Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Sun, 2003-09-21 at 18:33, Richard Stallman wrote: > "If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering > more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent > copy along with each Opaque copy," could indeed be read differently > than the GP

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread Brian T. Sniffen
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > None of these differences correctly classifies Hello as both a program > and documentation, as far as I can tell. > > Hello is an example program. Yes... and thus both program and documentation. > It is difficult > to deal with s

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Brian T. Sniffen
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >I don't think that section titles are a problem--it would not be > >hard to put them in a program. > > In a *binary executable* ?!?! That's what I'm talking about here. > > I am not sure if you are right; this might be impossible or it m

Re: Starting to talk

2003-09-22 Thread Roland Mas
Mathieu Roy, 2003-09-22 16:50:18 +0200 : [...] > In other terms, do we consider the fact that we cannot modify a > political essay in a documentation so harmful that we would prefer > stopping delivering this documentation? > > That is indeed the question. Yes indeed. And the answer, as far as

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Roland Mas
Mathieu Roy, 2003-09-22 11:40:13 +0200 : > "Logiciel" is a correct translation of "software" in most of the > case. And there's no word to translate "software" in its widest > sense -- probably because nobody in France ever needed that word. > > Note that the issue with software have nothing to do

Re: There was never a chance of a "GFDL compromise"

2003-09-22 Thread Branden Robinson
[RMS not CCed] On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:57:37AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > Not long ago, people were trying to reassure me that if invariant > sections were removable, nobody would remove them. I guess not. > > This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections > to be

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Andrew Saunders
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:58:01 -0400 Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If, OTOH, your only goal is to persuade Debian to accept the GFDL > with invariant sections as free enough for inclusion in our > distribution, I don't see that such a discussion could ever bear > frui

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Peter S Galbraith
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If, OTOH, your only goal is to persuade Debian to accept the GFDL > with invariant sections as free enough for inclusion in our > distribution, I don't see that such a discussion could ever bear > fruit without a concrete proposal spell

Re: There was never a chance of a "GFDL compromise"

2003-09-22 Thread Peter S Galbraith
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A few weeks ago someone was trying to argue that nobody would do > > this, and that invariant sections were designed to solve a > > nonexistent problem. Now we know the problem is not just > > theoretical. > > No, it's still a t

Re: There was never a chance of a "GFDL compromise"

2003-09-22 Thread Andrew Saunders
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:58:27 -0400 Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer > would remove the political statements one could find in it. > > Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot > be modifie

Re: There was never a chance of a "GFDL compromise"

2003-09-22 Thread Steve Langasek
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:58:27AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer > would remove the political statements one could find in it. > Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot > be modified. These two st

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread MJ Ray
On 2003-09-22 12:34:27 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well, when I read a text, I have all the means necessary to understand how the idea works. Not with a program unless I get the source. It depends on the program, but if you have the source, you do not feel that you need to the

Re: Starting to talk

2003-09-22 Thread MJ Ray
On 2003-09-22 15:14:45 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Does the DFSG definition of freedom that applies to program (nobody question that) help us to draw the line at the correct place also for documentation? Trivially, all Debian developers who have passed P&P should have agreed t

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Mike Hommey
On Monday 22 September 2003 16:58, Richard Stallman wrote: > If, OTOH, your only goal is to persuade Debian to accept the GFDL > with invariant sections as free enough for inclusion in our > distribution, I don't see that such a discussion could ever bear > fruit without a concrete

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread Steve Dobson
Mathieu On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:38:18AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Steve Dobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > The Social Contract is about producing the "Debian system" and other > > works that provide a useful platform for our users. The Operating > > System is just part of that work.

Re: Starting to talk

2003-09-22 Thread MJ Ray
On 2003-09-22 16:05:31 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Because you are confronted with a situation where your arguments, that you repeat and repeat, do not convince your interlocutor (me in this case)? There are two ways to argue against someone: present data or claim that they ar

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread MJ Ray
On 2003-09-22 18:10:18 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://www.debian.org/vote/1999/vote_0002 Interesting. Did anyone spot that it seems not to meet DFSG? A casual search with vote;logo;dfsg of vote/legal/devel/user/project/policy returns no matches for the quarter con

Re: Starting to talk

2003-09-22 Thread Matthew Garrett
Mathieu Roy wrote: >Free, in think that everybody agree, but under which definition of >freedom? Does the DFSG definition of freedom that applies to program >(nobody question that) help us to draw the line at the correct place >also for documentation? Many people, including the author of the DFSG

Re: There was never a chance of a "GFDL compromise"

2003-09-22 Thread Richard Stallman
If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer would remove the political statements one could find in it. Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot be modified.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Richard Stallman
>I don't think that section titles are a problem--it would not be >hard to put them in a program. In a *binary executable* ?!?! That's what I'm talking about here. I am not sure if you are right; this might be impossible or it might be easy. I have never thought about what this requ

Re: There was never a chance of a "GFDL compromise"

2003-09-22 Thread Richard Stallman
> A few weeks ago someone was trying to argue that nobody would do > this, and that invariant sections were designed to solve a > nonexistent problem. Now we know the problem is not just > theoretical. No, it's still a theoretical problem.[1] The above has nothing to do wi

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Richard Stallman
If, OTOH, your only goal is to persuade Debian to accept the GFDL with invariant sections as free enough for inclusion in our distribution, I don't see that such a discussion could ever bear fruit without a concrete proposal spelling out the alternative guidelines that should ap

Re: There was never a chance of a "GFDL compromise"

2003-09-22 Thread Richard Stallman
But if they were only removable without being modifiable, then yes, removing them would be the only way to include the accompanying documentation while still ensuring that all bits in Debian guarantee the freedoms that we require. Not long ago, people were trying to reassure me t

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread Richard Stallman
None of these differences correctly classifies Hello as both a program and documentation, as far as I can tell. Hello is an example program. It is difficult to deal with such grey areas and I assume that it requires a case-by-case review. I have never found it difficult.

Re: stepping in between Debian and FSF

2003-09-22 Thread Branden Robinson
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:53:56AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > Not entirely. My proposal to remove non-free from our archives and amend > the social contract to state that it will no longer be available on our FTP > servers is what is in the air. [s/state that it will no longer/no longer state t

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Peter S Galbraith
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now, I think that the question is not really what the DFSG > allows. Because it's pretty clear that the DSFG does not allow GFDLed > documentation with Invariant section. > > The question is: do we think that tolerating this non-DFSG essays in > some GFDLe

Re: PennMUSH license concerns.

2003-09-22 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 11:41:52PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: [snip] > See above; the concern is not over any specific piece of code (in that the > only ones I can point to, I'm fairly sure the license can be clarified > for), but in whether debian-legal is willing to accept the statements of > (in p

Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?

2003-09-22 Thread Sam Hocevar
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote: > If the binaries were entirely written using assembly code, the binary > here equates the source. This is very rarely true. Even assembly code has variable and function names, comments and macros. A disassembler output is certainly not the preferr

Re: There was never a chance of a "GFDL compromise"

2003-09-22 Thread Brian T. Sniffen
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote: >> But if they were only removable without being modifiable, then >> yes, removing them would be the only way to include the >> accompanying documentation while still ensuring that all bits in >>

Re: "Software" and its translations (was: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal)

2003-09-22 Thread Branden Robinson
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:51:14PM +0200, Roland Mas wrote: > - "un logiciel" can even be used to mean "a software program", whereas > the phrase "a software" sounds awkward to me in English (but then > again, I'm not a native English speaker, and maybe "software" is a > countable noun -- can

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS
To people who are seriously interested in this long-running discussion on the meaning of "software", can I recommend George Lakoff's book "Women, Fire and Dangerous Things", which explains how word meanings in human language are based on "prototypes" rather than logical categories? You might also w

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Andreas Barth
* Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030922 15:09]: > The point is whether every software needs to be free or just program > and their documentation. So, you finally admited that software includes also digital photos of your girlfriend. Wow. Now, then next question is very clear for debian-legal: Th

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Andreas Barth
* Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030922 13:29]: > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > Mathieu claims to see no need for derived works of political essays despite > > all of the suggested reasons which are broadly similar to those for free > > software > I do not agree with your point of

Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?

2003-09-22 Thread Simon Law
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:56:27AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > If the binaries were entirely written using assembly code, the binary > here equates the source. You really mean machine code here, right? Because I would appreciate the .s source files if someone wrote it in assembler.

Re: There was never a chance of a "GFDL compromise"

2003-09-22 Thread Don Armstrong
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote: > But if they were only removable without being modifiable, then > yes, removing them would be the only way to include the > accompanying documentation while still ensuring that all bits in > Debian guarantee the freedoms that we requi

Re: There was never a chance of a "GFDL compromise"

2003-09-22 Thread Don Armstrong
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote: > No, it's still a theoretical problem.[1] The above has nothing to > do with the content of the statements themselves, merely the fact > that they are not free under the DFSG. > > The problem is that our non-modifiable political essays migh

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet
MJ Ray wrote: > It seems a little odd to expect Debian to contain an official > statement saying "by software, we mean software". Let the people who > use bizarre definitions say "by software, we don't mean software but > this other thing". Given the amount of discussion this topic has started

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread Branden Robinson
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 09:10:07AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2003-09-22 07:30:41 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >And do you really think that every software (of your wide definition) > >you can have on computer is part of the Operating System? The goal of > >Debian is to provide an

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Etienne Gagnon
Mathieu Roy wrote: LOGICIEL: n.m. Ensemble de travaux de logique, d'analyse, de programmation, nécessaires au fonctionnement d'un ensemble de traitement de l'information (opposé à matériel) . (Emphasis mine). A translation of the emphasized text is: (opposite to hardware). Apparently you fo

Re: Starting to talk

2003-09-22 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 04:14:45PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > > On Monday 22 September 2003 14:32, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > > The point is whether every software needs to be free or just program > > > and their documentation. > > > > The point is whet

Re: What does GFDL do?

2003-09-22 Thread Joe Wreschnig
On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 10:46, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > 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 th

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread Matthew Garrett
Mathieu Roy wrote: >Well, when I read a text, I have all the means necessary to understand >how the idea works. Not with a program unless I get the source. We consider even trivial software such as "Hello world" to be worthy of Freeness, even though in this case you have everything necessary to u

Re: PennMUSH license concerns.

2003-09-22 Thread Brian T. Sniffen
Ervin Hearn III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Concern has been expressed on the debian-devel list about license > status of PennMUSH and its legitimacy. PennMUSH was relicensed under > the Artistic License as of version 1.7.6p0 in November 2002. Aspects > of PennMUSH's code have been drawn from, o

Re: PennMUSH license concerns.

2003-09-22 Thread Joel Baker
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 01:39:30PM -0400, Ervin Hearn III wrote: > Concern has been expressed on the debian-devel list about license status of > PennMUSH and its legitimacy. PennMUSH was relicensed under the Artistic > License as of version 1.7.6p0 in November 2002. Aspects of PennMUSH's code >

Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?

2003-09-22 Thread Steve Langasek
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:56:27AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le lun 22/09/2003 à 09:46, Glenn Maynard a écrit : > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:47:26AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote: > > > IBM distributes the Linux driver and the binaries in a tarball that > > > it says is licensed under the GPL.

"Software" and its translations (was: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal)

2003-09-22 Thread Roland Mas
MJ Ray, 2003-09-22 10:30:19 +0200 : > On 2003-09-22 06:58:19 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Since Debian use the translation "Logiciel" for Debian French pages, >> it means that the word software must be clearly defined by Debian. > > If "logiciel" truly does not mean the same as

Re: What does GFDL do?

2003-09-22 Thread Brian T. Sniffen
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 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 h

Re: What does GFDL do?

2003-09-22 Thread Brian T. Sniffen
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote: >> There's a critical difference here. The GPL can accompany the >> reference card. The invariant material must be in the reference >> card. >> >> I explained months ago, and again last week, why

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 02:13 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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 05:34 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote: "Logiciel" is a correct translation of "software" in most of the case. And there's no word to translate "software" in its widest sense -- probably because nobody in France ever needed that word. Surely information theory people

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 05:04 US/Eastern, Richard Stallman wrote: I don't believe the logo needs to be free; I think the way it is being handled is appropriate. However, others were arguing recently that everything in Debian is software and that the DFSG applies to it. Ah. This isn't a c

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 02:02 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote: I do not see either why RMS's political essays should be free in the DFSG-sense either, even when included in a documentation. Care to give reasons they shouldn't be? I gave reasons why I don't thing the Official Debian Logo sho

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Steve Langasek
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 12:36:14PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > On 2003-09-22 11:21:35 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The FSF always has been about computing, way before Debian even > > > exists. > > The FSF apparently claims that it is

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 01:58 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote: Since Debian use the translation "Logiciel" for Debian French pages, it means that the word software must be clearly defined by Debian. If the French "Logiciel" is not the same as the English "software", then please file a bug.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Sunday, Sep 21, 2003, at 18:33 US/Eastern, Richard Stallman wrote: Several parts of the DFSG contain the word "program". For instance, Yes, many parts of it do. Its unfortunate that it isn't written clearer. Source Code The program must include source code, and must allow

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Mike Hommey
On Monday 22 September 2003 16:39, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Now, I think that the question is not really what the DFSG > allows. Because it's pretty clear that the DSFG does not allow GFDLed > documentation with Invariant section. > > The question is: do we think that tolerating this non-DFSG essays in

Re: Starting to talk

2003-09-22 Thread Mike Hommey
On Monday 22 September 2003 17:05, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > Why do I have the impression to be in an infinite loop ? > > Because you are confronted with a situation where your arguments, that > you repeat and repeat, do not convince your interlocutor (me i

Re: Starting to talk

2003-09-22 Thread Mathieu Roy
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > Why do I have the impression to be in an infinite loop ? Because you are confronted with a situation where your arguments, that you repeat and repeat, do not convince your interlocutor (me in this case)? You know, there is an easy way out, if you're f

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Jamin W. Collins
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:26:38AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > It seems a little odd to expect Debian to contain an official > statement saying "by software, we mean software". Let the people who > use bizarre definitions say "by software, we don't mean software but > this other thing". While I don

GFDL

2003-09-22 Thread D. Starner
RMS writes: > However, I don't follow the DFSG, nor an interpretation of the DFSG > that labels documentation as software; so I don't have an artificial > reason to insist on identical criteria for freedom for manuals and for > programs. This is not merely an artifical reason. If someone added a r

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Steve Langasek
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 09:30:17AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2003-09-22 06:58:19 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Since Debian use the translation "Logiciel" for Debian French pages, > >it means that the word software must be clearly defined by Debian. > If "logiciel" truly does not

Re: Starting to talk

2003-09-22 Thread Mike Hommey
Why do I have the impression to be in an infinite loop ?

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Mathieu Roy
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I do not see either why RMS's political essays should be free in the > > DFSG-sense either, even when included in a documentation. > > As someone asked in another thread: > Did you really pass P&P ?

Starting to talk

2003-09-22 Thread Mathieu Roy
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On Monday 22 September 2003 14:32, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > The point is whether every software needs to be free or just program > > and their documentation. > > The point is whether every software IN DEBIAN needs to be free. You are right, that's the q

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Mathieu Roy
Etienne Gagnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > Mathieu Roy wrote: > > Since Debian use the translation "Logiciel" for Debian French pages, > > it means that the word software must be clearly defined by Debian. > > Mathieu, > > I would suggest that you to carefully read "Le petit Robert"'s > d

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Peter S Galbraith
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > > On Monday 22 September 2003 12:36, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > > My girlfriend photography sitting on my computer is not free > > > software. > > > > Who cares about the licence of your girlfriend photographs ?

How to avoid missunderstandings (was: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal)

2003-09-22 Thread Andreas Barth
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030922 11:26]: > On 2003-09-22 09:27:52 +0100 Andreas Barth > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Yes. However, as "software" is a so fundamental term to Debian, it > >would perhaps be better to make an appropriate (semi-)official > >statement anywhere. > It seems a little

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Peter S Galbraith
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do not see either why RMS's political essays should be free in the > DFSG-sense either, even when included in a documentation. As someone asked in another thread: Did you really pass P&P ?

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Andreas Barth
* Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030922 11:40]: > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > * Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030922 08:02]: > > > I do not see either why RMS's political essays should be free in the > > > DFSG-sense either, even when included in a documentation. > > Bec

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Mike Hommey
On Monday 22 September 2003 14:32, Mathieu Roy wrote: > The point is whether every software needs to be free or just program > and their documentation. The point is whether every software IN DEBIAN needs to be free. Mike

Re: GPL preamble removal

2003-09-22 Thread Brian T. Sniffen
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > >>OK. I have a copy of Emacs here, licensed to me under the GNU GPL2. >>I have made some modifications to it, and updated the changelogs and >>history notes. I wish to give it to a friend. Section 2b requires >>that I dis

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Etienne Gagnon
Mathieu Roy wrote: > Since Debian use the translation "Logiciel" for Debian French pages, > it means that the word software must be clearly defined by Debian. Mathieu, I would suggest that you to carefully read "Le petit Robert"'s definition for "logiciel". (For those of you that are not Frenc

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Mathieu Roy
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On Monday 22 September 2003 12:36, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > My girlfriend photography sitting on my computer is not free > > software. > > Who cares about the licence of your girlfriend photographs ? Are you willing > to put them in main ? > The point i

Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?

2003-09-22 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le lun 22/09/2003 à 09:46, Glenn Maynard a écrit : > On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:47:26AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote: > > IBM distributes the Linux driver and the binaries in a tarball that > > it says is licensed under the GPL. > > http://oss.software.ibm.com/acpmodem/ > > No source code is provi

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le lun 22/09/2003 à 08:30, Mathieu Roy a écrit : > Apparently it's clear that Debian do not consider that his very own > logo must be free software -- that's right, you do not need a logo at > all to have a complete free operating system. > If Debian already recognize that non-program software can

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Mike Hommey
On Monday 22 September 2003 12:36, Mathieu Roy wrote: > My girlfriend photography sitting on my computer is not free > software. Who cares about the licence of your girlfriend photographs ? Are you willing to put them in main ? The point is that the photographs on your computer are _software_. Wh

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread Mathieu Roy
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On 2003-09-22 10:38:18 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > > I feel free enough when I can redistribute as I will a > > political essay from someone else. If I feel a need to edit that > > essay, I just start writing my own essay > > Som

Re: A WDL.

2003-09-22 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 05:41:09PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 04:42:51PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > I don't think the GFDL is a good place to start from when writing a > > > documentation license, really. The WDL is a tangled mess. Start with > > > the GPL inst

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Mathieu Roy
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On 2003-09-22 11:21:35 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The FSF always has been about computing, way before Debian even > > exists. > > The FSF apparently claims that it is only concerned with program > freedom. And documentation. Basicall

Re: "GNU is perfect" and French IRS, was: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread MJ Ray
On 2003-09-22 11:16:04 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Maybe speaking English on that list encourage a cultural dominance. Not really IMO. It's just inconsiderate behaviour. [...] If you already made a donation to the FSF or to the SPI, you should know what IRS is. Why? In th

Re: "GNU is perfect" and French IRS, was: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Mathieu Roy
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On 2003-09-22 10:52:22 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sure, it is more confusing when talking in English to mention a well > > known kind of institution in one major english-speaking country than > > talking about French specific institutio

Re: GFDL

2003-09-22 Thread MJ Ray
On 2003-09-22 10:05:15 +0100 Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I value freedom in documentation just as much as I do for programs. I value it so much that I designed the GFDL specifically to induce commercial publishers to publish free documentation. Commercial or normally-proprietar

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread MJ Ray
On 2003-09-22 11:21:35 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The FSF always has been about computing, way before Debian even exists. The FSF apparently claims that it is only concerned with program freedom. and that is possibly how most LL supporters will know the word. From what yo

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Mathieu Roy
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On 2003-09-22 10:41:16 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > >> * Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030922 08:02]: > >>> I do not see either why RMS's political essays should be free in the > > >>>

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

2003-09-22 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 05:27:46PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > Remember the hypothetical "emacs reference card", which must be > accompanied by 12 pages of additional invariant material? Sounds like a > big deal to me. > > If the GPL were used, it would have to be accompanied

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Mathieu Roy
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On 2003-09-22 10:47:11 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Free Software is known in France as Logiciel Libre. I'm not sure that > > you will find many supporters of Logiciel Libre that really thinks > > that Free Software is not about specifica

Re: "GNU is perfect" and French IRS, was: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread MJ Ray
On 2003-09-22 10:52:22 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sure, it is more confusing when talking in English to mention a well known kind of institution in one major english-speaking country than talking about French specific institutions that, I'm sure, everybody is familiar with... It

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread MJ Ray
On 2003-09-22 10:47:11 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Free Software is known in France as Logiciel Libre. I'm not sure that you will find many supporters of Logiciel Libre that really thinks that Free Software is not about specifically software programs. This is expected, because

Re: "GNU is perfect" and French IRS, was: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Mathieu Roy
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On 2003-09-22 04:00:32 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > IRS = Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. bureaucracy in charge of > > I am aware what IRS is in the US, but Mathieu is French and And this fact do not allows you to make assumpt

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread MJ Ray
On 2003-09-22 10:41:16 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : >> * Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030922 08:02]: >>> I do not see either why RMS's political essays should be free in the > >>> DFSG-sense either, even when included in a documen

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread MJ Ray
On 2003-09-22 10:38:18 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] I feel free enough when I can redistribute as I will a political essay from someone else. If I feel a need to edit that essay, I just start writing my own essay Some people feel the same about software in general. It is

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Mathieu Roy
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On 2003-09-22 06:58:19 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Since Debian use the translation "Logiciel" for Debian French pages, > > it means that the word software must be clearly defined by Debian. > > If "logiciel" truly does not mean the sam

GFDL

2003-09-22 Thread Richard Stallman
> Someone else criticized the idea (though no one had proposed it) of > giving the FSF special consideration; now you seem to be saying just > the opposite, that you believe in giving the FSF less cooperation that > you would give to anyone else. The consequences of such an approac

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Richard Stallman
As far as the logo, the name "Mathieu Roy" isn't free in the DFSG-sense. Neither is the Debian name. I don't see why the Debian logo should be either. I don't believe the logo needs to be free; I think the way it is being handled is appropriate. However, others were arguing recently

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Mathieu Roy
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > * Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030922 08:02]: > > I do not see either why RMS's political essays should be free in the > > DFSG-sense either, even when included in a documentation. > > Because we require them to be free if we include them in Deb

Re: Unidentified subject!

2003-09-22 Thread Mathieu Roy
Steve Dobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > Mathieu > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:30:41AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > > > And do you really think that every software (of your wide definition) > > you can have on computer is part of the Operating Sys

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Mathieu Roy
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > On 2003-09-22 07:33:48 +0100 Andreas Barth > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sorry, but at least I understood software at start of discussion more > > as a synonym to programms, but I'm not a native english speaker. > > I am sorry that "software" has been mi

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread MJ Ray
On 2003-09-22 09:27:52 +0100 Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yes. However, as "software" is a so fundamental term to Debian, it would perhaps be better to make an appropriate (semi-)official statement anywhere. It seems a little odd to expect Debian to contain an official statement sa

Re: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread Andreas Barth
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030922 10:03]: > On 2003-09-22 07:33:48 +0100 Andreas Barth > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Sorry, but at least I understood software at start of discussion more > >as a synonym to programms, but I'm not a native english speaker. > I am sorry that "software" has been

Re: "GNU is perfect" and French IRS, was: A possible GFDL compromise: a proposal

2003-09-22 Thread MJ Ray
On 2003-09-22 04:00:32 +0100 Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: IRS = Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. bureaucracy in charge of I am aware what IRS is in the US, but Mathieu is French and I think their taxes are collected by some part of MINEFI. I cannot find what French IRS is, s

  1   2   >