On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:17:46PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Thursday, Aug 21, 2003, at 01:09 US/Eastern, Branden Robinson wrote:
[why to the mailing list...?]
So people can verify the results for themselves, and will be less likely
to accuse me of falsifying the results.
Or so I
On 2003-08-23 02:33:12 +0100 John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Are you saying that you would be amendable to the idea of a DFSG that
is
slightly modified to make it more applicable to documentation as
well?
I am totally opposed to modifying the DFSG. They are already clearly
applicable
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:48:57PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would hold that position. But I caution people reading this to not assume
that this means I believe documentation deserves lower standards.
I think that if we find ways to fix the
John Goerzen wrote:
There are some properties of documentation that make it a fundamentally
different beast from the software we deal with. Some are:
1. Lack of a clear differentiation between source code and compiled form.
Nope; this problem exists even with things generally agreed to be
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 02:15:48AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
3. Tool depencies.
Is a document free if it requires non-free software to read?
Provided that is a *technical* requirement and not a *legal*
requirement, it's free, but must go in 'contrib'. Just like free
programs which
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:39:04AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Yet we do routinely apply the DFSG to interpreted scripts where there
is *no* differentiation between source code and compiled form.
Not really; it's just that the compiled form is often transient.
How is this different from
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:25:48PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:39:04AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Yet we do routinely apply the DFSG to interpreted scripts where there
is *no* differentiation between source code and compiled form.
Not really; it's just
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:22:13PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:25:48PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:39:04AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Yet we do routinely apply the DFSG to interpreted scripts where there
is *no* differentiation
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:22:13PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:25:48PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:39:04AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Yet we do routinely apply the DFSG to interpreted scripts where there
is *no* differentiation
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 03:29:22PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:07:20AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Before I reply, I should add I still see it as wrong and misleading to apply
*software* guidelines to *documentation*, which to me are fundamentally
different
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What I am saying is that we need to have a two-part California-style
ballot here:
1. Do you believe that DFSG should apply to documentation?
2. If DFSG should apply to documentation, what should be the disposition of
GFDL according to DFSG? (This is
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:51:39 -0500
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. If DFSG should apply to documentation, what should be the disposition of
GFDL according to DFSG? (This is the question you asked.)
I don't think that the answer to question two can be relevant unless we have
On 2003-08-22 15:51:39 +0100 John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What I am saying is that we need to have a two-part California-style
ballot here:
So, run that survey, or find someone else to run that survey, but
don't carp at Branden for trying to gather data that interests him.
I
Scripsit MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I suspect not many people want DFSG-free Debian bits, so aren't
interested in that survey, so you will need to run it. It would be
very interesting to *finally* read consistent rationale in a we want
DFSG-free Debian bits statement. Assuming that's
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:06:26PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Unless I've missed something, so far there hasn't been anyone arguing
that the DFSG should not apply to documentation. What there has been
I would hold that position. But I caution people reading this to not assume
that this
On 2003-08-22 19:21:22 +0100 Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
DFSG-free Debian bits
Yes, reading it back a few hours later, I see that was a particularly
clumsy phrase. By DFSG-free there, I meant free of DFSG not the
other, more common sense free according to DFSG. Please edit
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 09:51:39AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
What I am saying is that we need to have a two-part California-style
ballot here:
1. Do you believe that DFSG should apply to documentation?
That's not a question that the readers of debian-legal can answer for
the entire Project.
While these issues are valid and some are quite problematic, they are
not differences between documentation and software. All these things
apply equally to software, and would give us just as much trouble if
they ever arose for documentation. While the issues themselves are not
the subject here, I
Scripsit John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:06:26PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Unless I've missed something, so far there hasn't been anyone arguing
that the DFSG should not apply to documentation.
I would hold that position. But I caution people reading this to
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:36:03 -0500, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:06:26PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Unless I've missed something, so far there hasn't been anyone
arguing that the DFSG should not apply to documentation. What
there has been
I would hold
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 08:47:17PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-08-22 19:21:22 +0100 Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
DFSG-free Debian bits
Yes, reading it back a few hours later, I see that was a particularly
clumsy phrase. By DFSG-free there, I meant free of DFSG not the
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:07:20AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Before I reply, I should add I still see it as wrong and misleading to apply
*software* guidelines to *documentation*, which to me are fundamentally
different beasts. Thus, I see the question as rather misleading.
Which question?
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 05:27:22PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
I have answered under the assumption that the license is applied to
software (and not documentation, which is the common case), since this
seems to be what you have asked for.
No; please reread the statements. I said works; not
23 matches
Mail list logo
