On Aug 25, 2004, at 16:52, Matthew Garrett wrote:
You believe that there are some languages that are inherently non-free?
I'm still waiting to hear an example of something that patch clauses
actually make impossible.
I saw, at one point, a book (i.e., an actual dead tree book) which
Brian Nelson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:41:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The following is an example of an unacceptable opinion for a Debian
applicant:
5a. The GNU Free Documentaion License (FDL) has been heavily
discussed on debian-legal recently. Read
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 08:51:52PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I find badly written perl approximately as hard to deal with as
brainfuck. Do you
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 08:51:52PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I find badly written perl approximately as hard
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:30:03PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 15:25 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sure we can. I might convince you that they're in the wrong place --
and certainly debian-legal is the right
Your position on what's modifiable, and what's a preferred form of
modification, is so far from the baselines of the project, or indeed
the world, that you can only be characterized as extremist. In accord
with your professed beliefs, please refrain from advocating such
beliefs until such time as
On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 08:51 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Your position on what's modifiable, and what's a preferred form of
modification, is so far from the baselines of the project, or indeed
the world, that you can only be characterized as extremist. In accord
with your professed
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. It means a user must have access to the source to have freedom.
C is often used as source. Obfuscated C is never used as source.
Write-only languages like Brainfuck are almost never source.
I find badly written perl approximately as hard to
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:19:44AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, I believe some sourceless programs are inherently non-free. If
they're not practically modifiable, then they can't be free software.
Does this mean that a program written in
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:19:44AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, I believe some sourceless programs are inherently non-free. If
they're not practically modifiable, then they can't be free software.
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. It means a user must have access to the source to have freedom.
C is often used as source. Obfuscated C is never used as source.
Write-only languages like Brainfuck are almost never source.
I find
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I find badly written perl approximately as hard to deal with as
brainfuck. Do you believe that poor quality perl is non-free, or is the
motive of the author important?
I think it really depends on
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:34:43PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
assume the rest of your argument holds true, the most you can say
about that is that they're a (perhaps unintentional) effort to
sabotage the work of -legal.
Simple question: what do you think _is_ the
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:58:53AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:34:43PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
assume the rest of your argument holds true, the most you can say
about that is that they're a (perhaps unintentional) effort to
sabotage
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:43:01PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So you believe that if we taught all developers about intricate
licensing issues, the number who would be of the opinion that DFSG 4 is
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 09:38 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
�surprising modifications?
Modifications which surprise the copyright holder -- code reuse which
he didn't expect.
I think you're being insufficiently imaginative about build systems.
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My goal is to maintain Debian's standards of freedom at the point that
they are and where I believe they should be. You believe that those
standards should be in a different place. Given the fundamental
difference in viewpoint, I'm not convinced
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:00:56PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
My goal here is to convince you to stop labelling your opponents in
reasoned discussion extremists and thus unworthy of debate.
My goal is to maintain Debian's standards of freedom at the point that
they are and where I
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 15:25 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sure we can. I might convince you that they're in the wrong place --
and certainly debian-legal is the right place for that discussion. Or
you might convince me that they are in the right place. Neither of
those is an axiomatic
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:52:33PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 15:25 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sure we can. I might convince you that they're in the wrong place --
and certainly debian-legal is the right place for that discussion. Or
you might convince
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 15:25 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sure we can. I might convince you that they're in the wrong place --
and certainly debian-legal is the right place for that discussion. Or
you might convince me that they are in the
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 17:30 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, I don't think debian-legal /is/ the right place. Debian-legal is the
place to discuss whether a license is free or not based on Debian's
ideas of freeness, not whether Debian's ideas
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:00:56PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
My goal is to maintain Debian's standards of freedom at the point that
they are and where I believe they should be. You believe that those
And in order to do so, you're labelling everyone
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, I think -project would be the appropriate place for those types of
discussions (whether Debian's ideas of freeness are correct).
Ok, that sounds reasonable.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 12:12:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
What matters is that certain arguments voiced in debian-legal reduce the
credibility of debian-legal, and that has a negative impact on the
project as a whole.
Yes, arguments such as Branden Robinson should not be taken into
On 2004-08-24 04:08:34 +0100 Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what
answers to
5a and 6 would be accepted, given the expressed views of some DDs.
[...]
I find it appalling that believe you think that some answers to 5a
and 6
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:16:06PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The debian-legal mailing list is often bashed because it repreresents
an extreme point of view relative to Debian proper.
Being interested in licensing issues is extreme? That's quite a
strange thing to claim.
particularly
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:16:06PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The debian-legal mailing list is often bashed because it repreresents
an extreme point of view relative to Debian proper.
Being interested in licensing issues is extreme? That's quite
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:08:34PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what
answers to 5a and 6 would be accepted, given the expressed views of
some DDs. Anyway, we probably need some questions about the more
interesting things like
* Andrew Suffield:
Yes. That's the whole point of the NM process. If this were not true
then it would be unnecessary. The following is an example of an
unacceptable opinion for a Debian applicant:
5a. The GNU Free Documentaion License (FDL) has been heavily discussed
on debian-legal
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The proportion of the population of debian-legal who believe that the
patch clause exemption in DFSG 4 is a grave mistake or that the GPL is
only free because of DFSG 10 seems greater than in the developer
population at large. That seems like a
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:16:06PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The debian-legal mailing list is often bashed because it repreresents
an extreme point of view relative to Debian proper.
Being interested in licensing issues is extreme? That's quite a
strange thing to
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:41:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:08:34PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what
answers to 5a and 6 would be accepted, given the expressed views of
some DDs. Anyway, we
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Debian should ignore licenses and include everything in main.
Sure, just move the main archive out of licence encoumbered country, and that
would be all right. :)
Err, forget what i said. i thought of patents, not licences.
On 2004-08-24 15:01:37 +0100 Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
currently includes a large number of people who are on the more
extreme end of the range of licensing opinions expressed within
Debian.
I find the concept of the more extreme end of the range odd. What,
there's only one end
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And I suspect the population of lisp maintainers who believe that the
feature macros are a grave mistake or that the path-name standards are
only still there because X3J13 insisted is greater than in the
developer population at large. That's
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 03:12:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I certainly agree. The thrust of my comments was to make sure NMs
understand that licensing issues are often difficult, and that if one isn't
prepared to wrestle with them oneself, one needs to place more trust in
one's peers
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:01:37PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes:
here. You don't have to be an attorney to understand the law, only to
practice it.
But it's a great help in terms of understanding the meanings of lots
of the *legal* license terms that are bandied
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:01:37PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:16:06PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The debian-legal mailing list is often bashed because it repreresents
an extreme point of view relative to Debian proper.
Being
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:09:02AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-08-24 04:08:34 +0100 Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] I accept *all* answers, even
Really? *all*? So, what is the value of having these questions in the
NM process?
As I said, to ensure the applicants understand
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And I suspect the population of lisp maintainers who believe that the
feature macros are a grave mistake or that the path-name standards are
only still there because X3J13 insisted is greater than in the
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:41:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:08:34PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what
answers to 5a and 6 would be accepted, given the expressed views of
some DDs. Anyway, we
On 2004-08-24 17:55:43 +0100 Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:09:02AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Really? *all*? So, what is the value of having these questions in
the NM
process?
As I said, to ensure the applicants understand the issues involved.
If *all* answers
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 06:18:56PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:06:39AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:41:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The following is an example of an unacceptable opinion for a Debian
applicant:
5a. The
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:01:37PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
And it's not what he's claiming at all, as you well know. debian-legal
currently includes a large number of people who are on the more
extreme end of the range of licensing opinions expressed within
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You don't appear to be arguing against the idea that debian-legal is
extreme compared to the rest of the project.
I'm arguing that what you perceive as extremism is simply the presence
of knowledge --
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 06:21:17PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You don't appear to be arguing against the idea that debian-legal is
extreme compared to the rest of the project.
I'm arguing that
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You don't appear to be arguing against the idea that debian-legal is
extreme compared to the rest of the project.
I'm arguing that what you perceive as
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:08:17AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 06:44:25PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-08-24 17:55:43 +0100 Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:09:02AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Really? *all*? So, what is the value of having
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 05:56:54PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:01:37PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
And it's not what he's claiming at all, as you well know. debian-legal
currently includes a large number of people who are on the more
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:43:01PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So you believe that if we taught all developers about intricate
licensing issues, the number who would be of the opinion that DFSG 4 is
a mistake and that the GPL is only free
On 2004-08-24 17:56:54 +0100 Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes: [stuff]
Thanks. Written in your typical patronising fashion, of course. That's
half the reason why a lot of people don't/won't take part in
discussions here. [...]
I think I've disagreed with Andrew
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 05:56:54PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Thanks. Written in your typical patronising fashion, of course. That's
half the reason why a lot of people don't/won't take part in
discussions here.
Unsubstiantiated assertion. Also unlikely, and a cheap
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:34:43PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
I see no connection between this paragraph and the real world. Most of
the people on -legal who participate in the important stuff are also
critically short of time and tend to skip over useless threads. Most
of the useless
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:34:43PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Extreme views here is a meaningless term and an tasteless attempt at
demagoguery. I've tolerated it this far, but enough is enough; please
grow some manners. The validity of a viewpoint is not determined by
how close it comes to
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 03:12:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I certainly agree. The thrust of my comments was to make sure NMs
understand that licensing issues are often difficult, and that if one isn't
prepared to wrestle with them oneself, one needs to place more trust in
one's peers
On 2004-08-23 21:16:06 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 03:12:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I am dismayed and exasperated by the recent trend of bashing the
debian-legal list collectively,
I don't think turning around and blaming the NM process is a
reasonable
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 06:57:03PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[I am not subscribed to -newmaint.]
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 08:37:40PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
For that matter, I'm not quite sure we should necessarily be subjecting
applicants to the joys of rigorous licence analysis.
Hello Brian,
* Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-08-09 12:58]:
It can be really tough to test NM's who are not native English speakers
about licensing issues. Legal text is very different from colloquial
English, and non-native speakers are often completely overwhelmed.
Hell, even native
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 07:07:11PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Apart from Raul Miller's[1], I have yet to read a rebutal to Manoj's draft
position statement on the GNU FDL[2].
If you would direct me to one which represents the will of the project as
a whole, I'd appreciate it.
Given
[I am not subscribed to -newmaint.]
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 08:37:40PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
For that matter, I'm not quite sure we should necessarily be subjecting
applicants to the joys of rigorous licence analysis. We have d-legal for
this purpose just so maintainers don't have to
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 06:05:56AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 03:39:01AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, David Nusinow wrote:
I echo his point that this probably needs to be justified.
In all of the cases to date, where we've gone against the
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 03:39:01AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, David Nusinow wrote:
I echo his point that this probably needs to be justified.
In all of the cases to date, where we've gone against the
interpretation of the
* Walter Landry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040806 14:10]:
If there are people who disagree with the conclusions of debian-legal,
then they are free to discuss it on this mailing list. This has
happened numerous times. You seem to want to force people to care
about such issues. If they care, they
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 09:57:53AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-28 03:35:31 +0100 David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
1) MJ Ray has suggested doing more work with people in the NM queue.
[...]
As should be obvious, I don't understand the NM black box. How would
we do this?
One
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, David Nusinow wrote:
This is going to sound really bad, and I'm not trying to stir up
trouble in saying this, but perhaps the guidelines need weakening?
So we should be willing to give up more of the freedom that we now
need in order to have a work in Debian?
current
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 04:28:41AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 09:57:53AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-28 03:35:31 +0100 David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
1) MJ Ray has suggested doing more work with people in the NM queue.
[...]
As should be
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 03:39:01AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, David Nusinow wrote:
This is going to sound really bad, and I'm not trying to stir up
trouble in saying this, but perhaps the guidelines need weakening?
So we should be willing to give up more of the
On 2004-07-28 03:35:31 +0100 David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
1) MJ Ray has suggested doing more work with people in the NM queue.
[...]
As should be obvious, I don't understand the NM black box. How would
we do this?
2) Steve McIntyre has continually suggested codifying [...]
I
69 matches
Mail list logo
