On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 05:41:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> We've already had this survey. Can you perhaps say why you are taking
> yet another, why you think the conclusions might be different, and
> what you think the survey is intended to show?
I believe he was responding to the or
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 05:41:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> We've already had this survey. Can you perhaps say why you are taking
> yet another, why you think the conclusions might be different, and
> what you think the survey is intended to show?
Actually, his seems to be a late ent
We've already had this survey. Can you perhaps say why you are taking
yet another, why you think the conclusions might be different, and
what you think the survey is intended to show?
Thomas
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have only criticized Debian for one thing, and that is the practice
> of distributing non-free software (programs). This is something
> Debian has done for many years, not something I imagine it might do.
I don't think you understand the distincti
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I didn't say that. I said we built the community, which we did by
> pushing for free software when nobody else did. Of course, many
> others have contributed since then.
I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free
software.
Joel Baker wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 02:54:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[snip]
If some copyright holder somwhere feels his privileges are being
infringed, then the onus is on them to bring the issue to our attention.
We have been anything but careless. I do not think it is reasona
Sorry it's taken so long to respond, looks like I missed this mail when my
mailserver was down.
Thanks for the input. I've spoken with Alan Schwartz and there will be adding
the full history to the copyright file with the next release. He is also going
to look at the differences between the or
On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 16:58, D. Starner wrote:
> Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Do you know many modern (not public domain) political texts
> > of any source, which is freely [unlimited] modifiable?
>
> When I first ran across the GPL, it was such a surprising license
> that I prin
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you know many modern (not public domain) political texts
> of any source, which is freely [unlimited] modifiable?
When I first ran across the GPL, it was such a surprising license
that I printed it out and showed it to a friend (who was less
impressed
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license comp
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 12:02:21PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> It's not level. Esperanto is much easier for those who already know
> the language. The only level playing field would be to choose a
> language that *nobody* already speaks fluently. Perhaps, say,
> Klingon?
Nope, Klingon
The word "software" as used in general discourse is quite specific.
Examples: "software engineer", "database software", "software
development tools", "Free Software Foundation", "software market",
"proprietary software", "real-time software", "software productivity
metrics", "software testing", etc
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> >The phrasing of almost all license boilerplate
> >(eg the GPL boilerplate) allows them.
> Nothing licensed under the GPL can be non-modifiable. So I'm not sure
> what you mean by this
Okay, it's a rather technical point.
If you look at
You are criticizing Debian based on things you can imagine we might
do, and have imagined no end of nasty possibilities.
I have hardly criticized Debian at all in this discussion. I was
trying to convince Debian developers that they should regard
GFDL-covered manuals as free.
I have only
> The Free Software Foundation built the free software community,
> years before Debian was started,
This is at least much of a "nasty cheap shot" as what I said. And
you've done it before.
It is not a "shot" at all. I was defending the FSF from an
accusation, not attacking Debi
[No MFT was set, so not Cc:'ing...]
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Matt Taggart wrote:
> libchk End User Licence
> ___
[SNIP]
> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of the "Artistic License" which comes with this
> Kit, with the foll
Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
>The phrasing of almost all license boilerplate
>(eg the GPL boilerplate) allows them.
Nothing licensed under the GPL can be non-modifiable. So I'm not sure what
you mean by this
--
Nathanael Nerode
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
b) if you wish to make changes as defined in clause 2 and 3, and
distribute a modified version of this package, then
clauses 3c and 4c are required
This seems to me to be problematic. Normally the Artistic License is OK
because 3a and 4b provide a very simple, free modi
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unless you can find some evidence in the -private archives that the GNU
> Manifesto was specifically mentioned and a conclusion reached, I
I do agree that history, and precedent, and the practices of others,
are a weak guide. But we should not ignor
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2003-09-30 05:25:50 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > This appears to be a variation on the "If we can't all be rich then we
> > should all be poor" idea, which I reject.
>
> It's not. It's the "level playing field" idea.
It's not
Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem is that Debian has made an explicit promise that it will
> remain 100% Pure Oats ...
We're getting into semantics here, to some extent.
The DFSG talks about software. It is referring to software as the
term is usually understood
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:32:20 -0500, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:37:37 + (UTC)
>> Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure going point-by-point through the text of the license
>>> is the best way to proceed; I feel like the main point
Le mar 30/09/2003 à 19:38, Fedor Zuev a écrit :
> >What I *have* seen is assertions that removable-but-not-modifiable
> >text should be removed, as it is not DFSG-free.
>
> Do you know many political texts of GNU, which is freely
> modifiable?
Do you know about something interesting to say?
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
> >>
> >> - Several persons of Debian stated on that list that they would drop
> >> any political text of GNU in GNU packages they may maintain.
>
> >Mathieu, you're lying. Provide citations of any Debi
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 05:38:19PM +0200, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> The problem is that Debian has made an explicit promise that it will
> remain 100% Pure Oats, and that its priorities are its users and the
> Pure Oats community. Should we ignore the needs of users who have chosen
> Debian
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 04:37:42PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> So you are now retracting your original argument, and instead claiming
> that developers chose to ignore this problem *without* investigating
> the details? In future please state your two-line arguments instead of
> using eight-lin
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 08:06:12PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:01:19AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> > Burden of proof arguments are, at best, very trick to make -- I
> > suggest you not rely on it. Certainly I don't buy it in this case.
> > Unless you can actually
MJ Ray wrote:
Very roughly, losing lots in translation: Yes, Branden, different. :) Would you do that if most DDs were
Russians? (I see "Yes, Branden", "Debiana", "russian" and some other words
that I looked up.)
I'm impressed, MJ. The more exact translation will be:
Excellent, Branden. I
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 03:24:30PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-09-30 14:41:27 +0100 Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Да, Бранден, отличился :)
> > Интересно, что бы ты делал, если большинство разработчиков Дебиана были
> > русскими?
>
> Very roughly, losing lots in translation:
Hi debian-legal,
I would like to know if the following license meets the DFSG and is ok for me
to upload the software to main(or if not, what needs to change). The software
is "lsblibchk", a tool for checking the LSB compliance of a runtime
environment or build environment. The source was downl
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 08:09:25AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Won't communication inevitably be more difficult if you see one of its key
> benefits as nobody is really proficient with the language? Some concepts --
> for instance, philosophy -- generally require a lot from a language, and
> seem
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>>
>> - Several persons of Debian stated on that list that they would drop
>> any political text of GNU in GNU packages they may maintain.
>Mathieu, you're lying. Provide citations of any Debian Developer
>doing so -- provide citations of a non-
On 2003-09-30, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 08:37:46AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
>> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) a tapoté :
>
>> Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > If you want to criticize the FSF based on things you can imagine we
>> > might do, I am sure you can imagine no end of nasty possibilities.
>> >
On Tuesday, Sep 30, 2003, at 03:02 US/Eastern, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 08:37:07PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Old-Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That could of been forged.
Received: headers can be forged, too...
Sure, but I only followed through reasonably tr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
>> A good candidate would also be familiar with debian-legal's analysis
>> of the GFDL.
>
> This would only be the case if we had to prove that invariant sections are
> outside of the DFSG. I don't think we will have to argue about that,
> it's pretty obvio
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 02:54:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 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)
On Monday, Sep 29, 2003, at 21:11 US/Eastern, Thomas Bushnell, BSG
wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
That could of been forged.
Note to self: when forging Anthony DeRobertis, spell it "could of".
Damn it, he's caught on to my anti-forgery tricks! Now I'll have to get
Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let's say we have a barrel of oats with some chocolate sprinkles mixed
> in. Sifting through and removing all the chocolate sprinkles would be
> a lot of work. But knowing that there are some chocolate sprinkles in
> there (that no one ever worried
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 08:37:46AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Your thesis contains two contradictory points. Branden has responded
> > to one of them, citing the other, and pointed out the
> > contradiction. That is the entire point of his q
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) a tapoté :
>
> > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > If you want to criticize the FSF based on things you can imagine we
> > > might do, I am sure you can imagine no end of nasty possibilities.
>
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Your thesis contains two contradictory points. Branden has responded
> to one of them, citing the other, and pointed out the
> contradiction. That is the entire point of his question.
>
> The two points that are in conflict are:
>
> 1) These works we
On 2003-09-30 14:41:27 +0100 Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Да, Бранден, отличился :)
> Интересно, что бы ты делал, если большинство разработчиков Дебиана были
> русскими?
Very roughly, losing lots in translation: Yes, Branden, different. :) Would
you do that if most DDs were Ru
Branded wrote:
> I will both consent and interests of users and unoriginal. You
Да, Бранден, отличился :)
Интересно, что бы ты делал, если большинство разработчиков Дебиана были
русскими?
;)
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 11:01:33AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-09-30 05:25:50 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >This appears to be a variation on the "If we can't all be rich then we
> >should all be poor" idea, which I reject.
>
> It's not. It's the "level playing fiel
On 2003-09-30 05:25:50 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
This appears to be a variation on the "If we can't all be rich then we
should all be poor" idea, which I reject.
It's not. It's the "level playing field" idea.
Besides, I'm quite capable of finding ways to make fun of
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) a tapoté :
>
>> Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > If you want to criticize the FSF based on things you can imagine we
>> > might do, I am sure you can imagine no end of nasty possibilities.
>> >
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - Several persons of Debian stated on that list that they would drop
> any political text of GNU in GNU packages they may maintain.
Not "any political text" and not just "of GNU" nor just "in GNU
packages", but any non-free content in any packages,
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 08:37:07PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >>
> >
> >You don't even have to go through that much of a hassle.
> >
> >Old-Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> That could of been forged.
Received: headers can be forged, too...
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http:/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) a tapoté :
> Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If you want to criticize the FSF based on things you can imagine we
> > might do, I am sure you can imagine no end of nasty possibilities.
> > The only answer necessary to them is that they ar
50 matches
Mail list logo
