On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
First, try to answer to several simply questions.
If you do likewise.
0) Is printed Emacs Manual in bookstore a software or hardware?
No. Is it in Debian?
1) Is Emacs Manual recorded on CD-Audio a software or hardware?
No. Is it in Debian?
2)
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 03:23:06AM +0900, Fedor Zuev brabbled:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
8)Is Debian logo written on [cover of] the same CD-ROM software or
hardware?
No. Is it in Debian?
So, your definition of software is heavily
Debian-specific. Even
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We want to have freedom over what we distribute in binary packages.
We are willing to tolerate noxious restrictions like the TeX ones only
because they do not impact what we can distribute in the binary
package: they only restrict the
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think
it needs to be possible to use text from manuals in a program.
A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals.
And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as
text
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 13:13, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
On 2003-09-30 02:13:23 +0100 Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that a no answer to
Is an MP3 file software? implies that the respondent's primary
definition of software is not anything made of bits.
I think you are extrapolating too far from that little data.
The main point
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2003-09-24 23:12:06 +0100 Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Software is a controversial word in English.
Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the
automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes. --
Monty
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 03:04, Fedor Zuev wrote:
First, try to answer to several simply questions.
First, let me note that I speak only for myself here, and I have a very
liberal use of the term 'software.' In the Social Contract, a more
conservative one is used, where we'd only consider it
Op vr 26-09-2003, om 09:04 schreef Fedor Zuev:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Roland Mas wrote:
In the Debian Project, 'software' means anything that is not
hardware. It does not mean just computer programs.
Seconded.
First, try to answer to several simply questions.
If you do likewise.
0) Is
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You have previously suggested we should consider whether documentation
is free, based on the four basic freedoms as specified on
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/ . That includes 'the freedom to run the
program, for any purpose'. Since a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
1. Is this MP3 file software or hardware?
This is one is definitely worse: you explicitely point out which
definition of the word software you think is the most usual, by asking
to refer to this definition.
Well, yes: I'm being upfront
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On 2003-09-26 21:48:48 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Is this MP3 file software or hardware?
This is one is definitely worse: you explicitely point out which
definition of the word software you think is the most usual, by asking
to
On 2003-09-27 09:28:31 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, my definition of ad hominem is shared by ancient roman history
teachers -- excuse me but I think that this topic they deserve to be
trusted by comparison to these simplistic fallacious blabla webpages.
This makes so
On 2003-09-27 09:20:01 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you some background in sociology?
Have you some background in psychology? If so, you should know that
people try to pick the narrowest class by default and will likely
answer Is this MP3 software? with It's music. That
For instance, controling for bias
should be done once you already collected the data, not during this
collection of _raw_ data, if you do not want to alter too much the
_raw_ data.
You clearly do not have a background in statistics.
Unfortunately your point of view does not reflect
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
1. Is this MP3 file software or hardware?
This is one is definitely worse: you explicitely point out which
definition of the word software you think is the most usual, by asking
to refer to this
On 2003-09-27 12:37:52 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You must try to avoid bias when designing the data collection
Clearly.
This disagrees with your earlier comment.
What is called here controlling for bias is indeed introducing
bias -- a big one.
I did not defend it.
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 11:05:52AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-09-27 09:20:01 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you some background in sociology?
Have you some background in psychology?
He's French. His poststructuralism will trump your reproducible results
at every turn.
--
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 01:37:52PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Avoiding bias means trying to collect _raw_ data.
There is no such thing as raw data in this context.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`-
On 2003-09-23 20:20:41 +0100 Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It is also known that undesirable stunts limiting freedom, such as
Invariant sections, are allowed under the FSF's definition of free.
FSF do not claim that FDL-covered works are free software, use a
particular odd
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 the normal meaning being used,
you'll get some
I don't think that section titles are a problem--it would not be
hard to put them in a program. But it is true that you cannot take
text from a GFDL-covered manual and put it into most free programs.
This is because the GFDL is incompatible with the normal free
software
I am seeing a persistent pattern where you accuse me of dishonesty
based on little except supposition. Here are several examples from
the mail I received last night.
Thomas Bushnell proposed another interpretation, in which certain
things that are included in the Debian package files
I don't think
it needs to be possible to use text from manuals in a program.
A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals.
And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as
text editors -- not as manuals or tetris games or
You have previously suggested we should consider whether documentation
is free, based on the four basic freedoms as specified on
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/ . That includes 'the freedom to run the
program, for any purpose'. Since a manual can't be run, I'll interpret
that as
We want to have freedom over what we distribute in binary packages.
We are willing to tolerate noxious restrictions like the TeX ones only
because they do not impact what we can distribute in the binary
package: they only restrict the hoops that the source package must go
Everything in Debian is software; the official logo is not free, and
therefore is not in Debian.
Fortunately it is not necessary for me to understand this.
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't agree that the latter is the important question. I think the
former is the question that matters. I am not sure if the GFDL is a
free software license, but I don't think the question matters.
When people said the GFDL is incompatible with
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This has been explained to you enough times that your attempt to
pretend it hasn't can no longer be attributed to ignorance.
I am not pretending anything--I consider the issue a red herring. So
I have addressed the issues I think are
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Everything in Debian is software; the official logo is not free, and
therefore is not in Debian.
Fortunately it is not necessary for me to understand this.
Many things are on Debian servers which are not part of the Debian
system. The
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 03:45:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
My girlfriend photography sitting on my computer is not free
software. That's not something I think important to be shared.
And it can't be part of Debian as long as it's not free.
I'm not saying there should never
On 2003-09-24 23:12:06 +0100 Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Software is a controversial word in English.
Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the
automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes. --
Monty Python's Flying Circus.
In an informal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
I am not saying that the DFSG is evil, just that it isn't free (and
our logos aren't either), and therefore can't be in a free OS (and so
also our logos can't).
Of course I meant GFDL where I said DFSG. Sorry for the
confusion.
Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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 the normal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 09:58:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 03:45:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I'm not saying there should never be non-free stuff--only that the
DFSG manuals are not free.
(Because they fail the GFDL, of course.)
/me does a double
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
On 2003-09-26 21:48:48 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Is this MP3 file software or hardware?
This is one is definitely worse: you explicitely point out which
definition of the word software you think is the most usual, by asking
to refer to this definition.
ITYM implicitly.
Richard Stallman wrote:
I don't think
it needs to be possible to use text from manuals in a program.
A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals.
And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as
text editors -- not as manuals or
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Roland Mas wrote:
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet, 2003-09-22 20:40:07 +0200 :
Given the amount of discussion this topic has started, perhaps
it might be a good idea to do it anyway, if only to reduce
the confusion for those who are not native speakers of English.
In the
* Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030923 08:51]:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Now, then next question is very clear for debian-legal: The Social
Contract (and the DFSG) say that all software in Debian must be 100%
free. So, the answer for Debian is: Every software.
I think
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 20:13, MJ Ray wrote:
That is intersection, not equation. It is known that undesirable
stunts limiting freedom, such as software patents, are allowed under
most definitions of open source.
It is also known that undesirable stunts limiting freedom, such as
Invariant
RMS wrote:
A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals.
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as
text editors -- not as manuals or tetris games or news-readers or web
browsers?
This is absolutely a *critical* point.
But what if an Invariant Section was the only part of the document that
fell foul of the law?
I guess nobody could distribute that version, so it might be
non-free.
However, all free software and free documentation licenses share this
problem. You could simply add code for a DeCSS
Do you have numbers to back the claim that it is more widespread? I
thought only English had the free/free ambiguity enough to create a
market for the more ambiguous term open source.
Most of the computer-using world uses English, and the English-language
press is most influential.
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 14:13, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-09-23 00:45:52 +0100 Andrew Saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[2] Okay, this was just an extreme example. However: since I
personally
believe that, Invariant sections or no, the term Open
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 01:08, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 14:13, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-09-23 00:45:52 +0100 Andrew Saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[2] Okay, this was just an extreme example. However: since I
personally
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
I still did not get the point. Many many people seems to enjoy Britney
Spears. Does it mean that Britney Spears is wonderful?
Musical (or other) tastes are almost entirely matters of opinion.
Correct.
Many people in France thinks that
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Something can be popular and also completely wrong.
If you would have read the thread, or my opinions on 'open source'
versus 'free software' (consider this an exercise in Googling), you
would know *I
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 08:08:59AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
I still did not get the point. Many many people seems to enjoy Britney
Spears.
Only with the sound off...
--
G. Branden Robinson|I've made up my mind. Don't try to
Debian GNU/Linux |confuse
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet, 2003-09-22 20:40:07 +0200 :
Given the amount of discussion this topic has started, perhaps
it might be a good idea to do it anyway, if only to reduce
the confusion for those who are not native speakers of English.
In the Debian Project, 'software' means anything
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Debian project is dedicated to the Debian OS. Without this
collection of software, the Debian project is purposeless.
If the Debian project does not follow the rules that the Debian
project wrote itself for the Debian OS, the Debian project is
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My girlfriend photography sitting on my computer is not free
software. That's not something I think important to be shared.
And it can't be part of Debian as long as it's not free.
I'm not saying there should never be non-free stuff--only that the
DFSG
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 08:32:55PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But Debian contains essays, logos, and licenses that cannot be
modified. These are not programs; are they software?
The
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think that section titles are a problem--it would not be
hard to put them in a program. But it is true that you cannot take
text from a GFDL-covered manual and put it into most free programs.
This is because the GFDL is incompatible with the
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell proposed another interpretation, in which certain
things that are included in the Debian package files are not part of
Debian for this purpose. That way, you don't have to apply the DFSG
to them.
No, I did not, and you know it. I
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Many free documentation licenses won't permit use of the text in
GPL-covered free programs, and practically speaking, this means I
can't use them in any of the programs I might want to use them in.
Whether the manual's text could be used in a free
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think
it needs to be possible to use text from manuals in a program.
A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals.
And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as
text
Etienne Gagnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
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
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
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
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
* 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.
You
On 2003-09-23 00:45:52 +0100 Andrew Saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[2] Okay, this was just an extreme example. However: since I
personally
believe that, Invariant sections or no, the term Open Source will
*still* be more widespread,
Do you have numbers to back the claim that it is more
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 14:13, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-09-23 00:45:52 +0100 Andrew Saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[2] Okay, this was just an extreme example. However: since I
personally
believe that, Invariant sections or no, the term Open Source will
*still* be more widespread,
Do
On 2003-09-23 20:55:20 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22free+software%22 - 4,840,000 hits.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22open+source%22 - 7,210,000 hits.
Distortions here include choice of language, importing of open
source compared to
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
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]) [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 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 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
* 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
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
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 10:41:16 +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.
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
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
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
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 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_.
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
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 ?
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
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
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
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
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
1 - 100 of 342 matches
Mail list logo
