"Mahesh T. Pai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Barak Pearlmutter said on Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 07:31:14PM -0600,:
>
> > In a recent message to this list, RMS mentioned that people had stated
> > that Debian would remove all non-modifiable but removable text from
> > Debian packages:
>
> If Debian d
Jan Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (using an expired key) writes:
> Fair enough. However, all of these statements are removable, and their
> modification is probably not prohibited by the license.
The flow of the argument was: one example of Debian's respect for
upstream authors is not removing t
Glenn Maynard said:
>We can interpret DFSG#2 to mean "the form closest to source that still
>exists" if we want, but it's extremely questionable to try to interpret
>"preferred form for modification" as "preferred form for modification,
>or any form, no matter how unreasonable it is to edit, if the
Fedor Zuev wrote:
>First, try to answer to several simply questions.
FYI, these are *my* answers, not necessarily everyone's answers.
>0) Is printed Emacs Manual in bookstore a software or hardware?
The lump of paper and ink is hardware. Including the various splotches
of ink resulting from print
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 27 September 2003 03:31, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Debian has a longstanding practice of respect for upstream authors.
> For instance, if the author of a GPLed program includes a statement in
> a README "please if you like this program I'd
On 2003-09-27, Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In any case, presuming debian-legal becomes satisfied that I don't
> need to do anything about these files, I'll either mark this bug
> wonfix, or more likely, close it.
Of course. When I filed the bug, I was under the impression that
debia
Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Debian does require the *right* to remove such snippets.
>
> rights specific to Debian are not DFSG free.
Absolutely Correct! When I said "Debian does require the *right* to
remove such snippets" I did not mean to imply that the right might be
exclusive t
Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Okay - that's not a bug because they're just little harmless
> snippets which are informative and interesting, are not functional,
> are *removable*, and merely accompany the package but do not
> constitute an integral part of it. By long-standing D
Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Debian does require the *right* to remove such snippets.
>
> rights specific to Debian are not DFSG free.
Absolutely Correct! When I said "Debian does require the *right* to
remove such snippets" I did not mean to imply that the right might be
exclusive t
Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 2003-09-27, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Based on long-standing Debian tradition and practice, this [removing
> > non-modifiable texts] is decidedly and demonstrably not the case!
>
> It is long-standing tradition; however, whether it sh
> Please do not attempt to make the "Debian has no principles but the
> DFSG, and the DFSG is only a set of guidelines, therefore Debian has
> no principles and can do anything" argument, because it's nonsense.
Okay. I didn't make that argument, but as you request I will not make
it in the future
> Can you provide a concrete example of such a "snippet" which is not
> under the licence applied to the entire package by the COPYRIGHT,
> COPYING, or AUTHORS file and restricts modification or removal?
^(2)^(1)
(1) No, since such a "snippet"
Mahesh T. Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I became aware of the concepts of free software, Debian, the FSF and
> the real meaning of 'free as in freedom' on doing some follow up
> reading after coming across other files in this very same directory
> (while using another distro). According to the
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 01:37:52PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Avoiding bias means trying to collect _raw_ data.
There is no such thing as "raw" data in this context.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`-
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 11:05:52AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-09-27 09:20:01 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Have you some background in sociology?
>
> Have you some background in psychology?
He's French. His poststructuralism will trump your reproducible results
at every tur
On 2003-09-27 12:37:52 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You must try to avoid bias when designing the data collection
Clearly.
This disagrees with your earlier comment.
What is called here "controlling for bias" is indeed introducing
bias -- a big one.
I did not defend it. Pl
On 2003-09-27 17:52:59 +0100 Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Look at the name. Evidently someone is making a joke in poor taste
about people whose native language is not English.
To be fair, the joke in poor taste is that we demand people speak
English on this list, but my thought
The following persons have agreed to serve on a committee regarding the
FSF - Debian discussion:
Eben Moglen, Attorney for the Free Software Foundation.
Henri Poole, Board member, Free Software Foundation.
Benj. "Mako" Hill, Debian.
I am seeking another candidate from the
Quoting Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I'm sorry, but I can't parse this, nor the remainder of your post.
>
> Look at the name. Evidently someone is making a joke in poor taste
> about people whose native language is not English.
I have another explaination: he changed his identity and
* Richard Stallman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030927 17:16]:
> This policy has existed as long as our web site. The links to such
> sites were mistakes; I found out about them as a result of the recent
> discussion, but the removal of these links has nothing to do with
> that; we are just following our
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
>
>> >> 1. "Is this MP3 file software or hardware?"
>> >
>> > This is one is definitely worse: you explicitely point out which
>> > definition of the word software you think is the most usual, by asking
>> >
Barak Pearlmutter said on Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 07:31:14PM -0600,:
> In a recent message to this list, RMS mentioned that people had stated
> that Debian would remove all non-modifiable but removable text from
> Debian packages:
If Debian does not, somebody else will, and I guess that this is
On 2003-09-27, Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Zedor Fuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I will both consent and interests of users and unoriginal. You
>> can believe that personally You do not use any more abstract important
>> cases, this list software is not be counted copy
Zedor Fuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will both consent and interests of users and unoriginal. You
> can believe that personally You do not use any more abstract important
> cases, this list software is not be counted copyrightable. Please for
> the document by European copyright regim
There wasn't supposed to be a link to the Debian web site on
www.gnu.org, because it lists non-free software packages. Except in
the Free Software Directory, we do not link to sites that specifically
suggest the use of any non-free program, or that say how to get a copy
of one.
This policy has ex
On 2003-09-27, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Based on long-standing Debian tradition and practice, this [removing
> non-modifiable texts] is decidedly and demonstrably not the case!
> Don and others were perhaps writing in haste.
It is long-standing tradition; however, whether it
On 2003-09-26, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The conflict is around the need professed by FSF to hitch political speech
> to the cart of software documentation, and the fact that Debian, while it
> may have been designed in part to achive a social or political goal, was
> designed to de
On 2003-09-26, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Back to the DSP binaries: I remember that at one point there were DSP
> binaries included in the Linux kernel source. Is that still the case?
AFAIK, this is one good reason that Debian does not distribute
pristine kernel sources: the
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 07:31:14PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> > A /non-modifiable/ text could not be included in Debian, a
> > /modifiable/ one would most likely be.
>
> is a load of hooey. Inclusion of snippets is not a violation of the
> DFSG. Such an overly-literal interpretation of th
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 11:27:06PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I also do not see that Debian wants non-free to be quite so intimate
> with the free part of Debian. This is against Debian's own tenets (take
> my word as the guy who wrote them) just as use of GFDL for software
> documentation is aga
> > For instance, "controling for bias"
> > should be done once you already collected the data, not during this
> > collection of _raw_ data, if you do not want to alter too much the
> > _raw_ data.
>
> You clearly do not have a background in statistics.
Unfortunately your point of view does not
Hi,
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:50:37 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I have occasionally received requests in private mail for some links
> to a document "summarizing Debian's position" on the GNU FDL as it
> relates to the DFSG.
I think we need to have a position statem
> it's extremely questionable to try to interpret
> "preferred form for modification" as "preferred form for modification,
> or any form, no matter how unreasonable it is to edit, if the preferred
> form for modification has been lost".
The "preferred form for modification" is not the "form we'd l
On 2003-09-26 08:04:12 +0100 Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
0) Is printed Emacs Manual in bookstore a software or hardware?
Not necessarily either.
1) Is Emacs Manual recorded on CD-Audio a software or hardware?
Not necessarily either, but I forget exactly what CD-Audio is.
2) Is
On 2003-09-27 09:20:01 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Have you some background in sociology?
Have you some background in psychology? If so, you should know that
people try to pick the narrowest class by default and will likely
answer "Is this MP3 software?" with "It's music."
On 2003-09-27 09:28:31 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, my definition of "ad hominem" is shared by ancient roman history
> teachers -- excuse me but I think that this topic they deserve to be
> trusted by comparison to these simplistic "fallacious blabla" webpages.
This makes
Le ven 26/09/2003 à 08:35, Bruce Perens a écrit :
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 11:27:06PM -0700, bruce wrote:
>
> I met with Eben Moglen the other day. I have some other FSF folks on my
> list that I haven't been able to speak with yet, and will try to get to
> on Friday. I want to talk with them som
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Based on long-standing Debian tradition and practice, this is
> decidedly and demonstrably not the case! Don and others were perhaps
> writing in haste.
Can you provide a concrete example of such a "snippet" which is not
under the licence applied to
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On Friday 26 September 2003, at 14 h 23,
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Compare:
> >
> > http://web.archive.org/web/20021128102620/http://www.gnu.org/links/links.ht=
> > ml
> >
> > with:
>
> [ http://www.gnu.org/links/l
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On 2003-09-26 21:48:48 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> 1. "Is this MP3 file software or hardware?"
> > This is one is definitely worse: you explicitely point out which
> > definition of the word software you think is the most usual, by a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
> >> 1. "Is this MP3 file software or hardware?"
> >
> > This is one is definitely worse: you explicitely point out which
> > definition of the word software you think is the most usual, by asking
> > to refer to this definition.
>
> Well, yes: I'm
First of all, I would like to publicly thank RMS for engaging in a
sustained and illuminating conversation on this list. He has been
confronted with an outrageously low signal-to-noise ratio. The
thoughtful and well-reasoned messages have been buried in a mass of
counterproductive picayune harpin
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 08:00:08PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> That isn't ignoring the DFSG, it's just using the GPL's definition of
> Source: the preferred form for modification. If I use the Gimp to
> make an image and delete the intermediate xcf files, the only
> remaining "source" forms a
On Friday 26 September 2003, at 14 h 23,
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Compare:
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20021128102620/http://www.gnu.org/links/links.ht=
> ml
>
> with:
[ http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html ]
Funny, FSF does not mention Debian or FreeBSD anymore, but it
On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 11:15:18PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If you have additional links to suggest, please do so in reply to this
> > message (replying to the list is fine).
>
> There's also:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/deb
I've put a copy of the GFDL with descriptions of various issues at
http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/fdl.html . It's likely that I've missed
things, made mistakes or phrased stuff badly, so feedback would be good.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
46 matches
Mail list logo
