On 2003-09-05, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Regarding FSF's definition of free software, it would have been nice if
> you'd published one before we created the DFSG. We wouldn't have had to
> write it. At the time we did, you sent me the statement "This is a good
> definition of Free S
On 2003-09-05, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The GNU Project has never endorsed Debian, because ever since we first
> considered the question, the Debian servers have been distributing and
> recommending non-free packages. I think this practice is entirely
> wrong, but I did not tr
Perhaps instead of debating the freeness of the GFDL, which seems to
be an emotionally charged issue, we could discuss its "inconveniences"
without bringing in freeness per-se. If these inconveniences, or
other practical issues, could be shown to the FSF's satisfaction to be
too onerous or problem
Richard,
I'm told that opinion on the GFDL within FSF is divided, and I have
hardly given up hope for movement on this topic.
Regarding FSF's definition of free software, it would have been nice if
you'd published one before we created the DFSG. We wouldn't have had to
write it. At the time we di
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Another form of tangent is citing practical inconveniences, often
> shared with many other accepted free licenses, as if they were
> reasons to consider a license non-free.
This is incorrect. Practical inconveniences are precisely the point
in decid
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The FSF manuals are all free documentation by our criteria. We are
> the ones who first started to say that documentation should be free,
> and we are the ones who first wrote criteria for free documentation.
And, the FSF's criteria for free documen
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A long message at startup would be very inconvenient, simply for being
> long, regardless of its meaning. A section of the same length in a
> manual would not cause any such inconvenience. Nobody is "heavily
> affected" by a few extra pages in a lar
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not asking Debian to do anything for the GNU Project in regard to
> the GFDL. I have been presenting reasons why it is proper, and
> better, for Debian to accept GFDL-covered documents.
All evidence is that you have entirely ignored people who h
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 09:55:07PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> This clause has a direct effect on all users,
> restricting the use of e.g. encrypted filesystems.
>
> That's a new one on me. I don't think the GFDL restricts
> the use of encrypted filesystems.
It's not new, it's been
Branden Robinson presumes that the GNU Project's decision to stop
endorsing Debian must be meant as a form of pressure. This is
complete confusion, because the GNU Project never stopped endorsing
Debian.
The GNU Project has never endorsed Debian, because ever since we first
considered the questio
> The FSF has every right to publish non-free work, but Debian should not
> bend it's rules to include it.
It is just as much a bending of rules for FSF to publish such material.
We are not bending our rules, we are following them. I designed the
GFDL to follow our criteria for fre
This clause has a direct effect on all users,
restricting the use of e.g. encrypted filesystems.
That's a new one on me. I don't think the GFDL restricts
the use of encrypted filesystems.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) wrote:
> The only quid-pro-quo I am asking for is that both organizations work
> responsively on the two issues. I think that both organizations are
> able to justify the desired changes from their own internal perspective.
These issues are not related. I do not s
From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If your point is that it looks like *institutionally* we're making this
> argument, then your point is taken.
I do think it is going to be better for me to deal with both organizations
using an institutional perspective. Personal perspectives seem to be
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Klaus Reimer wrote:
> I'm interested in packaging the File Archive Utility "arc". I'm not sure if
> there is an official "owner" any more. A current source code (Last change in
> 1991) can be found at various locations on the net, i.e. in the FreeBSD
> project:
>
> http://www
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 11:58:03PM +0200, Klaus Reimer wrote:
> My problem is this sentence in the Non-Free-license of arc:
>
> 2) ARC may ONLY be distributed in its original,
> unmodified state.
Probably a dumb question, but is there any chance of finding the original
author and asking fo
Hello,
I'm interested in packaging the File Archive Utility "arc". I'm not sure if
there is an official "owner" any more. A current source code (Last change in
1991) can be found at various locations on the net, i.e. in the FreeBSD
project:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/pds.cgi?ports/archivers/ar
Branden Robinson said:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 02:57:09PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>> Is it enough to write on the CD pocket or something such instruction
>> on getting the sources from any debian mirror, or something such, and
>> say that the modified sources are on CD #2 or something such.
>
>
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 02:57:09PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Is it enough to write on the CD pocket or something such instruction on
> getting the sources from any debian mirror, or something such, and
> say that the modified sources are on CD #2 or something such.
You either need to supply a wr
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 11:34:03AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I am _not_ calling for horse-trading between the two organizations.
Oops, that will teach me not to read the whole thread before replying...
--
G. Branden Robinson| The key to being a Southern
Debian GNU/Linux
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 11:21:24AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> There is a mechanism for Debian to make a decision when the voting
> system is deadlocked, so I don't think you really need to wait upon
> the constitutional issue.
Well, as I understand the Constitution, this depends on the person so
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 10:51:43PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Both sides of this argument are wrong, and tempers are too high for you
> to resolve this by yourselves. As an SPI director and the DPL historicaly
> responsible for decisions that both sides are arguing about, I feel that it's
> time
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 12:58:56AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 01:36:30PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > For these reasons, I believe we should ask for license texts, and other
> > relevant, small documents, to be posted inline instead of being linked.
>
> I'll
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 05:17:28PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 03:15:05PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > You ground your argument on "second hand reports of clarifications" in
> > the first quoted paragraph, but then expect debian-legal to furnish
> > first-hand clarif
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 10:56:41PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> People are of course entitled to their opinions. However, a couple of
> months ago, I addressed these issues and explained why the real
> problems were limited to practical ones of the sort I've referred to
> above.
>
> Meanwhile
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 03:07:37AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> Maybe. But there also another element in the picture. For
> GFDL. This is a not a random package from the random source with the
> random licence. This is a licence from Stallman, the inventor of the
> term "free software" and crea
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 03:15:05PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> You ground your argument on "second hand reports of clarifications" in
> the first quoted paragraph, but then expect debian-legal to furnish
> first-hand clarifications?
Yes. If you're too lazy to be bothered doing that, don't exp
Hello,
I have a question concerning the distribution of modified kernels,
modified boot-floppies and pre-installed debian iso image.
The idea is to distribute the kernel with the kernel sources (i guess a
patch against some well known kernel tree is not enough), the
boot-floppies source tarball u
Brian C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If so, I can say with certainty that the FSF claims that the GPL is not
> a contract. I attended their recent seminar on the GPL at Stanford Law
> School (August '03 See http://patron.fsf.org/course-offering.html ) and
> heard presentations from Exec. Director Bra
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report. It has been forwarded to the package maintainer(s)
and to other interested parties to accompany the original report.
Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
Brendan O'Dea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003, Kevin Carlson wrote:
> Yes, this change is fine with us.
> >--- perlreftut.pod.orig 2003-09-01 21:11:16.0 +1000
> >+++ perlreftut.pod 2003-09-01 21:14:51.0 +1000
> >+This documentation is free; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> >+under the same
31 matches
Mail list logo
