Package: mldonkey-server
Severity: serious
Justification: Social Contract part 1?
The files src/networks/fasttrack/enc_type_*.c are taken from the giFT
FastTrack plugin project. I was considering packaging this plugin for
Debian but I heard from the developers that these three files have all
been
Sergey V. Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig wrote:
>
> > I think that Debian shouldn't distribute non-free software at all; this
>
> Why clearly non-free things are in Debian? Is it because of Social
> Contract? Why moving FDL becomes more important, than removing non-free?
Sergey V. Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is wrong to pick up *some* inconveniences (and even negative aspects)
> and call the license non-free. Correct way is to sum up all pros and cons
> for the majority of people on the long terms.
>
> FDL is free enough for Debian. FDL is free.
P
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 17:24, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Why clearly non-free things are in Debian? Is it because of Social
> Contract? Why moving FDL becomes more important, than removing non-free?
Because this isn't the forum for discussing the removal of non-free? And
because the discussion
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 16:00, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Let's imagine infinite scale with absolute freedom(liberty) on one side
> and absolute non-freedom on another. The border between free and
> non-free will be at 0.
This is a joke, right?
Would you care to explain exactly how to quantiz
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 13:42, Joe Moore wrote:
> I think C is empty, but I can't really formulate the exact reason at the
> moment.
What do you consider an ASCII text file or a scanned image of the
psychology book? Would you put these in C, or do they go in A?
signature.asc
Description: This is
On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 22:39, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >That's an overly-expansive view of software. You would include
> >anything that is digital in that description -- audio CDs, DVD movies,
> >off-air TV signals,
> (actually, off-air TV signals are partly analogue, FYI...)
Except for the new
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 16:42, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> And declaration of Someone "Let`s call everything 'software'
...
> * Someone steal from me the freedom (freedom at the some
> extent, but the most valuable extent) to use _any_ work.
...
> No, thanks. I do not need such "freedom".
Le mar 12/08/2003 à 23:07, Sergey V. Spiridonov a écrit :
> > Oh, yeah, and how exactly is the existence of non-free an argument to
> > put not-quite-free software in main?
>
> As for me, removing of clearly non-free stuff should have higher
> priority than moving FDL with disputable non-free st
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 08:47:42PM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> >Oh, great, so maybe I'll finally have answers to my generic questions to
> >FDL supporters: how a license which forbids to put the document on an
> >encrypted filesystem can be considered free? How a license which forbids
>
>
Sergey V. Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] Why moving FDL becomes more important, than removing non-free?
If pointless subthreads like this demonstrate anything, it is that
importance and list traffic do not necessarily correlate highly.
Sergey V. Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You definitely want to get rid of the software in non-free section of
> Debian, aren't you?
There is no non-free section of Debian. Go read the Social Contract.
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 03:35:02 +0900 (IRKST), Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
JG> Documentation consists of instructions primarily intended to be
JG> human-readable regarding the operation of something such as a
JG> program.
JG> Programs consist
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
> MR>I have now been given a link to the German copyright law at
> MR>http://bundesrecht.juris.de/bundesrecht/urhg/index.html but I am very
> MR>slow at reading German, if anyone else wants to beat me to reading it.
>
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
I think that Debian shouldn't distribute non-free software at all; this
Why clearly non-free things are in Debian? Is it because of Social
Contract? Why moving FDL becomes more important, than removing non-free?
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
The Social Contract says why: As a service to our users. You'll find a
lot of people here (hi, Branden!) would like to change that and get rid
of non-free.
That's nice.
Oh, yeah, and how exactly is the existence of non-free an argument to
put not-quite-free softwar
On Monday, Aug 11, 2003, at 18:59 US/Eastern, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I've always interpreted that clause as 'Debian will never contain any
non-free software.'
Please continue reading past the paragraph heading, and it will become
clear around 'entirely free software.' that Branden's reading i
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
BR>Establish first that the debian-legal team's current application
BR>of the term "software" to all binary digits that get shipped in
BR>Debian main is fallacious even if valid.
Not to say for everyone, but for me there is a very strong
reason
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 15:00, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le mar 12/08/2003 à 20:47, Sergey V. Spiridonov a écrit :
> >
> >>It is wrong to pick up *some* inconveniences (and even negative aspects)
> >>and call the license non-free. Correct way is to sum up all pros
On Monday, Aug 11, 2003, at 02:20 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov
wrote:
Since documentation differs from programs, it can have different
restrictions, which programs are not able to pass.
OK. Any in mind?
So, being just Turing-complete can't serve as a criterion.
Then what can?
BTW:
Branden Robinson wrote:
The people who want w4r3z for w4r3z's sake will always want w4r3z.
It is not reasonable to count on them learning to crave freedom instead.
You definitely want to get rid of the software in non-free section of
Debian, aren't you?
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
On Tuesday, Aug 12, 2003, at 14:47 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov
wrote:
Oh, great, so maybe I'll finally have answers to my generic questions
to
FDL supporters: how a license which forbids to put the document on an
encrypted filesystem can be considered free? How a license which
forbids
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 09:47:42AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I would like to see this GR proposed, if only so it can be unambiguously
> defeated and we can be rid of the lengthy threads.
What makes you think the advocates of non-free-in-main will leave us
alone even if an attempt to exempt do
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
MR>I have now been given a link to the German copyright law at
MR>http://bundesrecht.juris.de/bundesrecht/urhg/index.html but I am very
MR>slow at reading German, if anyone else wants to beat me to reading it.
http://www.copyrighter.ru/lite/germanapisp.h
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mar 12/08/2003 à 20:47, Sergey V. Spiridonov a écrit :
It is wrong to pick up *some* inconveniences (and even negative aspects)
and call the license non-free. Correct way is to sum up all pros and
cons for the majority of people on the long terms.
I'm asking again:
Sergey V. Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> FDL supporters: how a license which forbids to put the document on an
>> encrypted filesystem can be considered free? How a license which forbids
> Is it? Are you sure? Or do you plan to distribute encrypted Debian CD's? ;
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How could a law make our statement of principle invalid for documents?
> Or do you mean there might be laws somewhere that make it impossible to
> follow the DFSG in a document, but not in a computer program?
My bad. I think "impossible" is a bett
On Tuesday, Aug 12, 2003, at 05:45 US/Eastern, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Do the different laws make any practical difference that renders the
DFSG invalid for documents?
None that I know of; however, that does not mean there are none.
How could a law make our statement of principle invalid for
Le mar 12/08/2003 à 20:47, Sergey V. Spiridonov a écrit :
> It is wrong to pick up *some* inconveniences (and even negative aspects)
> and call the license non-free. Correct way is to sum up all pros and
> cons for the majority of people on the long terms.
I'm asking again: where do you set the
The debate on the distinction between software, documentation, and data, and
the required freeness of each (and a reference to Venn diagrams in one
thread) has inspired me to attempt to diagram the relationships being
discussed. Attached is a very simple xfig diagram of what I see.
The diagram is
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
JG>> Documentation consists of instructions primarily intended to be
JG>> human-readable regarding the operation of something such as a
JG>> program.
JG>> Programs consist of instructions primarily intended to be
JG>> machine-readable that either conta
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mar 12/08/2003 à 08:23, Sergey V. Spiridonov a écrit :
Please give one reason for allowing this other than "I want to allow
Manual(s) X, Y, and Z in Debian". Any one reason.
FDL is free enough.
Oh, great, so maybe I'll finally have answers to my generic question
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 12:49:56 +0900 (IRKST), Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
JG> Documentation consists of instructions primarily intended to be
JG> human-readable regarding the operation of something such as a
JG> program.
JG> Programs consist of ins
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:33:05 -0500, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:17:09PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 02:10:37AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov
>> wrote:
>> > If one does not see the difference between program and
>> > documentation,
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 09:11:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I continue to wonder why we should bother. Passing such a GR just to
> shut up people who can't be troubled to think for five minutes within
> the context of debian-legal's role within the project doesn't seem to be
> a sufficien
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Op di 12-08-2003, om 09:18 schreef Wouter Verhelst:
>> > It is not the case that Debian used to contain nothing but computer
>> > programs, but sometime after adopting the Social Contract, we let other
>> > materials into our Distribution.
>>
>> Of co
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 11:57:35AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I still wonder why people want to put stuff and stuff in main,
> regardless of the consequences.
Because it's COOL!
> The main section is for FREE SOFTWARE, do you understand what it
> means? Not half-free software, not "free eno
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 09:19:01AM -, MJ Ray wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] Having a
> > clear policy about documentation would most certainly stop that
> > discussion.
>
> This suggests to me that finishing the debian doc policy is an appropriate
> fix, yet you
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 11:45:12AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> No; also because I feel that there is a difference in purpose, which may
> warrant a difference in license policy.
So name the difference.
--
G. Branden Robinson| The noble soul has reverence for
Debian GNU/L
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 09:14:08AM -, MJ Ray wrote:
> "# FTP Archives -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> member James Troup
> member Michael Beattie
> member Anthony Towns
> member Ryan Murray
> member Randall Donald "
> http://www.uk.debian.org/intro/organization
>
> Exact resp
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 05:19, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> 2. If Lindows are respecting the GPL, it means that libdvdcss is
> shipped with no additional restriction. Which means we just have
> to download libdvdcss from them, and re-distribute it. It's a
> magical world.
This is interestin
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Do the different laws make any practical difference that renders the
>> DFSG invalid for documents?
> None that I know of; however, that does not mean there are none.
OK, so we conclude that using the DFSG for all works in debian is
valid, until some o
Le mar 12/08/2003 à 08:23, Sergey V. Spiridonov a écrit :
> > Please give one reason for allowing this other than "I want to allow
> > Manual(s) X, Y, and Z in Debian". Any one reason.
>
> FDL is free enough.
Oh, great, so maybe I'll finally have answers to my generic questions to
FDL supporter
Lynn Winebarger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And yet whoever wrote them seemed to believe "software" refers to programs.
This is not in dispute. Programs may be software.
>Let's see how many times "program" is referred to as thing being freely
> licensed:
[...]
> I count 12 places (1
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 14:03, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Tuesday, Aug 5, 2003, at 18:39 US/Eastern, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
>
> > If I hack the hell out of some yacc/lex output and put that in my
> > program, the yacc/lex files aren't the source anymore, the C code is.
> > Same deal with hacking
Op di 12-08-2003, om 11:14 schreef MJ Ray:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> * Why do you feel this?
> > Because in my opinion, that of the FSF, and that of the people who
> > negotiated an international agreement on software copyright,
>
> The FSF isn't directly relevant to this.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003, Robert Millan wrote:
> Ok. What are the necessary steps to request that we hire a lawyer to
> resolve this? Can I do it on my own or is SPI the entity who should take
> action here?
I don't know about those steps, but I have some additional information
about libdvdcss. As
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This isn't going to stop the FSF from distributing its non-free stuff,
> but we would have the free manuals. ;-) Also, though, it's going to
> take quite a while to get up to speed. I am already planning to start
> such a project, but I've been pu
Subject: Developer misinterprets "software"
Developer: Wouter Verhelst
Version: 1.0-1
Severity: serious
Tags: help upstream joke
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Still, that doesn't change my opinion; I've always interpreted the word
> 'software' as 'computer programs', and I cannot im
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] Having a
> clear policy about documentation would most certainly stop that
> discussion.
This suggests to me that finishing the debian doc policy is an appropriate
fix, yet you seemed to reject it elsewhere.
[...]
> However, since you ask: it is
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * Why do you feel this?
> Because in my opinion, that of the FSF, and that of the people who
> negotiated an international agreement on software copyright,
The FSF isn't directly relevant to this. The lawmakers may be.
> documentation and computer pr
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am becoming increasingly skeptical that such arguments and definitions
> are forthcoming. The software-is-not-documentation crowd's goal does
> not appear to be to foster an understanding or elucidation of anything.
I remain hopeful that we will get
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 09:39:40AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The reason I mentioned the FDL in the subject of this thread is binary:
> * first of all, it would give us a clear opinion, as a group, on how
> documents are to be handled. I, personally, felt there was a gap there,
> and that that
Op di 12-08-2003, om 09:18 schreef Wouter Verhelst:
> > It is not the case that Debian used to contain nothing but computer
> > programs, but sometime after adopting the Social Contract, we let other
> > materials into our Distribution.
>
> Of course; however,
Darn, I did it again :-/
however,
Op di 12-08-2003, om 07:33 schreef Branden Robinson:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 01:13:04AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Ridiculing and belittling the people who contribute to this mailing
> > > list by accusing them of constructing their own feifdom is an
> > > inferior approach.
> >
> > It
Op di 12-08-2003, om 07:18 schreef Branden Robinson:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 12:59:07AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 03:17:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Not everyone agrees that the world is round, either, and one can marshal
> > > as many logical argument
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Please give one reason for allowing this other than "I want to allow
Manual(s) X, Y, and Z in Debian". Any one reason.
FDL is free enough.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 09:29:09AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> When designing the DFSG, I was considering the contents of a Debian CD,
[...]
Thanks for the clarification, Bruce.
I had to wait almost two years for it[1][2], but it's worth it now that
it has arrived. Thanks again. :)
[1] http:/
[Please respect my mail headers, namely:
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-No-CC: I subscribe to this list; do not CC me on replies.]
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 01:13:04AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 03:06:31PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > You're being obtuse, and possibly d
On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 09:07:10PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Why people think that this group is _not_ representative of the
> > project's collective opinion on legal matters is beyond me...
>
> Maybe some people think debian-legal particip
[Please respect my mail headers, namely:
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-No-CC: I subscribe to this list; do not CC me on replies.]
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 12:59:07AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 03:17:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Not everyone agrees that the world
61 matches
Mail list logo
