-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Fedor Zuev wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
>
>JK>On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 07:50:32PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
>JK>> According FDL, "You may not use technical measures to
>JK>> obstruct or control the reading o
Sergey V. Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is quite clear that it is not the intended way to enforce FDL. Since
> it is not fixed till now, I conclude there is no bug here.
Cool! Until there is a fix, a bug isn't a bug? Someone tell the RM.
> Another point can be that bugfix is in wo
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Computer is a single "tangible medium", and any internal
> technological process whithin it, you aware or even not aware about
> [...] is completely irrelevant to
> the copyright, and, consequently, licences.
I thought you posted the translation of Ger
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
There are only a few people, yourself included, who seem like they might
disagree with one or both of the above conclusions. Please go ahead and
Sorry about this.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Repeating over and over "FDL seems to be disputable on this list" does
not make the FDL disputed, it just makes you contridictory.
Oh it is not disputed? Sorry...
MJ Ray wrote:
This quote does not claim that they are identical. Being able
to distinguish software from documentation in order to treat them
differently would mean that the two sets "documentation" and "software"
are exclusive. For if they are not exclusive, any documentation that
is software
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 12:16:39AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> The same as for the backup of any other content: from
> proprietary program to temporary files for which you do not have
> explicit licences just because they are temporary files, for example
> emails.
>
> If you practise to
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 05:36:37PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> Repeating over and over "FDL seems to be disputable on this list" does
> not make the FDL disputed, it just makes you contridictory.
No, it makes him a "contrarian". :)
--
G. Branden Robinson| I suspect Linus w
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 09:57:01PM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Hm... Can you prove it? Software in non-free is clearly non-free. While
> FDL seems to be disputable on this list.
It's only disputed by people who are unable to muster arguments any more
sophisticated than bare assertions.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 01:27:19PM +0200, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> It's interesting that people who want Debian to move FDL to non-free at
> the same time want Debian to distribute non-free stuff.
A false assertion, obviously made in abject ignorance.
Have you ever tried doing basic research b
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 08:18 US/Eastern, Nick Phillips wrote:
You don't generally load the contents of an audio CD in before use,
They how, prey tell, do you do all the ECC corrections on the data and
feed it to your DA converter?
Not that this is too on-topic.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 07:50:32PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> AD>So, it appears that if I have a non word-readable home directory,
> AD>especially if it happens to be over crypto-loopback, I can't
> AD>store FDL documents in $HOME.
>
> False,
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 02:27:31PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mer 13/08/2003 à 14:20, Sergey Spiridonov a écrit :
> > Yes, encrypted system will be a problem if I will try to sell encrypted
> > FDL books, so that one can read, but not copy or modify his copy.
>
> That was probably the in
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
What's so weird about wanting to categorize software by license?
I'm speaking about distribution of the software.
Why is it so interesting that there are opinions between "non-free in
main" and "kill non-free"?
The main difference is that people who want FDL in mai
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 01:51:06PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> It's rather hard to determine the sign when you don't have any values
> to do arithmetic on!
>
> Is "can't distribute modified binaries" a -10?; -1,000?; or -???
>
> How exactly would this standard help us. It seems we'd just
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 02:23:39PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 10:31 US/Eastern, MJ Ray wrote:
>
> >This is not my understanding of the word "or" in that sentence of
> >the FDL. Are you sure that you have it right?
>
> Possibly there is a virus going arou
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 09:37:05PM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> >Are are implying that I am against the GPL? If so, read what I said
> >over again.
>
> Are you implying that I am against the freedom? If so, read what I said
> over again.
You are arguing that because (in the case of the G
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 09:47:00PM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> >That's mostly correct. If only the GFDL did only that. But it also
> >forces derived works to "include" the unvariant sections. Also include
>
> Of course it is, otherwise one can produce a d
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 08:47:35AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >There are still problems with, e.g., transparent forms.
>
> If you meant problem with encrypted filesystems, this question was
> already answered.
I am not at all surprised that you do not provid
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
So, if those things were under strait GPL, by your usefulness
definition, they wouldn't be DFSG-free, because they don't grant the
freedom to create proprietary works?
My "usefulness definition" is not interpretation of DFSG.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 10:06:52PM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >>>There are still problems with, e.g., transparent forms.
> >
> >
> >>If you meant problem with encrypted filesystems, this question was
> >>already answered.
> >
> >
> >a) I didn't. Check the arch
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 11:08:35AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> It's a /feeling/. Hence, I said 'I /feel/ that there is a difference'.
Yes; most proponents of the
less-freedom-for-documentation-than-for-software crowd appear to be
operating at the bellyfeel level.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 02:41:34PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> That's correct. I can't. I can't stop anyone from using a word however
> they please. I can stop people from saying "inflammable" to mean
> "flammable" either. That's one of those things about living in a
> (semi-)free society
I am the original author of the manual page in question. I am
presently negotiating with CMP, who acquired the Perl Journal a few
years ago, to obtain complete and unambiguous copyright on the
article. If I succeed, I will release the original article and
'perlreftut', the derived manpage, under
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 03:15 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:
If the package gets extra input information as a part of using it
_and_ a result substantially[*] varies, depending this input
information _and_ these variations at least partially controlled by
statements in package[**] - packag
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
There are still problems with, e.g., transparent forms.
>>
>>> If you meant problem with encrypted filesystems, this question was
>>> already answered.
>> a) I didn't. Check the archive for a long discussion.
>
>
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 09:37:05PM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> >But this is _GPL'ed_ software which seems to be doing quite well without
> >sacrificing its license for more market share. You can't possibly argue
> GPL takes away some freedoms. Can you argue th
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
WV>Op wo 13-08-2003, om 14:20 schreef Sergey Spiridonov:
WV>> Yes, encrypted system will be a problem if I will try to sell encrypted
WV>> FDL books, so that one can read, but not copy or modify his copy.
WV>What if you'd want to create a custom Debian
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
There are still problems with, e.g., transparent forms.
If you meant problem with encrypted filesystems, this question was
already answered.
a) I didn't. Check the archive for a long discussion.
Well, most of problems were on how people interpret "You may not u
Sergey V. Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> > That's mostly correct. If only the GFDL did only that. But it also
> > forces derived works to "include" the unvariant sections. Also include
>
> Of course it is, otherwise one can produce a derived work to exclu
Sergey V. Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> > But this is _GPL'ed_ software which seems to be doing quite well without
> > sacrificing its license for more market share. You can't possibly argue
>
> GPL takes away some freedoms. Can you argue this point? If no
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
That's mostly correct. If only the GFDL did only that. But it also
forces derived works to "include" the unvariant sections. Also include
Of course it is, otherwise one can produce a derived work to exclude
invariant section. This would be a hole.
--
Best regards,
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
BRL>* Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030812 22:56]:
BRL>> Because "everyting is software" declarations does not really
BRL>> serve for promotion of any freedom, but, contrary, only for stealing
BRL>> freedom existed under the law.
BRL>Please note th
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
But this is _GPL'ed_ software which seems to be doing quite well without
sacrificing its license for more market share. You can't possibly argue
GPL takes away some freedoms. Can you argue this point? If not, then why
are you using GPL? GPL makes barbecue from your c
On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 02:47 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov
wrote:
There are still problems with, e.g., transparent forms.
If you meant problem with encrypted filesystems, this question was
already answered.
a) I didn't. Check the archive for a long discussion.
b) As far as enc
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 20:36 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov
wrote:
I feel that GPL will be offered next in sacrifice to the sacred cow.
Of course, GPL is not *absolutely* free!
Explain exactly how the GPL could possibly violate the DFSG considering
that the DFSG says we consider it
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 18:19 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov
wrote:
Note, there still can be special rare cases, where such a freedom is
really needed.
I'm calling you on this one: I say there are not, other than selling
software. Back it up or drop it.
A good example will be the li
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 15:57 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov
wrote:
People wanting FDL in main want to distribute non-free stuff.
Hm... Can you prove it? Software in non-free is clearly non-free.
While FDL seems to be disputable on this list.
The question of GFDL with invariant se
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 15:37 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov
wrote:
Freedom has a value because it is convenient and useful to be free.
Nothing else. There is no need to have a freedom which can't be used,
and sometimes we can agree to give away a bit of our freedom, which we
can't
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 13:51 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:
Of course, you can claim that the very special definition of
"software"
As an aside, I'd like to note that several reputable dictionaries agree
with the definition of software being the part of the computer that is
no
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 10:31 US/Eastern, MJ Ray wrote:
This is not my understanding of the word "or" in that sentence of
the FDL. Are you sure that you have it right?
Possibly there is a virus going around that changes all occurrences of
"or" to "and" in displayed license texts. Tha
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 08:20 US/Eastern, Sergey Spiridonov
wrote:
Yes, encrypted system will be a problem if I will try to sell
encrypted FDL books, so that one can read, but not copy or modify his
copy.
It seems that some people completely misunderstood FDL, or just don't
read it..
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 07:27 US/Eastern, Sergey Spiridonov
wrote:
It's interesting that people who want Debian to move FDL to non-free
at the same time want Debian to distribute non-free stuff.
Not really. Why can't a hypothetical person believe that we should
provide free stuff in
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 06:50 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:
False, btw.
According FDL, "You may not use technical measures to
obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the _copies_
_you_ _make_ _or_ _distribute_". You has no obligations regarding
Right. So,
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 05:40 US/Eastern, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
Everything
else has to be made by human and have a minimal artistic height.
(I was told this non-sense was introduced to get the USA sign some
international treaties about copyright protection).
Not sure if that is true
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
JK>On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 07:50:32PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
JK>>According FDL, "You may not use technical measures to
JK>> obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the _copies_
JK>> _you_ _make_ _or_ _distribute_". You has no obligati
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 03:26 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov
wrote:
To find the exact value, one should find all possible aspects and sum
up all pros and cons for the majority of people on the long terms.
[...]
For Debian purpoces it is enough to determine the sign.
It's rather ha
On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 03:17 US/Eastern, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 07:51:56PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Because this isn't the forum for discussing the removal of non-free?
And
because the discussion about removing non-free has to wait until the
shelved[0]
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I agree with you. I'm also afraid that the next release of the GPL
> > won't mean what the current one does. I'm also afraid that the FSF will
> > sacrifice it in the name of some exchange. If that h
Sergey V. Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> >>I feel that GPL will be offered next in sacrifice to the sacred cow. Of
> >> course, GPL is not *absolutely* free!
>
> >I agree with you. I'm also afraid that the next release of the GPL
>
> [snip]
>
> > Maybe in
Sergey V. Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
>> This was a nice try to change the point under discussion. It was not
>> claimed that software and documentation are homonyms, AFAIK. Instead,
> Are you sure?
Yes.
> Quote Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > If we are to treat
Op wo 13-08-2003, om 14:20 schreef Sergey Spiridonov:
> Yes, encrypted system will be a problem if I will try to sell encrypted
> FDL books, so that one can read, but not copy or modify his copy.
What if you'd want to create a custom Debian installation CD which
immediately contains some password
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:08:10 +0900 (IRKST), Fedor Zuev
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
MS> In the example I posted before, the, the documentation of the
MS> probe lists the access methods and protocols that one can talk to
MS> the probe; this is the documentation part. The sensor parses the
MS> same b
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I agree with you. I'm also afraid that the next release of the GPL
> won't mean what the current one does. I'm also afraid that the FSF will
> sacrifice it in the name of some exchange. If that happens I pity all
> those that have license their with the
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 02:36:36 +0200, Sergey V Spiridonov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Stephen Ryan wrote:
>> You have taken the one sacred cow in the entire place here, and
>> have suggested that it is merely a convenience, and that we should
>> have a barbecue next Friday afternoon. "Free enough
Op di 12-08-2003, om 16:05 schreef Branden Robinson:
> 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.
It's hard to describe it, as
O Xoves, 14 de Agosto de 2003 ás 09:05:04 +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov escribía:
> >That was probably the intention, but the wording makes it unclear.
> Sorry it was quite clear for me.
The GFDL, as it is worded now, would forbid me sending you a GPG-encrypted
mail containing a GFDL-licensed work
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mer 13/08/2003 à 14:20, Sergey Spiridonov a écrit :
Yes, encrypted system will be a problem if I will try to sell encrypted
FDL books, so that one can read, but not copy or modify his copy.
That was probably the intention, but the wording makes it unclear.
Sorry
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Sunday, Aug 10, 2003, at 18:41 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Specific differences from the DFSG should allow inariants in the
documentation [...] Probably also "Cover Texts"
BTW, are you aware that probably still wouldn't make the GFDL a free
document
MJ Ray wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] There is a definition which says that documentation can be a
part of the software, but I failed to find a definition which makes no
difference between software and documentation.
This was a nice try to change the point unde
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
I feel that GPL will be offered next in sacrifice to the sacred cow. Of
course, GPL is not *absolutely* free!
I agree with you. I'm also afraid that the next release of the GPL
[snip]
Maybe in your world it does. WE have managed quite well without
worrying about
62 matches
Mail list logo
