Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Oh, it's possible, the section just ends up as unreadable garbage. Nothing
in
the GFDL requires that the invariant sections be readable.
Well, actually, its not because devices easily barf on things that
aren't ASCII.
And, further,
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Oh, it's possible, the section just ends up as unreadable garbage.
Nothing in the GFDL requires that the invariant sections be
readable.
Well, actually, its not because devices easily barf on
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But then transliterating to ASCII must be acceptable.
Must it? Translitterating to ASCII loses information (e.g. Moens
Rullgoerd is different from Måns Rullgård).
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
*
Not any code can reuse any other code, but patch clauses mean code can't
even be reused in code with the *same license*, prohibiting it entirely.
I hope you're wrong and that code reuse is unimportant and can be
prohibited wasn't really the rationale.
I think (but I am not sure) that this
On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 06:26:27PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Adam McKenna wrote:
I don't know of any device that rejects files of a particular encoding. Can
you give an example of such a device?
My portable music player barfs pretty badly on anything that isn't ASCII.
But
On 2/20/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still don't understand how either of these (whether Qmail or TeX) could
have been considered so critical that it justified sacrificing code reuse,
allowing licenses to effectively prohibit it. People say trust me, we
thought about this, but
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 01:12:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 2/20/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still don't understand how either of these (whether Qmail or TeX) could
have been considered so critical that it justified sacrificing code reuse,
allowing licenses to
On 2/16/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 08:13:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I think that it's safe to say that at the time the DFSG was drafted
it was felt if the patch clause wasn't included in the DFSG that
some software important to Debian would have
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 10:33:31AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 2/16/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 08:13:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I think that it's safe to say that at the time the DFSG was drafted
it was felt if the patch clause wasn't included
On 2/20/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That doesn't seem to contradict Branden's post. Feel free to discuss
it with him, though; I wasn't around at the time.
Eh... I think I remember that it was thrown in for Knuth's software,
thoughI don't remember the specifics of those licenses
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 07:14:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Eh... I think I remember that it was thrown in for Knuth's software,
thoughI don't remember the specifics of those licenses and packages.
I still don't understand how either of these (whether Qmail or TeX) could
have been considered
Scripsit Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Perhaps we should consider amending section 4 of the DFSG so
that instead of only allowing one restriction on modification (changes
must be distributed in source form as patches to the unmodified
sources) to allowing any restrictions on a Debian Free
Adam McKenna wrote:
I don't know of any device that rejects files of a particular encoding. Can
you give an example of such a device?
My portable music player barfs pretty badly on anything that isn't ASCII.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 06:32:58PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
And, further, the GFDL says I must preserve invariant sections
unaltered in their text, not unaltered in their octects; I seriously
doubt that'd count...
Would I be in violation if I was to take a GNU manual, untar it,
Patrick Herzig wrote:
On 16/02/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I have already said in a previous message let's say we disagree. Any
opinion in contradiction with yours will be poorly defended.
Let's not. Let's say that you are wrong, or at least, that your
assertions are poorly
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 10:49:47AM +0400, olive wrote:
You have? You elided the bulk of Don's response wholesale, and your
arguments often seem to reduce to poorly-defended assertions of what
you think the DFSG should mean.
As I have already said in a previous message let's say we disagree.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 10:49:47AM +0400, olive wrote:
You have? You elided the bulk of Don's response wholesale, and your
arguments often seem to reduce to poorly-defended assertions of what
you think the DFSG should mean.
As I have already said in a previous message
On 2/16/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some of the DFSG (expecially the patch close) show that the interpretation
of what free is was broader at the beginning than the current
interpretation of the DFSG (I am right to say that if this patch close
didn't exist; you would have said that a
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 08:13:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I think that it's safe to say that at the time the DFSG was drafted
it was felt if the patch clause wasn't included in the DFSG that
some software important to Debian would have been treated as
non-free. I think it's also safe to
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh, it's possible, the section just ends up as unreadable garbage.
Nothing in the GFDL requires that the invariant sections be
readable.
So, under GFDL, I'm allowed to compress the invariant sections with an
algorithm that is not uncompressable on the
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 11:42:03PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I think convenience is something to be considered in determining whether
something is free or not; a hint, nothing more, but not irrelevant either.
It's something that can be sacrificed, to a certain degree: the GPL is
pretty
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 10:30:16AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 11:42:03PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I think convenience is something to be considered in determining whether
something is free or not; a hint, nothing more, but not irrelevant either.
It's something
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 03:18:43PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 10:30:16AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 11:42:03PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I think convenience is something to be considered in determining whether
something is free or not; a
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:13:59PM +0400, olive wrote:
To answer, Patrick remark; a search in this list will show you that I
have considerably discussed and defended my opinion even if I do not
agree with most of the posters.
You have? You elided the bulk of Don's
On 16/02/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I have already said in a previous message let's say we disagree. Any
opinion in contradiction with yours will be poorly defended.
Let's not. Let's say that you are wrong, or at least, that your
assertions are poorly defended. You're trying to
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 08:29:59AM +0100, Yorick Cool wrote:
Climbing a 4,000 foot mountain is certainly possible. Its just
inconvenient [well, unless you do that kind of stuff for fun].
Personally, I do not find this license to be free, even though its just
a convenience issue.
Seeing
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, olive wrote:
[...]
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to
share and change it.
[...]
When I say that, a lot of people (which I would call zealots)
First off, please stop calling people names. Even if you disagree
vehemently with their
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:07:21AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
By contrast, if there is an invariant section written in Japanese, I
cannot remove it, I cannot distribute a translation instead, I must
instead simply not transmit the document *at all*
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, olive wrote:
[...]
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to
share and change it.
[...]
When I say that, a lot of people (which I would call zealots)
First off, please stop calling people names. Even if you disagree
On 14/02/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps the word was inappropriate.
I quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealot;
Zealotry denotes zeal in excess, referring to cases where activism and
ambition in relation to an ideology have become excessive to the point
of being harmful to
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 01:02:27PM +0400, olive wrote:
And this was my opinion: the idealogy of some people is in my opinion
have become excessive to the point of being harmful to free software. I
think that I have the right of saying that without being accused of
insulting people.
Zealot
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 01:02:27PM +0400, olive wrote:
And this was my opinion: the idealogy of some people is in my opinion
have become excessive to the point of being harmful to free software. I
think that I have the right of saying that without being accused of
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 02:47:02AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 08:29:59AM +0100, Yorick Cool wrote:
Climbing a 4,000 foot mountain is certainly possible. Its just
inconvenient [well, unless you do that kind of stuff for fun].
Personally, I do not find this license
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 09:44:33AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:07:21AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
By contrast, if there is an invariant section written in Japanese, I
cannot remove it, I cannot distribute a translation
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 09:44:33AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:07:21AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
By contrast, if there is an invariant section written in Japanese, I
cannot
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 06:08:06PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
So how can I distribute the document on that device if I cannot include
it on the device? I cannot, and hence the modifications needed to use
it on that device are not allowed.
I don't know of any device that rejects files of a
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 02:47:02AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Seeing as that is a void condition which is totally unenforceable[1], the
license is just the same as if the condition were inexistent, so yeah,
it's as good as free.
Do you just want to nitpick and distract from what little
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, there is a problem: My portable device understands only ASCII, or
maybe ISO-8859-1 if I'm lucky (at least in the US, this is pretty
common). It doesn't understand UTF-8, Shift-JIS, etc. It is not
technically possible to keep the Japanese invariant
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:32:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Craig Sanders:
there's nothing in the GFDL that prevents you from doing that. the
capabilities of your medium are beyond the ability of the GFDL (or any
license) to control.
Uhm, the existence of the anti-DRM clause
Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:49:33PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Climbing a 4,000 foot mountain is certainly possible. Its just
inconvenient [well, unless you do that kind of stuff for fun].
Personally, I do not find this license to be free, even
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:57:47PM +0100, Yorick Cool wrote:
The and what about this absurd license argument crops up regurlarly
to try to demonstrate that requirements having nothing to do with
software freedom per se can impede it's freedom. The problem is that
the particular absurd license
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 07:42:23PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote:
I'm not one for entering flamewars, but I must ask what is freedom if not
convience?
dict is both free AND convenient!
n 1: the state of being suitable or
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 07:31:20PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
I don't recall the following example being brought up.
Thank you for this example. It was new and I liked it because it is
not as abstract as most of the other examples.
Let's assume a manual, written by in Japanese, with
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:13:59PM +0400, olive wrote:
To answer, Patrick remark; a search in this list will show you that I
have considerably discussed and defended my opinion even if I do not
agree with most of the posters.
You have? You elided the bulk of Don's response wholesale, and
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 03:08:42PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I don't know about civil law countries, but I'd love to know why you think it
isn't enforcable there.
Who cares?
It discriminates against several groups of people and fields of endeavor.
The point is moot.
--Adam
--
To
On 2/14/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In every matter, it is virtually impossible to write a rule that can
mechanically be interpreted to give a suitable result.
I disagree.
It's impossible to cover all aspects of all cases, but obtaining
suitable results is entirely possible.
The
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:17:11PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote:
dict is both free AND convenient!
n 1: the state of being suitable or opportune; chairs arranged
for his own convenience
Why would one desire freedom for something except that it is more suitable
or opportune than
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 07:52:26PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:17:11PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote:
dict is both free AND convenient!
n 1: the state of being suitable or opportune; chairs arranged
for his own convenience
Why would one desire
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 05:19:32PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 10:44:51PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
What if he wants to further distribute the stuff to other
people who are using a device like his? I mean, sharing stuff useful
to me is one of the prime
[Hamish Moffatt]
That Debian expects that simply providing the source alongside ...
does not appear to make this non-free. It might make be inconvenient
for us and/or require us to change the ftp-master scripts, but that
doesn't seem to affect its freeness.
One must remember, however, that
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:34:32AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Hamish Moffatt]
That Debian expects that simply providing the source alongside ...
does not appear to make this non-free. It might make be inconvenient
for us and/or require us to change the ftp-master scripts, but that
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the GPL says you must include the full machine-readable/editable source
code, so if you can't do that in a given medium (say, a chip with 1KB
capacity) then GPL software is not free in any medium.
Of course, but that isn't an imposition on changes.
If
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
why are you obsessing with a convenience issue and pretending that it
has ANY BEARING AT ALL on freedom issues? it doesn't.
I think if you'll look at the header you'll see that this is about a
new practical problem. If you aren't interested in the
* Craig Sanders:
there's nothing in the GFDL that prevents you from doing that. the
capabilities of your medium are beyond the ability of the GFDL (or any
license) to control.
Uhm, the existence of the anti-DRM clause disproves this claim.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:19:32 +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
if there is a particular process which can shoehorn the document into
the limited device, then it's perfectly OK to distribute the document
along with with instructions (whether human-executable instructions or
a
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:37:07 +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
the GPL says you must include the full machine-readable/editable
source code, so if you can't do that in a given medium (say, a chip
with 1KB capacity) then GPL software is not free in any medium.
From the GPL:
,
|
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:32:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Craig Sanders:
there's nothing in the GFDL that prevents you from doing that. the
capabilities of your medium are beyond the ability of the GFDL (or any
license) to control.
Uhm, the existence of the anti-DRM clause
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:01:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
why are you obsessing with a convenience issue and pretending that
it has ANY BEARING AT ALL on freedom issues? it doesn't.
Err, because I do not see this as a matter of mere
convenience. If I spend a significant
On 2/13/06, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you people never give up, do you? as soon as one bogus claim against
the GFDL is disproved, you recycle another one that was demolished
months, weeks, or only days ago. repeat ad nauseum.
Another possibility is that you're begging the
you people love to recycle the same lies over and over and over again.
i'm becoming convinced that it is a deliberate strategy - repeat the
same lies and eventually everyone will just give up out of exhaustion.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 01:42:44PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
3a only says that a
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:29:05 +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
you people love to recycle the same lies over and over and over again.
i'm becoming convinced that it is a deliberate strategy - repeat the
same lies and eventually everyone will just give up out of exhaustion.
On Mon,
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:34:32AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
Nothing in the SC or DFSG requires Debian to accept any software that
comes along and adheres to the letter of the DFSG.
true.
the convention so far, though, has been if it's free and someone can
be bothered packaging it, then
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:33:01PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
bullshit. freedom, as used by Debian, is explicitly defined in the
DFSG. the DFSG has a number of clauses detailing what we consider
free and what we don't consider free.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:52:28PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 01:42:44PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
3a only says that a binary has to be *accompanied* with the source
code. Hence it can be on a separate medium. So you can distribute
your 1KB chip, stapled to a
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:07:21AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
By contrast, if there is an invariant section written in Japanese, I
cannot remove it, I cannot distribute a translation instead, I must
instead simply not transmit the document *at all* if I am stuck with
an ASCII-only
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:01:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
why are you obsessing with a convenience issue and pretending that
it has ANY BEARING AT ALL on freedom issues? it doesn't.
Err, because I do
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 07:42:23PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote:
I'm not one for entering flamewars, but I must ask what is freedom if not
convience?
dict is both free AND convenient!
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
freedom
n 1: the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the GFDL does not say you can not modify at all, it says you can
not delete or change these small secondary sections, but you can add
your own comments to them.
I did not find any statement in the license with the text in quotes
('but you can add your
Craig Sanders wrote:
stop trying to pretend that convenience is a freedom issue. it isn't.
[snip]
it may be horribly inconvenient to not be able to usably install a
foreign language document on an english-only device, but that is UTTERLY
IRRELEVENT TO WHETHER THE DOCUMENT IS FREE OR NOT.
Craig Sanders wrote:
if there is a particular process which can shoehorn the document into
the limited device, then it's perfectly OK to distribute the document
along with with instructions (whether human-executable instructions or
a script/program) for doing so. i.e. this meets the
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:38:57 +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
the GFDL has a similar provision. you can provide a link to an
internet address containing the full document.
Please show me where the GFDL has such a provision. The passage that
i've shown it before. i have no
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:07:48PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:38:57 +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
the GFDL has a similar provision. you can provide a link to an
internet address containing the full document.
Please show me where the GFDL has such a
olive wrote:
Of course you can. You just keep the bytes representing the Japanese
version intact even if these does not display properly on your device.
L. Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document, UNALTERED IN
THEIR TEXT and in their titles.
I think changing 標準語 to æ¨æºèª would
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:06:09 +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:07:48PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
You made the assertion that it was sufficient to just include a link
to the full document (including invariant sections) or to just the
invariant sections
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
once again: you *can* modify an invariant section by patching it. the
GFDL does not say you can not modify at all, it says you can not
delete or change these small secondary sections, but you can add your
own comments to them.
A patched version of the
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:34:32AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
Nothing in the SC or DFSG requires Debian to accept any software that
comes along and adheres to the letter of the DFSG.
true.
the convention so far, though, has been if it's free and someone can
be
Raul Miller wrote:
On 2/13/06, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you people never give up, do you? as soon as one bogus claim against
the GFDL is disproved, you recycle another one that was demolished
months, weeks, or only days ago. repeat ad nauseum.
Another possibility is that
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:49:33PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
I have a simple question for you: Is the following license free?
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
Software), to deal in the
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
don't be an idiot. you only have to keep the invariant sections if you
are DISTRIBUTING a copy. you can do whatever you want with your own
copy.
Right, so you can't *distribute* a copy on an ASCII-only medium, even
of the English translation of a
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 07:31:20PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Now, I'd like to download this (translated) manual and place it on a
portable device I own, so I can easily read it without killing a bunch
of trees. I think this is clearly a useful modification, and I think
that I should be
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 05:19:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
don't be an idiot. you only have to keep the invariant sections if you
are DISTRIBUTING a copy. you can do whatever you want with your own
copy.
Right, so you can't
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 06:28:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
there's nothing in the GFDL that prevents you from doing that. the
capabilities of your medium are beyond the ability of the GFDL (or any
license) to control.
This is hardly
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
don't be an idiot. you only have to keep the invariant sections if you
are DISTRIBUTING a copy. you can do whatever you want with your own
copy.
Right, so you can't *distribute* a copy on an ASCII-only medium, even
of the
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 10:44:51PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
What if he wants to further distribute the stuff to other
people who are using a device like his? I mean, sharing stuff useful
to me is one of the prime reasons I like free software -- if stuff is
useful, I can share.
84 matches
Mail list logo
