On Friday, Sep 12, 2003, at 05:44 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
become free in the sense of Debian. And that means: free according to
the DFSG.
Hum, you mean in the sense of the Debian Free _SOFTWARE_ Guidelines?
Yes, that's their name. If you think there should be a Debian Free
Documenta
On Friday, Sep 12, 2003, at 01:55 US/Eastern, Thomas Bushnell, BSG
wrote:
I'm sorry, I was too quick. Combining the GFDL with any license
(whether free software or not) produces a work which, if software,
would not be accepted as free software at all.
Please tell me if I'm missing something
On Thursday, Sep 11, 2003, at 14:15 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote:
You are stretching the term "DRM media" in order to construct a straw
man. As such, your argument is irrelevant. My original point stands
uncontested.
Fine. Then I raise you GPL Section 6, which prohibits restrictions on
On Thursday, Sep 11, 2003, at 10:08 US/Eastern, Andreas Barth wrote:
What if someone do want to distribute on a DRM media that is per
design not copyable (aka the "can't copy"-bit set by definition)?
Now that I come to think of it, my answer would be "too bad." Such a
format is fundamentally
Fedor Zuev wrote:
> Please note, one of differences between DFSG and FSD is that
> latter does not require possiblity of arbitrary modification of
> work, but only "freedom to improve the program, and release your
> improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits".
> Therefore, acc
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2003-09-12 19:18:18 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > took me almost an entire day to write, and a few weeks to conceptually
> > prepare. That's quite discouraging.
>
> It was MIME'd, base64'd, marked as attachment instead of inline and in
Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard Stallman said:
> >But there is a difference between the GPL-required text:
> >...
> >
> >And the GFDL-required text:
> >
> > They are different, but neither of them is really short, so I think the
> > practical consequences are more or les
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
>
> > I have not yet got the impression that the
> >people you name are "free beer zealots". Rather, they seem to be
> >"freedom zealots" if anything. Do you have any evidence to support
> >your des
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You have missed the point here, so I'll repeat it.
>
> I didn't miss the point--I had not even seen it. The point you say I
> "missed" was in a message that had not even arrived on my machine when
> I wrote those words. I was responding to vari
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 08:23:23PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Thoughts on WDL:
>
> Is "opiniated" really a word or a smelling pistake? There's probably
> some better name.
Agreed, but "opiniated" was the best I could come up with. In any case,
since it can be modified, "invariant" surely is a bad n
Richard Stallman said:
>But there is a difference between the GPL-required text:
>...
>
>And the GFDL-required text:
>
> They are different, but neither of them is really short, so I think the
> practical consequences are more or less the same.
To use one page of the GPL-licensed work
I don't really believe it. In the 1980s, formalized free software was a
new concept for almost everybody. Today, there are too many free
software projects for the word _not_ to get out.
My experience is just the opposite: our views are mostly suppressed.
The open source movement is v
You have missed the point here, so I'll repeat it.
I didn't miss the point--I had not even seen it. The point you say I
"missed" was in a message that had not even arrived on my machine when
I wrote those words. I was responding to various points that I recall
having seen others make.
It ta
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 02:05:19PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:26:07PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > As I tried to point out in the recent discussions about the GFDL (not
> > sure whether that point has come through, but anyway), although the GFDL
> > is crafted
On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 05:41:52AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> There a lot of people in this list, who cares very much
> about cost ("Invariant Sections is clearly non-free"), but cares
I don't see what that has to do with cost.
> very little about liberty ("Discrimination toward DRM is non-
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 08:08:11PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-09-12 19:18:18 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >took me almost an entire day to write, and a few weeks to conceptually
> >prepare. That's quite discouraging.
>
> It was MIME'd, base64'd, marked as attachment inste
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
>On 2003-09-12 17:43:49 +0100 Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Since Robinson, Nerode and other free beer zealots does not
>> show, AFAIK, any clear-cut principles of freedom (and Robinson
>> explicitly declines that DFSG is a sufficient definition),
Thoughts on WDL:
Is "opiniated" really a word or a smelling pistake? There's probably
some better name. They also don't seem to meet FSF's requirements.
The labelling requirements for removed sections seem nasty too, adding
more unmodifiable parts to the document.
I still don't like the l
On 2003-09-12 19:18:18 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
took me almost an entire day to write, and a few weeks to conceptually
prepare. That's quite discouraging.
It was MIME'd, base64'd, marked as attachment instead of inline and in
a charset that I don't use. I didn't detach
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:26:07PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> As I tried to point out in the recent discussions about the GFDL (not
> sure whether that point has come through, but anyway), although the GFDL
> is crafted in a way which makes it not DFSG-free, IMHO there is nothing
> wrong with
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 08:26:14AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Heh, m, heh-heh. Hey Butthead! I'm a "hard-liner"!
>
> Heh, m, heh. Heh-heh-heh. He said "hard".
>
> So, uh, I can go orchestra a coup against Gorbachev, now, right? :)
s/orchestra/&te/
Hmm. Apparently when I shift into "
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 11:37:18AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 17:59, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:49:06AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > > > I would say that the LPPL is not equal. Because it requires you to
> > > > change the name of the files yo
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 11:28:38AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Debian is about Free _Software_.
And this makes invariant sections free?
Stop trying to take away my freedom with word games.
--
Glenn Maynard
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You can include the GPL as a separate file. It doesn't have to be
> included in the derived work itself.
>
> I explained in a message here, a couple of months ago, that this
> difference in wording does not really lead to a difference in
> c
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 05:22:46PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 02:18:10PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Wouter (who wonders whether his mail about that subject has gone
> > unnoticed on the otherwise so active -legal)
>
> I just thought it was far too long. I thin
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[deleted]
*sigh*
Fedor, mail me off-list if you really have something to say and want
me to see it. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and interpret it
as a genuine desire to communicate. Otherwise,
*plonk*
--
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP
On 2003-09-12 17:43:49 +0100 Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since Robinson, Nerode and other free beer zealots does not
show, AFAIK, any clear-cut principles of freedom (and Robinson
explicitly declines that DFSG is a sufficient definition), any
attempt of FSF to make compromise wi
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Those words are simply an indirect way of declining to recognize the
>> difference between loss of freedom and practical inconvenience.
>That's not entirely true; I believe that debian-legal generally
>ma
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 17:59, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:49:06AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 14:49, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > > I would say that the LPPL is not equal. Because it requires you to
> > > change the name of the files you modify and that's
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 07:40:43 -0400, David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:25:03 -0500
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Are you being sarcastic, pointing out the vagueness of the terms?
>> > Many people edit PDFs directly (myself included on occasion).
A Cc: was not necessary, I'm subscribed to debian-legal.
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 12:29, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> > > For most people on earth, I do not think that software defines "theses
> > > works"
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 02:18:10PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Wouter (who wonders whether his mail about that subject has gone
> unnoticed on the otherwise so active -legal)
I just thought it was far too long. I think that about most new
licenses :(
Richard Braakman
You can include the GPL as a separate file. It doesn't have to be
included in the derived work itself.
I explained in a message here, a couple of months ago, that this
difference in wording does not really lead to a difference in
consequences.
But there is a difference between the GPL-required text:
...
And the GFDL-required text:
They are different, but neither of them is really short, so I think
the practical consequences are more or less the same.
[ Page 12 is the "front cover" of the GFDL'd subwork, so has just the
Mathieu Roy, 2003-09-12 10:20:10 +0200 :
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
[...]
>> That's really "end of discussion". If this clear wordings stands also
>> for the FSF, than there is nothing how the manuals can become free.
>
> [become free _SOFTWARE_]
Look. Either Debian is 100%
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> > No problem for me. Philosophical/political/historical text
> > included in some manuals are not software.
>
> If that is true, but one would be prepared to put manuals with such
> text in Debian, then surely that doesn't agree with the first term of
> the
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 10:27:41AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I'm not sure this would be so overly helpful. This would increase the
> possibility of creating sluggish compromise which would maybe agreed
> with the diplomats but not accepted by the project afterwards -- not
> even speaking of B
Keith Dunwoody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> >
> >>On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 10:15:57AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> >>
> That's really "end of discussion". If this clear wordings stands also
> for the FSF, than there is
On 2003-09-12 13:05:37 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I completely agree with these principles. Unless you can prove that I
disagree with the social contract, please stop defaming.
Please demonstrate to myself and Andreas off-list where he defamed
you. Unless you can prove that
Mathieu Roy wrote:
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
* Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030912 11:50]:
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
become free in the sense of Debian. And that means: free according to
the DFSG.
Hum, you mean in the sense of the Debian Free _
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 07:40:43AM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
> If I develop a really spiffy document format for, say, a braille
> machine, document it thoroughly and publish it, and either don't take
> any patents out of it, or file one of those
> strictly-prior-art-to-stop-somebody-else-from-pa
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> * Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030912 11:50]:
> > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> > > become free in the sense of Debian. And that means: free according to
> > > the DFSG.
>
> > Hum, you mean in the sense of the Debian Free _SOFTW
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:25:03 -0500
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are you being sarcastic, pointing out the vagueness of the terms?
> > Many people edit PDFs directly (myself included on occasion).
>
> As have I, but I have had to resort to using non free tools on
> a non f
Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> > I think you have an extraordinary large definition of software,
> > unfortunately not shared by all the dictionnaries I know.
> >
> > For most people on earth, I do not think that software defines "theses
> > works" (philosophical/political/hi
* Scott James Remnant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030912 12:50]:
> Philosophical, political and historical texts, when included in a
> program's documentation, are part of that software. When not included
> in a program's documentation, they are not software and shouldn't be
> included in Debian.
... but
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On 2003-09-12 11:09:21 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think you have an extraordinary large definition of software,
> > unfortunately not shared by all the dictionnaries I know.
>
> Please review the previous threads on this topic. Amon
O Venres, 12 de Setembro de 2003 ás 11:44:34 +0200, Mathieu Roy escribía:
> Hum, you mean in the sense of the Debian Free _SOFTWARE_ Guidelines?
Everything Debian distributes is software. After all, if it weren't, we
wouldn't be able to store it in a FTP server, transmit it via the Internet
or b
On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 11:09, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>
> > On 2003-09-12 10:28:38 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > because it's out of the scope of
> > > _software_, indeed, unless you pretend that any work on earth is
> > > software).
> >
> >
* Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030912 11:50]:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> > become free in the sense of Debian. And that means: free according to
> > the DFSG.
> Hum, you mean in the sense of the Debian Free _SOFTWARE_ Guidelines?
Perhaps you should read the Social Contr
On 2003-09-12 11:09:21 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think you have an extraordinary large definition of software,
unfortunately not shared by all the dictionnaries I know.
Please review the previous threads on this topic. Amongst other
things, you will find:
- your preferr
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On 2003-09-12 10:28:38 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > because it's out of the scope of
> > _software_, indeed, unless you pretend that any work on earth is
> > software).
>
> Mathieu can say this as much as he likes, but it does not make i
On 2003-09-12 10:28:38 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
because it's out of the scope of
_software_, indeed, unless you pretend that any work on earth is
software).
Mathieu can say this as much as he likes, but it does not make it
true. It is not necessary to pretend that all work
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> * Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030912 10:20]:
> > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> >
> > > * Richard Stallman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030912 02:20]:
> > > > I considered this possibility in the 1980s, not as an option but
> > > > rathe
Mathieu Roy wrote:
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 10:15:57AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
That's really "end of discussion". If this clear wordings stands also
for the FSF, than there is nothing how the manuals can become free.
[become free _SOFTWARE_]
On 2003-09-11 11:48:21 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's basically not possible to discuss two phrases without having
along with them parts of the previous mail. It clearly puts the
phrases out
of their context and make them senseless.
You are a past-master at this.
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 10:15:57AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > > That's really "end of discussion". If this clear wordings stands also
> > > for the FSF, than there is nothing how the manuals can become free.
> >
> > [become free _SOFTWARE_]
>
> N
* Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030912 10:20]:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>
> > * Richard Stallman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030912 02:20]:
> > > I considered this possibility in the 1980s, not as an option but
> > > rather as a potential problem. So I developed a method to make
Bruce Perens wrote:
> Richard, Branden, and Co.,
>
> I remain convinced that hot tempers are getting in the way. Thus, I would like
> to make two requests:
>
> 1. That the Debian folks designate someone other than Branden to speak
>the Debian side of this argument. Diplomacy counts. Branden,
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 10:15:57AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > That's really "end of discussion". If this clear wordings stands also
> > for the FSF, than there is nothing how the manuals can become free.
>
> [become free _SOFTWARE_]
No, he didn't say that, he said "become free". The freedoms
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> * Richard Stallman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030912 02:20]:
> > I considered this possibility in the 1980s, not as an option but
> > rather as a potential problem. So I developed a method to make sure
> > this would not happen: invariant sections. The da
* Richard Stallman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030912 02:20]:
> I considered this possibility in the 1980s, not as an option but
> rather as a potential problem. So I developed a method to make sure
> this would not happen: invariant sections. The danger has not gone
> away, so we still need invariant s
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 05:44:47PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > The GFDL is not compatible with *ANY* free software license.
>
> How is this? Many non-copyleft licenses have no "compatibility" at all.
> Most licenses don't have the compatibil
On 2003-09-11, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we were to elect a person to serve in this role, I suggest we permit
> people to self-nominate for a period, and then the Developers can elect
> one using the procedure described in the Debian Constitution. ...
Depending on the inten
63 matches
Mail list logo
