completely RFCs.
--
Mathieu Roy
+-+
| General Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org/ |
| Computing Homepage: http://alberich.coleumes.org/ |
| Not a native english speaker
.
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
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
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
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
?
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
-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
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
?
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
?
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
) 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
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
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
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
.
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
text.
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
.
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
'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
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
