On Thu, 2003-06-05 at 21:47, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Even if I were inclined to answer every question that is posed to me
> here and respond to every point, I don't have time. (I am getting 400
> messages a day, and only half of them are junk.)
I wish I was that lucky, my snr is closer to 2
On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 05:47:28PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> You still haven't answered two questions put to you publicly,
>
> You are trying to demand the kind of discussion which I've decided not
> to participate in--one that resembles a cross-examination. But this
> is not a court,
You still haven't answered two questions put to you publicly,
You are trying to demand the kind of discussion which I've decided not
to participate in--one that resembles a cross-examination. But this
is not a court, not a cross-examination. You decide what to say, and
so do I. I won't alwa
> Whether to change the GFDL is not a Debian decision, so I've decided
> not to discuss that here.
Is there a public forum where you are willing to discuss that?
Not now, and not in the way that some people want to discuss it
(they throw stones at me while I stand there and get hit).
> Whether to change the GFDL is not a Debian decision, so I've decided
> not to discuss that here.
Is there a public forum where you are willing to discuss that?
Not now, and not in the way that some people want to discuss it
(they throw stones at me while I stand there and get hit).
Let me point out that just as Debian doesn't get to demand that the
GFDL be changed, so also the FSF does not have a role in determining
the interpretation of Debian's standards.
We all recognize this; I acknowledged it explicitly here a few days
ago.
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> What about the entire set of comments on the draft version of the
> GFDL? [1] There was never a response to any of those comments.
>
> When people ask for explanation of a license, we try to answer in
> order to help them out. Criticism and demands
> (Meanwhile, messages regarding the perceived problems have generally
> been ignored outright. Even messages asking for clarification: "It
> looks to me like the FDL prohibits this.
>
> Depending on where and how you sent them, that might or might not
> indi
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The reason I have said that a few times is that I have seen various
> messages here that don't seem to recognize that what the GFDL says is
> not a Debian decision. You can suggest changes but cannot demand
> changes. I'm not likely to accept sugges
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But the issue here is the question of how Debian should decide
> interpret its standards--whether they should be interpreted so
> strictly as to reject the GFDL, and also the GPL if it hadn't been
> "grandfathered."
Let me point out that just as Debi
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately, other people purporting to act on behalf of the FSF do.
>
> Did they really claim to be speaking for the FSF, or were they just
> expressing support for the FSF? Anyone can do the latter, but we did
> not ask anyone to speak for t
Unfortunately, other people purporting to act on behalf of the FSF do.
Did they really claim to be speaking for the FSF, or were they just
expressing support for the FSF? Anyone can do the latter, but we did
not ask anyone to speak for the FSF about this issue on this list.
(Meanwhile,
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 12:25:53PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Branden Robinson said to you:
> >Aside from yourself, is there anyone entitled to interpret the GNU
> >Project's standards?
>
> I realize that you may have interpreted this as insulting.
I hope not. I meant the question literall
Please read to the end, even if you're bored with the top part. I have
tried to reformulate your opinion and I want to know if I got it right.
Josselin Mouette said:
>>Then, I would like you to explain why you think a document with
>>invariant sections is free for the GNU definition of f
Branden Robinson said to you:
>Aside from yourself, is there anyone entitled to interpret the GNU
>Project's standards?
I realize that you may have interpreted this as insulting. But it's a
genuine, serious question, and deserves an answer. The impression I've
gotten is that the answer is eith
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 08:45:41AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> To call a program or a manual non-free is a serious accusation, and it
> needs more grounds than inconvenience alone.
I think this is a fundamental difference between the way you evaluate
freedom and the way Debian does.
Debian
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] The invariant section is
> a requirement on packaging of modified versions of the technical
> material, and that is an area where tolerance is called for. [...]
Does anyone know of a legal ruling on what conditions a manual with such
secondary s
Then, I would like you to explain why you think a document with
invariant sections is free for the GNU definition of freedom, instead of
repeating around and around you are not convinced by our arguments.
The reason I have said that a few times is that I have seen various
messages here
Le dim 25/05/2003 à 01:19, Richard Stallman a écrit :
> That doesn't make the issue go away.
>
> It addresses the issue that was raised here before.
> Someone said that the GDB manual had marked a section invariant
> which was not secondary.
I must have missed that o
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 07:19:33PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
>An invariant section is invariant,
> and it is not free (even according to your own definition),
>
> With all due respect, this is not for you to say. You are entitled to
> your opinion
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 07:19:33PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> It addresses the issue that was raised here before.
> Someone said that the GDB manual had marked a section invariant
> which was not secondary.
As indeed it had. "A Sample GDB Session" (among others) was mar
> I investigated the situation with the GDB manual. It has two
> invariant sections, entitled Free Software and Free Software Needs
> Free Documentation. Both sections are secondary.
That doesn't make the issue go away.
It addresses the issue that was rais
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 04:37:49PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le ven 23/05/2003 à 14:04, Richard Stallman a écrit :
> > I investigated the situation with the GDB manual. It has two
> > invariant sections, entitled Free Software and Free Software Needs
> > Free Document
Le ven 23/05/2003 à 14:04, Richard Stallman a écrit :
> I investigated the situation with the GDB manual. It has two
> invariant sections, entitled Free Software and Free Software Needs
> Free Documentation. Both sections are secondary.
That doesn't make the issue go away. An inv
I investigated the situation with the GDB manual. It has two
invariant sections, entitled Free Software and Free Software Needs
Free Documentation. Both sections are secondary.
On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 09:56:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > 04:40am [EMAIL PROTECTED]/0 [~/gdb-5.1/gdb/doc] grep -i invariant *.info
> > > gdb.info:Invariant Sections being "A Sample GDB Session" and "Free
> > > Software",
> > > gdbint.info:Invariant Sections being "Algorithms" and "Po
On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 11:07:18AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > 04:40am [EMAIL PROTECTED]/0 [~/gdb-5.1/gdb/doc] grep -i invariant *.info
> > gdb.info:Invariant Sections being "A Sample GDB Session" and "Free
> > Software",
> > gdbint.info:Invariant Sections being "Algorithms" and "Portin
ariant. (Actually,
> > > it might be useful to know--the first major misuses of GFDL invariant
> > > sections. Probably just not reading the license well, though ...)
> >
> > Um, the current GDB manual only has the two sections I noted, AFAICT.
>
> But that
first major misuses of GFDL invariant
> > sections. Probably just not reading the license well, though ...)
>
> Um, the current GDB manual only has the two sections I noted, AFAICT.
But that's not the only manual that comes with GDB:
04:40am [EMAIL PROTECTED]/0 [~/gdb-5.1/gdb/do
iant
> sections. Probably just not reading the license well, though ...)
Um, the current GDB manual only has the two sections I noted, AFAICT.
On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 11:49:47PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I asked RMS about the GDB manual. It has two invariant sections, one
> of which is a "where to obtain GDB" section; the other is an
> introductory tutorial to using GDB. I asked RMS why the latter of
&
I asked RMS about the GDB manual. It has two invariant sections, one
of which is a "where to obtain GDB" section; the other is an
introductory tutorial to using GDB. I asked RMS why the latter of
these needed to be invariant. He replied that it shouldn't be
invariant and he'
32 matches
Mail list logo
