On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:16:45PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 09:45:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
[ ] Choice 3: GFDL is DFSG-free and suitable for main in all cases [3:1]
I need to correct this. The title for my proposal is
[ ] Choice 3: GFDL is compatible
Quoting Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:16:43PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Quoting Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the everything is software vote
as an editorial change and deceived many other developers should have
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:22:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Second, my proposal doesn't revoke automatically the decision of the
release team to remove the GFDL-documents from main. If my proposal
wins, it is the release team who will have to change this decision
Frankly, I have no
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:02:01AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Quoting Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:16:43PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Quoting Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the everything is software vote
as
I second Adeodato's revised amendment, as I did the earlier version.
Thanks to Adeodato and everyone who contributed...
Hamish
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
---8---
Debian and the GNU Free
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 06:59:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:22:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
In spite of the Project Secretary's determination that this ballot
option requires a 3:1 supermajority because it modifies the DFSG,
given that I can't reconcile
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:54:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It does prohibit some modifications which are useful.
Geez, reference cards. Useful!
You can make reference cards but if you make more than 100 copies you
have to accompany the reference cards with additional sheet(s) of
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 04:12:38PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Err, that doeds not compute. If the developers decide that the
GFDL is compatible, then is it not tantamount to overriding gthe
decision taken? It is not as if the release team can go around doing
otherwise. The vox
* Nathanael Nerode [Fri, 10 Feb 2006 01:51:33 -0500]:
Hi,
So, does this mean that if this amendment is passed, outlawing storing a copy
of a document with non-world-readable permission is considered an acceptable,
free restriction by the Developers? Really?
I *hope* that this amendment
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes. Because I would trust the developers to see the amendment as the silly
fraud that it would be, and vote it down. We don't need the Secretary's
protection, believe it or not.
Really?
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:43:30PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 06:59:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:22:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
In spite of the Project Secretary's determination that this ballot
option requires a 3:1
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:06:03AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
The interpretation being proposed seems to be the DFSG allows certain
restrictions on modifications, including the GPL's interactivity
notification stuff and the GFDL's unmodifiable sections, with others
potentially to
* Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060210 11:36]:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:54:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It does prohibit some modifications which are useful.
Geez, reference cards. Useful!
You can make reference cards but if you make more than 100 copies you
have
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:54:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It does prohibit some modifications which are useful.
Geez, reference cards. Useful!
You can make reference cards but if you make more than 100 copies you
have to accompany
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone come forward and said I was deceived by GR 2004-03? I
Yes, multiple people did. HTH.
Who? I can't recall any. Can you provide
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:06:03AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
The interpretation that I hold is the following:
The license must give us permissions to modify the work in
order to adapt it to various needs or to improve it, with no
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:52:33PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060210 11:36]:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:54:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It does prohibit some modifications which are useful.
Geez, reference cards. Useful!
You
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:03:45PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
You neglected to mention what happens about reference cards for
documentation with invariant sections. Reference cards for Emacs and
GCC would be most useful, but AFAICT both of these manuals have
invariant sections.
Yes, they
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:33:05PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think the following is an useful test. If the license forbids some
modification that is necessary in order to adapt the document to some
need, then the document is non-free.
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:33:05PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think the following is an useful test. If the license forbids some
modification that is necessary in order to adapt the document to some
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the following is an useful test. If the license forbids some
modification that is necessary in order to adapt the document to some
need, then the document is non-free.
No, it is not, because according to many of your fellow DDs the result
of
Yavor Doganov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 19:15:08 +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
And then, has nobody ever raised the rumor that the purpose of this GFDL
is non-free hullaboo is just to make sure that we will have our non-free
section, for ever?
I feel it the same way.
The
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:36:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Christopher Martin]
If an issue is highly controversial, then I can think of no better
way of settling it in a way that most developers will accept than a
vote. People respect
On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
As it happens, it says nothing about implicit changes to foundation
documents, or even about having to act in accord
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning
the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that power, it
follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities (when doing so on
the basis of a
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The reference cards do not require the removal of the invariant
sections. You can print the invariant sections on separate sheet(s)
of paper.
Any work requiring waste of paper on that relative scale is
not only not free as in freedom, but unethical and
I hereby nominate myself as a candidate for the next Debian Project
Leader.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes. Because I would trust the developers to see the amendment as the
silly
fraud that it would be, and vote it down. We don't need the Secretary's
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:54:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It does prohibit some modifications which are useful.
Geez, reference cards. Useful!
You can make reference cards but if you make more than 100 copies you
have to accompany
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We all know that GFDL is incompatible with GPL, but if the sorce was
covered by BSD-like license there is no problem - you can satisfy the
requirements of the BSD license by additional invariant section.
But the resulting program would be a non-free
Thorough summaries written by representative proponents and opponents of
each principal side of the GFDL debate would be well received at this
time. Such summaries are requested. For other DDs, I cannot speak, but
such summaries would likely decide my vote at least.
To clarify the request:
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 10.02.06 05:13:11:
On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:26, Raul Miller wrote:
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be
set or not?
The constitution
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:07:00AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
The Emacs Manual requires rather more than one additional sheet of
paper. If a small footnote could handle it, that would be fine.
You can not include the whole text of GPL in a footnote either, not to
mention that you are
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 01:41:42PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
I think the following is an useful test. If the license forbids some
modification that is necessary in order to adapt the document to some
need, then the document is non-free. Otherwise, that is if the
license does not
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:07:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We all know that GFDL is incompatible with GPL, but if the sorce was
covered by BSD-like license there is no problem - you can satisfy the
requirements of the BSD license by
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:07:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We all know that GFDL is incompatible with GPL, but if the sorce was
covered by BSD-like license there is no problem - you can satisfy the
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If GDB were under BSD, you could:
1. Add docstrings to the sources of GDB in a way permissible by
GFDL. In particular the invariant sections should be present in
all opaque copies of the produced documentation. GFDL does not
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
But that isn't my point. My point is that you can't include the
GFDL'd material in any free program. (Or, by doing so, you render the
program non-free.) This is not controversial; even the FSF agrees.
This won't be true
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:34AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If GDB were under BSD, you could:
1. Add docstrings to the sources of GDB in a way permissible by
GFDL. In particular the invariant sections should be present in
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:37:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
You can't argue that since the constitution doesn't explicitly forbid the
Secretary to take it upon him/herself to interpret the DFSG for everyone
else, that therefore he/she must do so, in order to discharge the
constitutional
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 01:41:42PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
I think the following is an useful test. If the license forbids some
modification that is necessary in order to adapt the document to some
need, then the document is non-free.
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:34AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If GDB were under BSD, you could:
1. Add docstrings to the sources of GDB in a way permissible by
GFDL. In particular the
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:59:59PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 01:41:42PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
I think the following is an useful test. If the license forbids some
modification that is necessary in order to adapt
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:08:54PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:34AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If GDB were under BSD, you could:
1. Add docstrings to the
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:43:30 +0200, Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The interpretation that I hold is the following:
The license must give us permissions to modify the work in
order to adapt it to various needs or to improve it, with no
substantive limits on the nature of
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is strange. :-) The program is covered under BSD license and you
say it is non-free.
No. The resulting program is covered under the BSD license and the
GFDL together.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Returning back to the topic, we have the following situation:
1. The binary form of GDB would be covered under BSD license
Wrong. Because the binary would be including text from the manual, it
would be covered under the GFDL too.
--
To
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
But that isn't my point. My point is that you can't include the
GFDL'd material in any free program. (Or, by doing so, you render the
program non-free.) This is not
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:25:10AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
It says how the documents can be superceded or withdrawn; it doesn't
say anything about ignoring them outright, or changing the way they're
interpreted.
That's a strawman argument.
The ballot options are not being ignored.
I
On 9 Feb 2006, Christopher Martin uttered the following:
No, we'd like the issue settled in a _legitimate_ fashion. And I
take umbrage at your insinuations.
May I take umbrage at your insinuation that the vote to modify
the social contract was illegitimate?
Actually, the
On 8 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns stated:
Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are honourable
enough to note vote for a proposal they think contradicts the social
contract or DFSG; and I don't see much point to all the implications
that we're not that honourable and need to have
On 9 Feb 2006, Christopher Martin told this:
You're stuck in a loop. I know perfectly well that to change a
foundation document requires 3:1, but the question is, who decides
what is and is not a contradiction or change to the foundation
documents and so needs 3:1? You? The Secretary?
On 9 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns told this:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 04:03:48PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I am away from home, so I can't sign this email. However, we can
not hold a vote until the minimal discussion period is over, which
makes it Feb 23,rd at the earliest, so I'll probably do
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If there is an option on the ballot, there should be adequate
time to discuss it. Indeed, a new option on the ballot may present
novel idea, and having a vote without discussion of the new option
seems ... odd.
This is true, but note that
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:02:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The original proposal became formal with Roger Leigh's second, on
the 12th of January, and as no further amendments were accepted, a
call for a vote is appropriate any time two weeks after that (from
the 26th of January), as
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:34:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On 8 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns stated:
Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are honourable
enough to note vote for a proposal they think contradicts the social
contract or DFSG; and I don't see much point to all
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
That view, namely other people may propose ballots that aren't good
enough, and it's my job to stop that, is precisely a supervisory one.
Often the role of a Secretary is a ministerial one, and which wouldn't
include supervisory elements.
However,
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
That view, namely other people may propose ballots that aren't good
enough, and it's my job to stop that, is precisely a supervisory one.
Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as possible,
even to the point where votes would
On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns outgrape:
That view, namely other people may propose ballots that aren't good
enough, and it's my job to stop that, is precisely a supervisory
one.
The secretary is responsible for running the vote, and also
has the final decision for the form of the
On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns verbalised:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:02:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The original proposal became formal with Roger Leigh's second,
on the 12th of January, and as no further amendments were
accepted, a call for a vote is appropriate any time two weeks
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:10:20PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as possible,
even to the point where votes would be run without any human
intervention. I've thought about that before, but
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:08:32PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
That view, namely other people may propose ballots that aren't good
enough, and it's my job to stop that, is precisely a supervisory one.
Often the role of a Secretary is a
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can we have some discussion on the why's and wherefores of
invariant-less GFDL licensed works?
Well, for my part, I agree with the main GR proposed by Anthony, which
explains satisfactorily to me why even the invariant-less GFDL works
run
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:48:29PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
In summary, I don't think a pedantic reading of the constitution
justifies delaying the vote; and I don't think there's anything much
still to be said that would full up two weeks of discussion. Having
the issue be undecided
Meh, -devel dropped.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:27:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns outgrape:
That view, namely other people may propose ballots that aren't good
enough, and it's my job to stop that, is precisely a supervisory
one.
The secretary is
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 03:22:28PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Anyway, I've got better things to do, so I'll see you all in another
two weeks, when this vote will've been in discussion for two months.
Actually, there's one other possibility:
Branden, under 4.2(4) you're empowered to vary the
66 matches
Mail list logo
