On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 02:04:55PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
A while ago, you gave a nice explanation of the correct meaning of the
term begging the question as used in the study of logic and
discourse.
I'd like to thank you for helping to make sure everyone understands
the concept by
On Sunday, Sep 28, 2003, at 19:34 US/Eastern, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning there.
You gave the lemmings argument (everyone else does X, so so should
we). He pointed out that in certain circumstances where everyone else
ignores non-freeness X, we don't.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:59:38AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
You gave the lemmings argument (everyone else does X, so so should
we). He pointed out that in certain circumstances where everyone else
ignores non-freeness X, we don't.
Which, incidentally, is one major reason I use
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 06:12:21PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Jan Schumacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] (using an expired key) writes:
Do you believe
unmodifiable essays like the GNU Manifesto could be accepted in Debian with
the DFSG as they stand?
This is not a matter of
Barak Pearlmutter said:
The GNU manifesto is in
Debian right now, right where it belongs: /usr/share/emacs/21.2/etc/GNU
and analogous locations in emacs20 and xemacs.
And how precisely does it belong there? That's a stupid, obscure location.
:-)
(OK, perhaps you meant Whereever upstream puts
On Sat, 2003-09-27 at 15:48, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
(2) I *did* include concrete examples of snippets under a different
license than the package which includes them.
$ head -10 /usr/share/emacs/21.2/etc/GNU
#207932
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 28 September 2003 02:12, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Jan Schumacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] (using an expired key) writes:
Fair enough. However, all of these statements are removable, and their
modification is probably not prohibited by the
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 11:05:05PM +, Dylan Thurston wrote:
On 2003-09-27, Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, presuming debian-legal becomes satisfied that I don't
need to do anything about these files, I'll either mark this bug
wonfix, or more likely, close it.
Of
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 06:12:21PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Do you believe
unmodifiable essays like the GNU Manifesto could be accepted in Debian with
the DFSG as they stand?
This is not a matter of belief. This is longstanding, and heretofore
uncontroversial,
Jan Schumacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fair enough. However, all of these statements are removable, and their
modification is probably not prohibited by the license.
The flow of the argument was: one example of Debian's respect for
upstream authors is not removing these requests and
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 12:22:31PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Scanning all our packages for such snippets would be a truly
gargantuan task.
And yet at the same time you claim that the inclusion of any particular
such snippet was a fully conscious decision made at the time the
Social
Most non-DFSG-free materials that we find in main are there because
they were overlooked. I see no reason to suspect the GNU Manifesto
of being any different.
I think you're wrong about that. Most Debian developers have, I
suspect, read the GNU Manifesto. Its unmodifiable status is not
A while ago, you gave a nice explanation of the correct meaning of the
term begging the question as used in the study of logic and
discourse.
I'd like to thank you for helping to make sure everyone understands
the concept by giving us such a clear example.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 28 September 2003 20:22, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Jan Schumacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fair enough. However, all of these statements are removable, and
their modification is probably not prohibited by the license.
The flow
In my very first message on this subject I stated (in their
definition) that snippets were usually unmodifiable. I gave
specific examples whose modifiability is easy enough to determine:
$ head -7 /usr/share/emacs/21.2/etc/GNU
Copyright (C) 1985, 1993 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
On 2003-09-28, Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we decide to go on a crusade against them, it would be a really big
deal for a couple reasons:
- Debian is absolutely *rife* with such snippets.
- This is because upstream tarballs are absolutely rife with them.
- Scanning our
On 2003-09-28, Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
About the README offer you allude to, do you really think an
upstream author's statement:
Copyright blah blah blah ...
Distributed under the GNU GPL v2 ...
Source licenses for inclusion of this code in proprietary programs
are
Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
About the README offer you allude to, do you really think an
upstream author's statement:
Copyright blah blah blah ...
Distributed under the GNU GPL v2 ...
Source licenses for inclusion of this code in proprietary programs
are available from the author for $10,000
But you're allowed to paraphrase anything, so what's your point?
You can even paraphrase non-modifiable essays. In an essay RMS
explained that he used to work at ... and then Symbolics ... and he
felt that ... and so he climbed to the mountain top and hacked for
forty days and forty nights
Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
But you're allowed to paraphrase anything, so what's your point?
You can even paraphrase non-modifiable essays. In an essay RMS
explained that he used to work at ... and then Symbolics ... and he
felt that ... and so he climbed to the mountain top and hacked for
forty
- Debian is absolutely *rife* with such snippets.
- This is because upstream tarballs are absolutely rife with them.
- Scanning our sources for them would be a gargantuan undertaking.
- They'd keep sneaking back in.
All of these apply to ordinary bugs much better than to snippets.
On 2003-09-28, Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- No other free software organization eschews such snippets.
I disagree with the premises of those two, as well. For instance: no
other free software organization edits out the non-free fonts from
XFree86 or the non-free firmware
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 04:23:08PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
But you're allowed to paraphrase anything, so what's your point?
You can even paraphrase non-modifiable essays. In an essay RMS
explained that he used to work at ... and then Symbolics ... and he
felt that ... and so he
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 02:04:55PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
I'd like to thank you for helping to make sure everyone understands
the concept by giving us such a clear example.
This is a factually incorrect non sequitur.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' :
First of all, I would like to publicly thank RMS for engaging in a
sustained and illuminating conversation on this list. He has been
confronted with an outrageously low signal-to-noise ratio. The
thoughtful and well-reasoned messages have been buried in a mass of
counterproductive picayune
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Based on long-standing Debian tradition and practice, this is
decidedly and demonstrably not the case! Don and others were perhaps
writing in haste.
Can you provide a concrete example of such a snippet which is not
under the licence applied to the
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 07:31:14PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
A /non-modifiable/ text could not be included in Debian, a
/modifiable/ one would most likely be.
is a load of hooey. Inclusion of snippets is not a violation of the
DFSG. Such an overly-literal interpretation of the
On 2003-09-27, Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Based on long-standing Debian tradition and practice, this [removing
non-modifiable texts] is decidedly and demonstrably not the case!
Don and others were perhaps writing in haste.
It is long-standing tradition; however, whether it
Barak Pearlmutter said on Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 07:31:14PM -0600,:
In a recent message to this list, RMS mentioned that people had stated
that Debian would remove all non-modifiable but removable text from
Debian packages:
If Debian does not, somebody else will, and I guess that this is
Mahesh T. Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I became aware of the concepts of free software, Debian, the FSF and
the real meaning of 'free as in freedom' on doing some follow up
reading after coming across other files in this very same directory
(while using another distro). According to the
Can you provide a concrete example of such a snippet which is not
under the licence applied to the entire package by the COPYRIGHT,
COPYING, or AUTHORS file and restricts modification or removal?
^(2)^(1)
(1) No, since such a snippet is *by
Please do not attempt to make the Debian has no principles but the
DFSG, and the DFSG is only a set of guidelines, therefore Debian has
no principles and can do anything argument, because it's nonsense.
Okay. I didn't make that argument, but as you request I will not make
it in the future.
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 2003-09-27, Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Based on long-standing Debian tradition and practice, this [removing
non-modifiable texts] is decidedly and demonstrably not the case!
It is long-standing tradition; however, whether it should
Mahesh T. Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Debian does require the *right* to remove such snippets.
rights specific to Debian are not DFSG free.
Absolutely Correct! When I said Debian does require the *right* to
remove such snippets I did not mean to imply that the right might be
exclusive to
Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Okay - that's not a bug because they're just little harmless
snippets which are informative and interesting, are not functional,
are *removable*, and merely accompany the package but do not
constitute an integral part of it. By long-standing Debian
Mahesh T. Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Debian does require the *right* to remove such snippets.
rights specific to Debian are not DFSG free.
Absolutely Correct! When I said Debian does require the *right* to
remove such snippets I did not mean to imply that the right might be
exclusive to
On 2003-09-27, Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, presuming debian-legal becomes satisfied that I don't
need to do anything about these files, I'll either mark this bug
wonfix, or more likely, close it.
Of course. When I filed the bug, I was under the impression that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 27 September 2003 03:31, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
Debian has a longstanding practice of respect for upstream authors.
For instance, if the author of a GPLed program includes a statement in
a README please if you like this program I'd
Jan Schumacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] (using an expired key) writes:
Fair enough. However, all of these statements are removable, and their
modification is probably not prohibited by the license.
The flow of the argument was: one example of Debian's respect for
upstream authors is not removing
Mahesh T. Pai [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Barak Pearlmutter said on Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 07:31:14PM -0600,:
In a recent message to this list, RMS mentioned that people had stated
that Debian would remove all non-modifiable but removable text from
Debian packages:
If Debian does not,
40 matches
Mail list logo
