Because the requirement for main is that it satisfy all of our free
software guidelines. As I understand it, GFDL does not properly satisfy
guideline #3.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:02:31AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements
of the DFSG. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright
licenses, or
On 2004-01-22 18:41:33 + John Lines [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Namespaces are not a problem as long as it remains a strict subset
(i.e.
main only) of Debian, and indeed fsf-linux user finding a bug in a
package could presumably file it against the Debian BTS since if it is
a real bug then it
On 2004-01-22 18:57:15 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my opinion, Andrew's making a mistake. Simply stating that I
should
do what he's doing doesn't help my understand what basis you have for
your statement.
I think it is probable that more people will support editorial changes
On 2004-01-22 20:15:11 + Andrew M.A. Cater
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest two additional documents be drafted, each almost identical
to the DFSG. The DFDocG and the DFDataG (for the sake of example
names).
You would also need to define the borders of their scope. In several
long
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Your claim seems to be that everything allowable in non-free (and not
just current contents) must meet some DFSG. To disprove that claim, it
seems that I must find or introduce something that does not meet any
DFSG. As I am sure you know, I have little
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements
of the DFSG. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright
licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG.
On Fri, Jan
On 2004-01-22 18:57:15 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my opinion, Andrew's making a mistake. Simply stating that I
should
do what he's doing doesn't help my understand what basis you have for
your statement.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 10:42:05AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I
Anthony Towns wrote:
Damn, I thought I already replied to this. Apparently not.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:50:47AM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
If there were one human ethic that was universally agreed upon, this
might be worth talking about; but there isn't.
There are some basic things,
On 2004-01-23 13:50:24 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mine is more a rewrite of policy than either editorial changes or
policy
changes. In other words, in some senses of the words my proposal is
more drastic than editorial changes and less drastic than policy
changes.
Let us be
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:47:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
It doesn't seem to make much sense to mention our lack of guarantee for
non-free when, indeed, the following is true, too:
we do not guarantee all software in the main
area may be distributed in other ways.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 05:16:59PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Whether such a mirror counts as part of the project might be a grey
area, so I present:
[a license which makes the software useless to our users]
So what?
Anyways, if you're going to stoop to absurdities [...]
This is not an
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:39:36AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
I think we agreed that rejecting to help 'B', when we are busy with
helping 'A' is O.K. It will be completely ethical to act in this way.
It produces no evil to answer Sorry, we are busy with helping S.
On 2004-01-23 18:01:54 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[a license which makes the software useless to our users]
So what?
Please explain why you think that licence makes the software useless
to our users. I think nearly all aspects of it have appeared in some
licence for a non-free
On 2004-01-23 17:11:38 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Nope, only when a free alternative for all of its content has been
written.
How many times will we see the free software equivalent
impossibility advocated this month? Do we have software for running
sweepstakes packaged?
--
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements
of the DFSG.
All the software in main.
At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright
licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG.
This is a
[a license which makes the software useless to our users]
So what?
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:34:21PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Please explain why you think that licence makes the software useless
to our users. I think nearly all aspects of it have appeared in some
licence for a non-free
Anthony Towns wrote:
O.K., I just want to know, what is wrong in your opinion with associated
actions regarding non-free programs? Are there some bad consequences, if
any, which result from non-free distribution?
No, there aren't. There might be bad consequences from forcing people to use
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:36:10PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-23 17:11:38 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Nope, only when a free alternative for all of its content has been
written.
How many times will we see the free software equivalent
impossibility advocated this
Raul Miller wrote:
I think we got an agreement on what is that action which is the source
of all problems specific to non-free. It is distribution under non-free
license.
No, you can have problems specific to the license without distribution.
For example, if the problem is that you can't
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:29:34PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
That is why it is obvious for me, why working
and distributing free is always better then working and distributing
non-free.
Well, that's nice, but it's not the question at issue. If we could replace
all the non-free software
No, you can have problems specific to the license without distribution.
For example, if the problem is that you can't distribute it.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:33:44AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
But this situation is caused by another act of distribution. Because of
this another act
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:47:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
If you compare this to Andrew's (which is similar, if not the same as,
the current SC):
We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses
of the packages in these areas and determine if
they can
Raul Miller wrote:
Not necessarily -- maybe the reason you can't distribute it is that the
license forbids you from getting a copy.
Or, if you prefer, maybe the problem is simply that you can't get
the copy.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:44:19AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
This is
Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are
Debian's Free Software Requirements, rather than merely being
guidelines. This would also require updating the social contract and
the constitution.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:44:57PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's
not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing
practices.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:29:45AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Anthony Towns
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:48:09PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
There is no corresponding we're too busy formulation for the question
Would you mind distributing this program on your mirrors, and letting me
use your BTS for it?
So, do you agree with my example? You think it is O.K. to
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:15:40PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
O.K., I just want to know, what is wrong in your opinion with associated
actions regarding non-free programs? Are there some bad consequences, if
any, which result from non-free distribution?
No,
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:11:36AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Well, that's nice, but it's not the question at issue. If we could replace
all the non-free software people might want to use with free software,
we'd be happy to. Our choice is to distribute non-free software, or
not. The
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:42:05AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:38:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
At the moment the substantive options that have been discussed are:
[ ] Drop non-free
[ ] Limit non-free to partially-DFSG-free software
Keep
Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...)
No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the
subject line.
Argumentum ad hominem would be You're lying, therefore you're
wrong. This was Here is documented evidence of you lying.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:01:07AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:32:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...)
No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the
subject line.
Argumentum ad hominem would be You're lying, therefore you're
wrong. This was Here is documented evidence of
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I can only presume that Raul is trying to appeal to people who want to
drop non-free, who want to get GFDL-licensed stuff out of main, and
who want to keep GFDL-licensed stuff. That's nuts.
It's my observation that a number of
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's
not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing
practices.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:24:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Huh? We didn't
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:50:25AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:32:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...)
No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the
subject line.
Argumentum ad hominem would be You're lying,
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the
requirements of the DFSG.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
All the software in main.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:37:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The only way I know of to address these sorts of inconsistencies involves
examples.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:06:00AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
If your point is that a significant portion of the enfranchised
developers are nuts, then I have to point out the futility of trying
to prove
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:21:32PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
It's very simple: GFDL licensed documentation does not satisfy all
requirements of the DFSG.
That's nice. Why do you think that means it would get dropped from main,
merely because the non-free section will disappear?
Because
Because the requirement for main is that it satisfy all of our free
software guidelines. As I understand it, GFDL does not properly satisfy
guideline #3.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:02:31AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements
of the DFSG. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright
licenses, or
On 2004-01-22 18:41:33 + John Lines [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Namespaces are not a problem as long as it remains a strict subset
(i.e.
main only) of Debian, and indeed fsf-linux user finding a bug in a
package could presumably file it against the Debian BTS since if it is
a real bug then
On 2004-01-22 18:57:15 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my opinion, Andrew's making a mistake. Simply stating that I
should
do what he's doing doesn't help my understand what basis you have for
your statement.
I think it is probable that more people will support editorial
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Your claim seems to be that everything allowable in non-free (and not
just current contents) must meet some DFSG. To disprove that claim, it
seems that I must find or introduce something that does not meet any
DFSG. As I am sure you know, I have little
On 2004-01-23 11:52:28 + Remi Vanicat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If a license contaminate other software, we very probably can't
include
it into non-free, as other non-free package won't follow this rule. So
such a package is not distributable by debian.
That probably doesn't follow. There
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements
of the DFSG. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright
licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG.
On Fri, Jan
On 2004-01-22 18:57:15 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my opinion, Andrew's making a mistake. Simply stating that I
should
do what he's doing doesn't help my understand what basis you have for
your statement.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 10:42:05AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I
Anthony Towns wrote:
Damn, I thought I already replied to this. Apparently not.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:50:47AM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
If there were one human ethic that was universally agreed upon, this
might be worth talking about; but there isn't.
There are some basic things,
On 2004-01-23 13:50:24 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mine is more a rewrite of policy than either editorial changes or
policy
changes. In other words, in some senses of the words my proposal is
more drastic than editorial changes and less drastic than policy
changes.
Let us be
On 2004-01-23 13:50:24 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mine is more a rewrite of policy than either editorial changes or
policy
changes. In other words, in some senses of the words my proposal is
more drastic than editorial changes and less drastic than policy
changes.
On
On 2004-01-23 16:40:17 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think you need to go any further -- I think it would be a
gross
violation of the spirit of debian to distribute software which forces
payment from non-DD mirror operators.
Whether such a mirror counts as part of the
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:47:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
It doesn't seem to make much sense to mention our lack of guarantee for
non-free when, indeed, the following is true, too:
we do not guarantee all software in the main
area may be distributed in other ways.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 05:16:59PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Whether such a mirror counts as part of the project might be a grey
area, so I present:
[a license which makes the software useless to our users]
So what?
Anyways, if you're going to stoop to absurdities [...]
This is not an
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:39:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
and all GNU documentation shall use the GNU FDL henceforth. Equally,
it doesn't serve us to say You'll take our non-free section away when
you pry our cold, dead hands from it.
Nope, only when a free alternative for all of its
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:39:36AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
I think we agreed that rejecting to help 'B', when we are busy with
helping 'A' is O.K. It will be completely ethical to act in this way.
It produces no evil to answer Sorry, we are busy with helping S.
On 2004-01-23 18:01:54 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[a license which makes the software useless to our users]
So what?
Please explain why you think that licence makes the software useless
to our users. I think nearly all aspects of it have appeared in some
licence for a
On 2004-01-23 17:11:38 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Nope, only when a free alternative for all of its content has been
written.
How many times will we see the free software equivalent
impossibility advocated this month? Do we have software for running
sweepstakes packaged?
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements
of the DFSG.
All the software in main.
At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright
licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG.
This is a
[a license which makes the software useless to our users]
So what?
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:34:21PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Please explain why you think that licence makes the software useless
to our users. I think nearly all aspects of it have appeared in some
licence for a non-free
Anthony Towns wrote:
O.K., I just want to know, what is wrong in your opinion with associated
actions regarding non-free programs? Are there some bad consequences, if
any, which result from non-free distribution?
No, there aren't. There might be bad consequences from forcing people to use
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:36:10PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-01-23 17:11:38 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Nope, only when a free alternative for all of its content has been
written.
How many times will we see the free software equivalent
impossibility advocated this
Raul Miller wrote:
Do you mean that by distributing non-free we do the best what we can?
Why? Even if we can work on free instead of non-free?
When there is no completely free alternative, we distribute the best
alternatives available.
If you think counter examples exist, please describe
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:26:34AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
I do not know ... I know ...
OK.
I think we got an agreement on what is that action which is the source
of all problems specific to non-free. It is distribution under non-free
license.
No, you can have problems specific
MJ == MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MJ There is no other way for something to be part of the debian
MJ distribution. Regardless, the point that DFSG are not a closed
MJ list stands.
It's not clear to me how true the claim that the DFSG are not a closed
set of requirements is.
Raul == Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I second this proposal.
Raul [This is a repost -- Sven Luther has asked that that my call
Raul for seconds is not in reply to any other post.]
Raul This is a call for seconds on the proposal I submitted on
Raul the 19th:
Raul
Raul Miller wrote:
I think we got an agreement on what is that action which is the source
of all problems specific to non-free. It is distribution under non-free
license.
No, you can have problems specific to the license without distribution.
For example, if the problem is that you can't
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:29:34PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
That is why it is obvious for me, why working
and distributing free is always better then working and distributing
non-free.
Well, that's nice, but it's not the question at issue. If we could replace
all the non-free software
I've put up a web page listing possible replacements for packages currently in
non-free. There are still lot of blanks - please give suggestions. Perhaps this
page can help in the discussion about removing non-free.
Also included is explanation why the package is in non-free. This is based
on the
No, you can have problems specific to the license without distribution.
For example, if the problem is that you can't distribute it.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:33:44AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
But this situation is caused by another act of distribution. Because of
this another act
Raul Miller wrote:
Not necessarily -- maybe the reason you can't distribute it is that the
license forbids you from getting a copy.
Or, if you prefer, maybe the problem is simply that you can't get
the copy.
This is caused by distribution under non-free license to the person who
rejects me
Anthony Towns wrote:
That is why it is obvious for me, why working
and distributing free is always better then working and distributing
non-free.
You seem to avoid answering my questions. It is your right to do so
without any explanation. I think we will be more productive if will try
to
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:47:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
If you compare this to Andrew's (which is similar, if not the same as,
the current SC):
We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses
of the packages in these areas and determine if
they can
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:50:11AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are
Debian's Free Software Requirements, rather than merely being
guidelines. This would also require updating the social contract and
the constitution.
On
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's
not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing
practices.
Anthony Towns (eventually, after a few false leads) managed to find
some shareware
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:38:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
At the moment the substantive options that have been discussed are:
[ ] Drop non-free
[ ] Limit non-free to partially-DFSG-free software
Keep non-free as is (unproposed)
Before anybody gets a bright
Raul Miller wrote:
Not necessarily -- maybe the reason you can't distribute it is that the
license forbids you from getting a copy.
Or, if you prefer, maybe the problem is simply that you can't get
the copy.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:44:19AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
This is
Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are
Debian's Free Software Requirements, rather than merely being
guidelines. This would also require updating the social contract and
the constitution.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:44:57PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's
not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing
practices.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:29:45AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Anthony Towns
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Because the requirement for main is that it satisfy all of our free
software guidelines. As I understand it, GFDL does not properly satisfy
guideline #3.
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:48:09PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
There is no corresponding we're too busy formulation for the question
Would you mind distributing this program on your mirrors, and letting me
use your BTS for it?
So, do you agree with my example? You think it is O.K. to
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:15:40PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
O.K., I just want to know, what is wrong in your opinion with associated
actions regarding non-free programs? Are there some bad consequences, if
any, which result from non-free distribution?
No,
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:11:36AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Well, that's nice, but it's not the question at issue. If we could replace
all the non-free software people might want to use with free software,
we'd be happy to. Our choice is to distribute non-free software, or
not. The
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's
not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing
practices.
Huh? We didn't make any particular decision to stop distributing shareware
afaik.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements
of the DFSG.
All the software in main.
*shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the claim that we
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:42:05AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:38:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
At the moment the substantive options that have been discussed are:
[ ] Drop non-free
[ ] Limit non-free to partially-DFSG-free software
Keep
Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...)
No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the
subject line.
Argumentum ad hominem would be You're lying, therefore you're
wrong. This was Here is documented evidence of you lying.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:01:07AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Because the requirement for main is that it satisfy all of our free
software guidelines. As I understand it, GFDL does not properly satisfy
guideline #3.
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements
of the DFSG. At present it's not a requirement that the
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:32:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Subject: Ad Hominem (was ...)
No it wasn't. It was a well-formed argument with a conclusion in the
subject line.
Argumentum ad hominem would be You're lying, therefore you're
wrong. This was Here is documented evidence of
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:27:55PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:42:05AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:38:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
At the moment the substantive options that have been discussed are:
[ ] Drop non-free
[
88 matches
Mail list logo
