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
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
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
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
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
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
>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
> 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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
>>
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
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
* 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
* 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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Why do I have the impression to be in an infinite loop ?
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 ?
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
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
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 ?
* 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
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 ?
* 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 >
> >>>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
* 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
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 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo