canada;p=gc+dfo.mpo;l=MSGNAT070305152019K8XM3AZ4
MSEXCH:MSExchangeMTA:XLAU:MSGLAUQUES01
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
,
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
En réponse à Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 13 May 2003, [iso-8859-15] Jérôme Marant wrote:
1) Are works under the GFDL with invariant sections free?
It depends on 2) If documentation is software then no.
It also depends on your definition of 'free', of course. What's
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Documentation relating to software needs to be really free, in order
that we can manipulate it in far more interesting ways (such as
refcarding it, embedding it as online help, or updating it because
and
distribute together, but the FSF takes a pretty wide interpretation of
linking, so I could be in the minority.
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's insane.
We may disagree with RMS on this, but it's not helpful to call him insane ;)
Not RMS. Removing Emacs from main
components
are already in main. I'm asking to keep in main GNU documentations.
RMS himself gave no hope to a near modification of the GNU FDL.
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
En réponse à James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes:
As long as I am a GNU Emacs user, I object to see the Emacs manual
going to non-free. Currently, it is provided by the emacs package
and I'm able to read it from emacs itself as soon as the package
the licence,
not the social contract.
After reading RMS's reply, it seems not really possible to me.
But then, if we're seeking for enemies, I believe they
are not on GNU side ...
--
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://marant.org
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
En réponse à MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
=?iso-8859-15?q?J=E9r=F4me?= Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As long as I am a GNU Emacs user, I object to see the Emacs manual
going to non-free. Currently
David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 13 May 2003 09:52:16 +0200 (CEST)
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm talking about documentation which comes with free software from
GNU. You deliberately removed the last part of my message, and that's
make your reply even more
with coding activities so you didn't
give any proper counter-example.
I'm still waiting for one.
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
if it is
later determined to be non-free?
Of course not :-)
On Tue, 13 May 2003, [iso-8859-15] Jérôme Marant wrote:
Could we consider some invariant sections as non-problematic?
This would seem to be issue #6. I'd say no for a lot of reasons, but
I'm happy to hear yours.
For instance, does
that documentation is software. It is not
to me. Simply.
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
with it).
Why bother uploading to main an outdated manual that noone will use?
Do you really think that people will not have to pick it from
non-free. I doubt it.
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
), not 5 pages HOWTOs or such.
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
PROTECTED]
No you don't care: you don't use Emacs.
Excuse me? I use it regularly. It's not my regular editor though, and I
constantly consult the on-line docs. So arguably it could affect me more
than it affects a seasoned user.
I should never believe what people say on IRC.
--
Jérôme Marant
not in favour of applying such treatments to GNU documentation
because GNU people will probably never act an evil way with their
invariant sections.
I know that everyone should be considered equally but I'm convinced
that the evil will not come from the GNU ...
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant
http
the latter.
Can a manifesto be considered as documentation? And more
generaly, what about verbatiml texts?
--
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://marant.org
them from the pistine tarball?
Do we have to work out the problem with RMS?
Or can we live with it? After all, we've been shipping them for years
and they're unlikely to be modified ...
The most important would probably be to find a concensus about
such files in Debian.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant
I guess ...
However, I cannot imagine the GNU manifesto in non-free :-P
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
with, but it's not remotely difficult.
How should we proceed? Should we contact RMS directly?
Should a RC bug be opened? Note that we've been shipping theses
files for quite a while now.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes:
take some time to deal with, but it's not remotely difficult.
How should we proceed? Should we contact RMS directly?
Should a RC bug be opened? Note that we've been shipping theses
files for quite a while now.
Hmm, aren't Verbatim texts a special
, we're going to have a hard time dealing with this
then.
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
covering the incident where Qt
was released under GPL/QPL dual-license.
No need to worry about this.
The whole OCaml runtime is LGPL (with one exception) that make it
possible to ship GPL'ed OCaml binaries.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
the book and at the
download location as well, since it must not be specific to
the debian package.
--
Jérôme Marant
been downloaded isn't? No matter the printed version has the notice
or not.
Anyway I will suggest O'Reilly to add these copyright notes also to the
web site.
This is a must-be IMHO.
--
Jérôme Marant
Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Previously J?r?me Marant wrote:
IIRC, Debian does not provide patented software (no MP3 encoder,
no DeCSS, etc).
We do. Look at gif handling code for example.
I forgot about gif. Do you have any other examples?
--
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL
prior written
permission.
Is this compatible with the third clause of the DFSG ? It looks like a
restriction on the distribution.
BTW, it looks like a DJB-like clause but DJB software are not OSD compliant.
Thanks.
--
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED
OF THIS SOFTWARE OR THE DOCUMENTATION.
--
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://jerome.marant.free.fr
Hi,
I'm wondering whether the Erlang Public Licence and the GPL
are compatible. The EPL is a Mozilla PL derivative and
the MPL is incompatible with the GPL, so I fear about the
EPL status.
Can anyone confirm ?
Thanks.
--
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://jerome.marant.free.fr
Hi,
Imagine that I take the latest stable debian distribution as it
is and that I decide to improve it with modifying boot floppies,
adding new install procedures and creating new tools (for instance
administration tools). Everything developed DFSG-compliant of course and all
developments
72 matches
Mail list logo
