RMS wote:
For the sake of avoiding confusion, please note that I use software
in the meaning I believe is standard, referring to computer programs
only.
This is not what I believe to be the standard meaning or the historically
correct meaning, but thanks for avoiding confusion.
The main
RMS wrote:
The GNU Project's motive for using invariant sections is not the issue
here; that's a GNU Project decision, not a Debian decision.
Out of curiosity, where *is* it the issue? As a GNU Project
contributor who disapproves of GFDL Invariant Sections, and knowing
quite a few other GNU
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you; I was out of town on an
emergency.
I wrote:
So, what do you recommend for someone who really *wants* to put
something in the public domain?
Rick Moen wrote:
Do you intend that as a real, non-rhetorical question? If so, I
Yes.
recommend BSD
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
If you are aware of the existence of unmodifyable essays and
logos in debian main, please file an RC bug against the package
in question.
You seem to be saying that if our political statements, which are
included as invariant
Quoting Anthony DeRobertis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Why not do something like:
statement (maybe) releasing work to public domain
If the above is not legally possible, then (name[s]) grant(s) you
and any other party receiving this code a perpetual, irrevocable,
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
There's a critical difference here. The GPL can accompany the
reference card. The invariant material must be in the reference
card.
I explained months ago, and again last week, why this is not so.
I must have missed that explanation.
I said:
2. The GFDL prevents you from using the technical material in the manual
in nearly any program, because most programs don't have a lot of the
specific things the GFDL refers to (section titles, etc.), so there's
no legally clear way to satisfy its requirements.
RMS
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On 2003-09-21 21:15:25 +0100 Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, that's not a logical conclusion. It's [...] slippery slope
fallacy.
It's no less a fallacy than claiming software is controversial and
worthy of special definition.
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
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
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On 2003-09-21 23:33:41 +0100 Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Defining all these thing as software is a peculiar way to use the
word.
Not at all. It is the original and proper meaning, as far as I can
tell. It seems to be a neologism created
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
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030921 23:19]:
Software is not a controversial word in English (roughly inverse of
hardware in one sense). Some people advocate a bizarre definition
of it in order to further their agenda. If you're going to define
common words just because someone objects to
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 of
Debian is to provide an Operating System,
The mwavem package includes binaries for the Mwave(tm) digital signal
processor (DSP) chip found on some ThinkPad(tm). With the binaries
installed the Mwave implements a modem.
IBM distributes the Linux driver and the binaries in a tarball that
it says is licensed under the GPL.
* Richard Stallman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030922 00:50]:
If you are aware of the existence of unmodifyable essays and logos in
debian main, please file an RC bug against the package in question.
You seem to be saying that if our political statements, which are
included as invariant
* 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?
Cheers,
Andi
--
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 09:29:54AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
The DFSG explicitly
codifies my specific decision about TeX,=20
It does nothing of the sort; there is no mention of the word 'TeX' in
the DFSG.
Section 4 does precisely that, though without mentioning TeX
On 2003-09-22 07:33:48 +0100 Andreas Barth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, but at least I understood software at start of discussion more
as a synonym to programms, but I'm not a native english speaker.
I am sorry that software has been mistranslated frequently, but this
is not unusual. Many
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:47:26AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
IBM distributes the Linux driver and the binaries in a tarball that
it says is licensed under the GPL.
http://oss.software.ibm.com/acpmodem/
No source code is provided for the DSP binaries. (N.B., past
discussions of this
On 2003-09-22 07:30:41 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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 of
Debian is to provide an Operating System, isn't it?
See
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 as the English word
software, then it should
On 2003-09-22 04:00:32 +0100 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
IRS = Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. bureaucracy in charge of
I am aware what IRS is in the US, but Mathieu is French and I think
their taxes are collected by some part of MINEFI. I cannot find what
French IRS is, so
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030922 10:03]:
On 2003-09-22 07:33:48 +0100 Andreas Barth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, but at least I understood software at start of discussion more
as a synonym to programms, but I'm not a native english speaker.
I am sorry that software has been
On 2003-09-22 09:27:52 +0100 Andreas Barth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. However, as software is a so fundamental term to Debian, it
would perhaps be better to make an appropriate (semi-)official
statement anywhere.
It seems a little odd to expect Debian to contain an official
statement
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On 2003-09-22 07:33:48 +0100 Andreas Barth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, but at least I understood software at start of discussion more
as a synonym to programms, but I'm not a native english speaker.
I am sorry that software has been mistranslated
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?
As far as the logo, the name Mathieu Roy isn't free in the
DFSG-sense. Neither is the Debian name. I don't see why the Debian logo
should be either.
I don't believe the logo needs to be free; I think the way it is being
handled is appropriate. However, others were arguing recently
Someone else criticized the idea (though no one had proposed it) of
giving the FSF special consideration; now you seem to be saying just
the opposite, that you believe in giving the FSF less cooperation that
you would give to anyone else. The consequences of such an approach
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 as the
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 the same about software in general. It is
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, even when included in a documentation.
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On 2003-09-22 04:00:32 +0100 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
IRS = Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. bureaucracy in charge of
I am aware what IRS is in the US, but Mathieu is French and
And this fact do not allows you to make assumptions.
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 software programs.
This is expected, because
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 that, I'm sure, everybody
is familiar with... It
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
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 05:27:46PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
Remember the hypothetical emacs reference card, which must be
accompanied by 12 pages of additional invariant material? Sounds like a
big deal to me.
If the GPL were used, it would have to be accompanied by 6
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,
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 that is possibly how most LL supporters will know the word.
From what you
On 2003-09-22 10:05:15 +0100 Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I value freedom in documentation just as much as I do for programs. I
value it so much that I designed the GFDL specifically to induce
commercial publishers to publish free documentation.
Commercial or normally-proprietary
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 that,
On 2003-09-22 11:16:04 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe speaking English on that list encourage a cultural
dominance.
Not really IMO. It's just inconsiderate behaviour.
[...]
If you already made a donation to the FSF or to the SPI,
you should know what IRS is.
Why? In the
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
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 05:41:09PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 04:42:51PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I don't think the GFDL is a good place to start from when writing a
documentation license, really. The WDL is a tangled mess. Start with
the GPL instead, and
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
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 is that the photographs on your computer are _software_.
Le lun 22/09/2003 à 08:30, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
Apparently it's clear that Debian do not consider that his very own
logo must be free software -- that's right, you do not need a logo at
all to have a complete free operating system.
If Debian already recognize that non-program software can be
Le lun 22/09/2003 à 09:46, Glenn Maynard a écrit :
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:47:26AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
IBM distributes the Linux driver and the binaries in a tarball that
it says is licensed under the GPL.
http://oss.software.ibm.com/acpmodem/
No source code is provided for
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 is that the
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 for logiciel. (For those of you that are not French
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
OK. I have a copy of Emacs here, licensed to me under the GNU GPL2.
I have made some modifications to it, and updated the changelogs and
history notes. I wish to give it to a friend. Section 2b requires
that I distribute my
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.
Mike
* Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030922 11:40]:
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
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 ?
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030922 11:26]:
On 2003-09-22 09:27:52 +0100 Andreas Barth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes. However, as software is a so fundamental term to Debian, it
would perhaps be better to make an appropriate (semi-)official
statement anywhere.
It seems a little odd to
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
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 for
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
Why do I have the impression to be in an infinite loop ?
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 09:30:17AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
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
RMS writes:
However, I don't follow the DFSG, nor an interpretation of the DFSG
that labels documentation as software; so I don't have an artificial
reason to insist on identical criteria for freedom for manuals and for
programs.
This is not merely an artifical reason. If someone added a
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:26:38AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
It seems a little odd to expect Debian to contain an official
statement saying by software, we mean software. Let the people who
use bizarre definitions say by software, we don't mean software but
this other thing.
While I don't
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Why do I have the impression to be in an infinite loop ?
Because you are confronted with a situation where your arguments, that
you repeat and repeat, do not convince your interlocutor (me in this
case)?
You know, there is an easy way out, if you're fed
On Monday 22 September 2003 17:05, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Why do I have the impression to be in an infinite loop ?
Because you are confronted with a situation where your arguments, that
you repeat and repeat, do not convince your interlocutor (me in this
On Monday 22 September 2003 16:39, Mathieu Roy 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 that tolerating this non-DFSG essays in
On Sunday, Sep 21, 2003, at 18:33 US/Eastern, Richard Stallman wrote:
Several parts of the DFSG contain the word program. For instance,
Yes, many parts of it do. Its unfortunate that it isn't written clearer.
LIPstrongSource Code/strong
PThe program must include source code, and
On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 01:58 US/Eastern, 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.
If the French Logiciel is not the same as the English software,
then please file a bug.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 12:36:14PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
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
On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 02:02 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy 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.
Care to give reasons they shouldn't be? I gave reasons why I don't
thing the Official Debian Logo
On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 05:04 US/Eastern, Richard Stallman wrote:
I don't believe the logo needs to be free; I think the way it is being
handled is appropriate. However, others were arguing recently that
everything in Debian is software and that the DFSG applies to it.
Ah. This isn't a
On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 02:13 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 what your asking, but I think it'd be safe to say
On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 05:34 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Logiciel is a correct translation of software in most of the
case. And there's no word to translate software in its widest sense
-- probably because nobody in France ever needed that word.
Surely information theory people in
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
There's a critical difference here. The GPL can accompany the
reference card. The invariant material must be in the reference
card.
I explained months ago, and again last week, why this is not
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the GPL were used, it would have to be accompanied by 6 pages
of additional invariant material. That is still bigger than the
reference card. Do you object to the GPL on these grounds?
There's a critical difference here. The
MJ Ray, 2003-09-22 10:30:19 +0200 :
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 as the English
Ervin Hearn III [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Concern has been expressed on the debian-devel list about license
status of PennMUSH and its legitimacy. PennMUSH was relicensed under
the Artistic License as of version 1.7.6p0 in November 2002. Aspects
of PennMUSH's code have been drawn from, of
Mathieu Roy wrote:
Well, when I read a text, I have all the means necessary to understand
how the idea works. Not with a program unless I get the source.
We consider even trivial software such as Hello world to be worthy of
Freeness, even though in this case you have everything necessary to
On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 10:46, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the GPL were used, it would have to be accompanied by 6 pages
of additional invariant material. That is still bigger than the
reference card. Do you object to the GPL on
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 04:14:45PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
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
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 of the emphasized text is: (opposite to hardware).
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 09:10:07AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-09-22 07:30:41 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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 of
Debian is to provide an
MJ Ray wrote:
It seems a little odd to expect Debian to contain an official
statement saying by software, we mean software. Let the people who
use bizarre definitions say by software, we don't mean software but
this other thing.
Given the amount of discussion this topic has started,
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
No, it's still a theoretical problem.[1] The above has nothing to
do with the content of the statements themselves, merely the fact
that they are not free under the DFSG.
The problem is that our non-modifiable political essays might be
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
But if they were only removable without being modifiable, then
yes, removing them would be the only way to include the
accompanying documentation while still ensuring that all bits in
Debian guarantee the freedoms that we require.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:56:27AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
If the binaries were entirely written using assembly code, the binary
here equates the source.
You really mean machine code here, right? Because I would
appreciate the .s source files if someone wrote it in assembler.
* Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030922 13:29]:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Mathieu claims to see no need for derived works of political essays despite
all of the suggested reasons which are broadly similar to those for free
software
I do not agree with your point of view,
* 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. Now, then next question is very clear for
debian-legal: The
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:51:14PM +0200, Roland Mas wrote:
- un logiciel can even be used to mean a software program, whereas
the phrase a software sounds awkward to me in English (but then
again, I'm not a native English speaker, and maybe software is a
countable noun -- can you say
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
But if they were only removable without being modifiable, then
yes, removing them would be the only way to include the
accompanying documentation while still ensuring that all bits in
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
If the binaries were entirely written using assembly code, the binary
here equates the source.
This is very rarely true. Even assembly code has variable and function
names, comments and macros. A disassembler output is certainly not the
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 11:41:52PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
[snip]
See above; the concern is not over any specific piece of code (in that the
only ones I can point to, I'm fairly sure the license can be clarified
for), but in whether debian-legal is willing to accept the statements of
(in
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 that tolerating this non-DFSG essays in
some GFDLed
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:53:56AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Not entirely. My proposal to remove non-free from our archives and amend
the social contract to state that it will no longer be available on our FTP
servers is what is in the air.
[s/state that it will no longer/no longer state
None of these differences correctly classifies Hello as both a program
and documentation, as far as I can tell.
Hello is an example program.
It is difficult
to deal with such grey areas and I assume that it requires a
case-by-case review.
I have never found it
But if they were only removable without being
modifiable, then yes, removing them would be the only way to include the
accompanying documentation while still ensuring that all bits in Debian
guarantee the freedoms that we require.
Not long ago, people were trying to reassure me
If, OTOH, your only goal is to persuade Debian to accept the GFDL
with invariant sections as free enough for inclusion in our
distribution, I don't see that such a discussion could ever bear
fruit without a concrete proposal spelling out the alternative
guidelines that should
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
