RMS wrote:
>The GNU Project's motive for using invariant sections is not the issue
>here; that's a GNU Project decision, not a Debian decision.
Out of curiosity, where *is* it the issue? As a GNU Project
contributor who disapproves of GFDL Invariant Sections, and knowing
quite a few other GNU P
RMS wote:
>For the sake of avoiding confusion, please note that I use "software"
>in the meaning I believe is standard, referring to computer programs
>only.
This is not what I believe to be the standard meaning or the historically
correct meaning, but thanks for avoiding confusion.
>The main dif
Richard,
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 05:27:14PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > Manuals are not free software, because they are not software.
> > The DFSG very clearly treats "software" and "programs" as
> > synonymous.
> In that case, the DFSG prohibits their distribution outright
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 09:53:48PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>>man of the street to give coins to some kind of IRS while she get
> >>>very
> >>What does IRS stand for in France? I can't find a decoding of that.
> >I forgot 2 words, -> "IRS registered charity"
>
> That still doesn't explain WTF IRS
On 2003-09-21 23:33:28 +0100 Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You seem to be saying that if our political statements, which are
included as invariant sections, could be removed from our manuals, you
would make a point of removing them.
Please do not extrapolate wildly from his words.
On 2003-09-21 23:33:41 +0100 Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Defining all these thing as software is a peculiar way to use the
word.
Not at all. It is the original and proper meaning, as far as I can
tell. It seems to be a neologism created to cover all things stored
in the comp
Richard Stallman wrote:
>> If the GPL were used, it would have to be accompanied by 6 pages
>> of additional invariant material. That is still bigger than the
>> reference card. Do you object to the GPL on these grounds?
>
>There's a critical difference here. The GPL can accompany
RMS
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 06:33:41PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Manuals, essays, licenses, and logos *encoded as bits on a
> computer* are software.
>
> Defining all these thing as software is a peculiar way to use the
> word. I don't think that is the best way to interpret th
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you are aware of the existence of unmodifyable essays and logos in
> debian main, please file an RC bug against the package in question.
>
> You seem to be saying that if our political statements, which are
> included as invariant sections,
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 06:33:28PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> If you are aware of the existence of unmodifyable essays and logos in
> debian main, please file an RC bug against the package in question.
> You seem to be saying that if our political statements, which are
> included as
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 07:51:34PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
> > > "Coffee at 180 degrees" is a distinct item from "coffee". Coffee is
> > > not properly served at 180 degrees
> >
> > What are yo
RMS
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 09:30:25AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> It contains detailed
> mathematicly research on how the improvements were made, details which
> are not evident in the source and therefore reverse engineering of the
> documentation from just the source is n
Ok, so for this "distribution section", I agree, it should not be
invariant as it is almost "technical" (how do I get more
information...), and the point of view of RMS about that would be
interesting.
This section explains what free software means, mention the existence
of the FS
> The words of the social contract clearly equate software to programs.
I encourage you to look closer. The only part of the social contract
which even contains the word programs is #5, a part both of us would
like removed.
Several parts of the DFSG contain the word "program".
>> I'm curious: Considering the GPL prohibits binary-only distribution
>> under section 3, do you still hold that position?
>
> GPL 3b and 3c deal with that quite nicely. Debian, for example,
> distributes its GPL'd software by offering the source on the same
> medium.
Manuals, essays, licenses, and logos *encoded as bits on a
computer* are software.
Defining all these thing as software is a peculiar way to use the
word. I don't think that is the best way to interpret the DFSG,
because it leads to unnecessary inflexibility.
I do not try to tell the
> If the GPL were used, it would have to be accompanied by 6 pages
> of additional invariant material. That is still bigger than the
> reference card. Do you object to the GPL on these grounds?
There's a critical difference here. The GPL can accompany the
reference card. The
If you are aware of the existence of unmodifyable essays and logos in
debian main, please file an RC bug against the package in question.
You seem to be saying that if our political statements, which are
included as invariant sections, could be removed from our manuals, you
would make a po
On Sunday, Sep 21, 2003, at 03:20 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
But is the upstream author of these *Bugs*. Does it means that Debian
have an implicit policy which is "making non-free software is ok
unless you distribute it"?
I'm not sure what your asking, but I think it'd be safe to say Debi
Section 3 is rather general, and doesn't directly address this issue.
The statement in section 4, because it only "encourages", clearly
shows this is not a requirement.
It can also be taken like how the FSF encourages Debian to "rm -Rf
non-free" on its mirror servers: We can't require you to, b
On 2003-09-21 21:15:25 +0100 Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, that's not a logical conclusion. It's [...] slippery slope
fallacy.
It's no less a fallacy than claiming "software" is controversial and
worthy of special definition.
"Software" is not a controversial word in Engl
On Sunday 21 September 2003 19:55, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> I do not consider a bug as a philosophical failure but a technical
> one.
Did you really pass P&P ?
Mike
--
"I have sampled every language, french is my favorite. Fantastic language,
especially to curse with. Nom de dieu de putain de borde
On 2003-09-21 18:55:00 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I do not consider a bug as a philosophical failure but a technical
one.
This makes no sense. You said that GNU always follows its rules,
while I corrected you because some GNU projects have erroneously
included non-free soft
On 2003-09-21 19:07:27 +0100 Andreas Barth
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
_is_ the essay the definition.
The essay does not give a clear definition, IMO, which is part of the
problem: non-RMS people aren't sure exactly what they are trying to
do.
On Sunday, Sep 21, 2003, at 03:18 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
The essays and logos in question are in fact not part of Debian.
But some of them are produced by Debian.
Which essays does Debian have that aren't free? If there are any, I
think that should be fixed.
As far as the logo, t
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 08:52:27AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> The swirl should be made free, since it's packaged.
>
> The bottle has another purpose and is _not_ packaged.
Actually, I think both should be free in terms of copyright.
We should use trademark law for trademarks, and not try t
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 05:27:39PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-09-21 15:41:02 +0100 Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If by that you mean we should add an explicit "We define software as
> >everything non-hardware" clause to our policy, then I'll agree with
> >you.
>
> The logical conc
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030921 19:55]:
> On 2003-09-21 17:43:46 +0100 Andreas Barth
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Here you are:
> >http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
> That is the RMS essay "Free Software and Free Manuals" not the GNU
> Free Documentation Definition. An opinion
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On 2003-09-21 11:12:18 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Way more inconsistent than the GNU project that always
> > follows its rules, for Software (Program) and Documentation.
>
> Although I like GNU and all it does, this is not true. GNU h
On 2003-09-21 17:43:46 +0100 Andreas Barth
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here you are:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
That is the RMS essay "Free Software and Free Manuals" not the GNU
Free Documentation Definition. An opinion essay is no more a
definition than a set of guidelines
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
> > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Give me a break. Coffee is hot. It is made with boiling water. This
> > > is not a case of a McDonalds employee spilling coffee on someone else.
> >
Lukas Geyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>
> > > And that's how the FSF and the GNU project produce non-free
> > > documentation, is it? Oh, sorry, I forgot, the freedom criteria only
> > > applies to software released as software, not software embedded in
> > > documentation.
> >
> > Yes,
Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> >> It's not playing on words. It's just how things are. When you
> >> buy a car from brand X, you don't get any rights on the trademark
> >> X, or on the X logo.
> >
> > Yes, and I do not claim that the logo Renault on my car is not part
> > of my ca
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030921 18:39]:
> On 2003-09-21 14:52:58 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >It publishes free documentation according to GNU, non-free according
> >to Debian.
> >
> >Please pay attention to the fact that different definitions exists of
> >some concepts.
>
Alexandre Dulaunoy, 2003-09-21 17:40:11 +0200 :
> So if you take the document from the Gutenberg[1] project, is it
> software for you ? and you have to apply the rule of DFSG for the
> books of Steven Levy or Victor Hugo ?
I would, and I believe the Debian project would, too.
> Would you modify
Le dim 21/09/2003 à 17:40, Alexandre Dulaunoy a écrit :
> So if you take the document from the Gutenberg[1] project, is it
> software for you ?
If I want to include it on the Debian CD's, of course it is.
> and you have to apply the rule of DFSG for the
> books of Steven Levy or Victo
On 2003-09-21 11:12:18 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Way more inconsistent than the GNU project that always
follows its rules, for Software (Program) and Documentation.
Although I like GNU and all it does, this is not true. GNU has had
licensing bugs in the past (although ones
On 2003-09-21 14:29:54 +0100 Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The DFSG explicitly
> codifies my specific decision about TeX,=20
It does nothing of the sort; there is no mention of the word
'TeX' in
the DFSG.
Section 4 does precisely that, though without mentioning
On 2003-09-21 14:30:33 +0100 Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To point out what the words of the DFSG actually say is surely
appropriate for understanding it.
I agree. We have tried to point this out to members of FSF and GNU,
but with little success.
I don't think that a messag
On 2003-09-21 14:52:58 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It publishes free documentation according to GNU, non-free according
to Debian.
Please pay attention to the fact that different definitions exists of
some concepts.
A free fairtrade chocolate bar to the first person who finds
On 2003-09-21 15:41:02 +0100 Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the same way as you failed to convince anyone that software and
documentation are different.
Please can both sides try to keep their wording tight? Failing to do
so only allows this to stretch out further. Software and
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le sam 20/09/2003 à 23:27, Richard Stallman a écrit :
> > The DFSG is written as if the system consists entirely of programs and
> > contains nothing else.
>
> This is bullshit. Just read the DFSG, and you will see they can be
> applied to anything
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> > Or are you also implying that
> > the Debian project members shouldn't ever be allowed near non-free
> > software either, even for their daily job?
>
> If their daily job is paid by Debian and for Debian (exc
Mathieu Roy, 2003-09-21 16:00:20 +0200 :
> Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>
>> Mathieu Roy, 2003-09-21 12:30:21 +0200 :
[...]
>> > If the Debian project does not follow the rules that the Debian
>> > project wrote itself for the Debian OS, the Debian project is
>> > somehow inconsiste
Le sam 20/09/2003 à 23:27, Richard Stallman a écrit :
> The DFSG is written as if the system consists entirely of programs and
> contains nothing else.
This is bullshit. Just read the DFSG, and you will see they can be
applied to anything that we put on our CD's and FTP's. Writing specific
guidel
Richard Stallman, 2003-09-21 16:00:17 +0200 :
> If you are willing to disregard the explanation of the meaning of
> a text by its author in order to reinterpret it, you're on the
> wrong way. It is absurd to argue rigidly that "the DFSG obviously
> doesn't say that" when its author
Le dim 21/09/2003 à 15:52, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
> > The DFSG are for the Debian OS. Not for the Debian project. Please
> > stop mixing these two notions, they are not identical.
>
> You failed to convince me. But if it helps you to see things that way,
> feel free to do it...
I'm afraid many
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In other words: I can live with Donald Knuth issuing a license in the
> gray areay between free and non-free. I cannot live with the same thing
> coming from the FSF.
>
> The GFDL is free according to our standards. If you wish
> to view
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (It is trivial to fix this, if you are not obsessed with unremovable
> "Invariant Sections" to the exclusion of all other goals. Add a clause
> to the GFDL allowing GPL-conversion, exactly like the clause in the
> LGPL.
>
> This is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Give me a break. Coffee is hot. It is made with boiling water. This
> > is not a case of a McDonalds employee spilling coffee on someone else.
> > This is someone not being careful and spilling it on
Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> Mathieu Roy, 2003-09-21 12:30:21 +0200 :
>
> > The Debian project is dedicated to the Debian OS. Without this
> > "collection of software", the Debian project is purposeless.
>
> It is indeed dedicated to the Debian OS, but it doesn't do only the
> Deb
It containts detailed
mathematicly research on how the improvements were made, details which
are not evident in the source and therefore reverse engineering of the
documentation from just the source is not possible. Included in his
update to the documentation is an Invariant
If you are willing to disregard the explanation of the meaning of
a text by its author in order to reinterpret it, you're on the
wrong way. It is absurd to argue rigidly that "the DFSG obviously
doesn't say that" when its author says it is.
To point out what the words of the DFSG a
2. The GFDL prevents you from using the technical material in the manual
in nearly any program, because most programs don't have a lot of the
specific things the GFDL refers to ("section titles", etc.), so there's
no legally clear way to satisfy its requirements.
I don't think t
The DFSG explicitly
> codifies my specific decision about TeX,=20
It does nothing of the sort; there is no mention of the word 'TeX' in
the DFSG.
Section 4 does precisely that, though without mentioning TeX by name.
In other words: I can live with Donald Knuth issuing a lic
But you want to be part of the discussion, right?
Debian developers on this list explicitly asked me to be part of the
discussion. They have often asked me questions, suggesting that I
send the answer to the list, and I have often done that. I don't
insist on discussing the matter here. A
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 08:32:55PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > But Debian contains essays, logos, and licenses that cannot be
> > > modified. These are not programs; are they software?
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) a tapoté :
>
> > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > In that sense, there is nothing but software in Debian.
> > >
> > > But Debian contains essays, logos, and licenses that cannot be
> > >
* Walter Landry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030921 02:03]:
> Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Contrary to popular belief, the McDonald's coffee case was not frivolous.
> >
> > http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm
> Give me a break. Coffee is hot. It is made with boilin
Mathieu Roy, 2003-09-21 12:30:21 +0200 :
> The Debian project is dedicated to the Debian OS. Without this
> "collection of software", the Debian project is purposeless.
It is indeed dedicated to the Debian OS, but it doesn't do only the
Debian OS. It also does contrib and non-free. And user sup
Mathieu Roy wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>> Licenses are, for the most part, a legal necessity, in much the same way
>> that Debian contains copyright statements that may not be removed.
>> Essays and logos that cannot be modified are likely to be bugs - it is
>> only rece
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 08:32:55PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But Debian contains essays, logos, and licenses that cannot be
> > modified. These are not programs; are they software?
>
> The essays and logos in question are in fact not
Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> Mathieu Roy, 2003-09-21 09:20:11 +0200 :
>
> > When you're forced to disregard the DFSG when working for Debian
> > (because, please, making an official logo is FOR Debian) and that do
> > not pose to you ethical problem, it means that the DFSG is too
>
Mathieu Roy, 2003-09-21 09:20:11 +0200 :
> When you're forced to disregard the DFSG when working for Debian
> (because, please, making an official logo is FOR Debian) and that do
> not pose to you ethical problem, it means that the DFSG is too
> ambiguous and do not serve its purpose by drawing th
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> Richard Stallman wrote:
> >The Social contract uses the "that which is not hardware" definition of
> >software.
> >
> >The words of the social contract clearly equate software to programs.
>
> I disagree about this interpretation, which sug
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) a tapoté :
> Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In that sense, there is nothing but software in Debian.
> >
> > But Debian contains essays, logos, and licenses that cannot be
> > modified. These are not programs; are they software?
>
On Saturday, Sep 20, 2003, at 17:26 US/Eastern, Richard Stallman wrote:
The Social contract uses the "that which is not hardware"
definition of
software.
The words of the social contract clearly equate software to programs.
I encourage you to look closer. The only part of the social
On Saturday, Sep 20, 2003, at 01:14 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm curious: Considering the GPL prohibits binary-only distribution
under section 3, do you still hold that position?
GPL 3b and 3c deal with that quite nicely. Debian, fo
From: Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Oh, wow, I'm not sure anybody was expecting *months*.
Well, last I heard you weren't doing anything about this before the next
Debian release, and those things don't happen instantly. But months is my
current estimate.
I will have some ex parte meetings
69 matches
Mail list logo
