> Software developers *a chance* to evaluate this development tool
> and compare it to other tools available.
Thanks for mentioning Netbeans, Tom. This is exactly the application
I had in mind. I chose it over Eclipse for my Java development and
I'd like very much to be part of main so
> > Unless they upgrade the license of such software, I guess?
>
> Which would be relicensing and requires agreement from all contributors,
> as any other relicensing.
Exactly. But it should not be a problem for Sun products I'm thinking
about.
Thanks.
--
Jérôme Marant
Le vendredi 01 décembre 2006 18:44, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 12:03:46PM +0100, Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I watched Sun's Simon Phipps' talk at debconf 2006 few weeks ago.
> > It was mentioned
about the issue?
Thanks.
Regards,
--
Jérôme Marant
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
;s Zippy comics,
> without permission. There are so damn many of them that it
> worries me. (Unlike the other lists, which don't consist entirely
> of work by one author.) I'd remove it. Any other people want
> to weigh in?
[CRUFT]
> And the license-free graphics files. These probably have a better
> claim to be "part of emacs" and under the general license than the
> rest, because there's no place to put a separate license statement
> in these files.
>
> emacs.icon
> emacs.xbm
> gnu.xpm
> gnus-pointer.xbm
> gnus-pointer.xpm
> gnus.pbm
> gnus.xpm
> letter.xbm
> splash.pbm
> splash.xpm
> splash8.xpm
[MAIN] I think they are GPL.
Thanks!
--
Jérôme Marant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) writes:
> Files in the /etc directory of emacs21 which may be legally problematic
> follow.
Thank you very much. This is an impressive piece of work.
I'll take some time to read it cautiously and come back if
any question.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant
>> to get used to something that is non-free (and could even suddenly
>> become only available for a fee).
>> Savannah was born for this very reason...
>>
>> Other similar project-hosting services?
>> Any suggestions?
>
> https://www.gna.org/
Gna does not accept GPL v2 only projects either.
--
Jérôme Marant
permission of the author
>> from the Monday 19 January 1987 Boston Globe]
> with no license notice given, and authorization to reprint does not
> necessarily include authorization to modify.
I would not be surpised this one really lacks a proper license.
Thanks.
--
Jérôme Marant
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Jérôme Marant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>The following files have already been identified as offending:
>>etc/{CENSORSHIP,copying.paper,INTERVIEW,LINUX-GNU,THE-G
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Jérôme Marant:
>
>> Far away from flamewars and heated discussions, the Emacs maintainers
>> (Rob Browning and I) are in a process of moving non-free files to
>> a dedicated package.
>
> What about the Texinfo
been identified
(they are all located in /usr/share/emacs/21.4/etc), so a second
review would be welcome.
The following files have already been identified as offending:
etc/{CENSORSHIP,copying.paper,INTERVIEW,LINUX-GNU,THE-GNU-PROJECT,WHY-FREE}
Thanks in advance for your help.
--
Jérôme Marant
(Please respect MFT)
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 10:13:39PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > They are out of the scope of the DFSG. They are neither programs nor
> > documentation: they are speeches and articles which are logically
> > non modifiable without the consent of th
gt; DFSG-free -- is logically consistent but would require the removal of
> all remotely "artistic" or "polemical" works in the Debian archive.
At last, someone with some bits of common sense here!
Full Ack.
--
Jérôme Marant
on: they are speeches and articles which are logically
non modifiable without the consent of their author.
Whether they are around or not is irrelevant to the freeness of Emacs.
--
Jérôme Marant
nation: he changed his identity and address
in order to bypass killfiles.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant
like some words shall
never be used in jokes :-(
Thanks for reading.
Best Regards,
--
Jérôme Marant
ars that would result if we had to
> decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not Debian could permit
> and/or support various invariant screeds? I have a feeling l.d.o
> would simply explode!
Hey, non-software-related invariants would be rejected, at least. :-)
--
Jérôme Marant
Quoting Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be
> > acceptable (like Free Software advocacy), others not.
>
> My goodness. And we thought we
d as such. You shall not modify someone speech, you shall
> > > > not cut some part of someone's speech and tell everyone that you
> > > > wrote it, and so on.
> > > > There are limits everywhere in everyone's freedom.
> > >
> > > We shall not distribute it.
> >
> > This is an extreme vision of freedom I do not share.
>
> So Debian doesn't have the freedom to *not* distribute GNU manuals? This
> makes no sense.
This discussion was not about GFDL manuals.
--
Jérôme Marant
rôme can read correctly and is not stupid; maybe he
> said that on purpose, and wants the social contract to be changed.
I don't need a spokesman.
--
Jérôme Marant
n is a little bizarre.
>
> Your interpretation is:
> 100% of the Software in Debian will remain Free
> That's simply not a correct interpretation. However, I could understand if
> someone who was not fluent in English misinterpreted it that way.
I think you got it. It was too ambiguous for me. Thanks for the clarification.
I've been deceived.
--
Jérôme Marant
and bigots?
If you can make no difference between jokes and serious discussions,
then you have a real problem in your life. You're overreacting
and you always feel offended. I'm afraid, I can't do anything for
you.
Now, please stop reminding this joke whenever we want to discuss
seriou
Quoting Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 05:35:13PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Quoting Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said:
> >
t software documentation and shall not be
> > considered as such. You shall not modify someone speech, you shall
> > not cut some part of someone's speech and tell everyone that you
> > wrote it, and so on.
> > There are limits everywhere in everyone's freedom.
>
> We shall not distribute it.
This is an extreme vision of freedom I do not share.
--
Jérôme Marant
Quoting Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said:
^^^
Considering your attitude, I'm not going to discuss this with you
any longer.
--
Jérôme Marant
everywhere in everyone's freedom.
> >
> > No, qmail is non-free software and would not go into Debian.
>
> Considering we HAVE to include these non-free components, then neither is
> emacs free.
Again, keeping those files in Emacs doesn't make Debian less free, because
they neither programs nor documentation so out of the scope of DFSG.
--
Jérôme Marant
Quoting Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 03:18, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Quoting Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > > etc/emacs.1:under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License,
> Version
> > > 1.1
&
t documentation is part of software now).
Removing such files won't make Debian more free, IMO.
--
Jérôme Marant
-) This might well satisfy the FSF's
> interests with respect to print publishers, who will most likely prefer
> the GFDL terms to the GPL terms.
One thing we are sure about, is that, according to RMS, FSF is aware
of the GPL compatibility problem and is going to work this out, as soon
as it gets enough manpower.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant
;re at it, ask the DD to byte-compile the files like most all
> other elisp packages do! :-)
OK.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant
En réponse à Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Since Emacsen are GPL-licensed, do Emacs modes have to be shipped
> > under a GPL-compatible license?
>
> Pretty much. It is possible to write stand-alo
Hi,
Since Emacsen are GPL-licensed, do Emacs modes have to be shipped
under a GPL-compatible license? I discovered one of them which
could be problematic.
Thanks.
--
Jérôme Marant
En réponse à Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 09:37:31AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > What is the best way to convince GNU people to change their
> licenses?
> > (without being pissed of, that is).
>
> I'm not sure "GNU
, does the GNU manifesto as invariant section hurt?
>
> I say yes. I don't want to have to put it into my (hypothetical)
> context-sensitive help file for emacs, which consists of extracts from
Sure. I understand.
--
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://marant.org
hat GCC people are doing or going to do? Are you going to try
and convince the FSF or are you going to rebel?
--
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://marant.org
work on the GCC manual right now if it weren't for its
> obnoxious licence. And anyone can quote me on that. :-)
It's time for you to start a new manual, isn't it? :-)
--
Jérôme Marant
it anyway, so are you okay? No, because you used a mechanism
> to effectively get around (circumvent) the license requirements.
>
> Even if it were allowed, forcing that on developers makes it non-free.
OK Thanks.
--
Jérôme Marant
En réponse à Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Again, moving a program to non-free will motivate people to
> > write a free equivalent.
(I've been asked politely not to raise this argument again :-)
> Actually, moving a program to non-free ha
obviously wouldn't include the GNU manifesto along with my short
> excerpts. But I'm not a vilain. So if I redistributed the manual, I'd
> leave it intact and the manifesto would stay in. It would be common
> sense rather than being forced-to in compliance with the license.
Yes, clearly.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
Thu, 15 May 2003 16:21:48 -0400
A syntax error was detected in the content of the message
The MTS-ID of the original message is:
c=ca;a=govmt.canada;p=gc+dfo.mpo;l=MSGNAT070305152019K8XM3AZ4
MSEXCH:MSExchangeMTA:XLAU:MSGLAUQUES01
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
that.
>
> If it is part of Emacs, then the whole thing cannot be distributed
> even in non-free. The GFDL is very incompatible with the GPL.
This is a better reason.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant
ough
> that
> hoop. For another, that would likely knowingly circumventing the
> license.
I did not understand your explaination (English speaking issue I guess).
--
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://marant.org
edestal out
> of
> > > the reach of software. What happens if I want to merge this
> > > documentation into software?
> >
> > I don't know. How do software licenses deal with such a case?
>
> I don't understand the question. Such a case of merging software into
> other software? Well, the GPL allows that in GPL-compatible derived
> works _without_ including invariant bits of code.
No, code + documentation.
--
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://marant.org
En réponse à Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > No you don't care: you don't use Emacs.
>
> I do. I even code for it. I use the manuals all the time, and I'm
> bothered by the hypocrisy of it.
Peter, as a GNU Emacs user, I know this. This was no
rsonally consider them seperate works which we aggregate and
> distribute together, but the FSF takes a pretty wide interpretation of
> "linking", so I could be in the minority.
>
>> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > That's insane.
>
>
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > Documentation relating to software needs to be really free, in order
>> > that we can manipulate it in far more interesting ways (such as
>> > refcarding it
En réponse à Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, 13 May 2003, [iso-8859-15] Jérôme Marant wrote:
>
> > > 1) Are works under the GFDL with invariant sections free?
> >
> > It depends on 2) If documentation is software then no.
>
> It also d
another? (Either by restrictions on use,
> restrictions on modification, restrictions on storage, or what have
You've listed some interesting kinds of restrictions.
Maybe some would be acceptable for documentation under certain
circumstances, out of DFSG of course.
--
Jérôme Marant
otivate people to
write a free equivalent. But I can bet such thing is unlikely
to often happen with documentation. David Harris and friends
will never ever write a hundreds pages documentation only
because the equivalent is not free.
--
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://marant.org
ED]
>> No you don't care: you don't use Emacs.
>
> Excuse me? I use it regularly. It's not my regular editor though, and I
> constantly consult the on-line docs. So arguably it could affect me more
> than it affects a seasoned user.
I should never believe what people say on IRC.
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
license wasn't free. I'm dealing with guides (hundreds
of pages), not 5 pages HOWTOs or such.
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
otherwise don't bother with it).
Why bother uploading to main an outdated manual that noone will use?
Do you really think that people will not have to pick it from
non-free. I doubt it.
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
ht?
It seems obvious to you that documentation is software. It is not
to me. Simply.
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
Debian?
5) and 6) are interesting questions. This wouldn't be fair of course :-)
> 7) should Debian leave useful stuff in the main archive even if it is
> later determined to be non-free?
Of course not :-)
> On Tue, 13 May 2003, [iso-8859-15] Jérôme Marant wrote:
>> Coul
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >He believes his invariant sections are an important soapbox for his free
>> >software philosophies. In an apparent contradiction, he feels it's a
>> >
is whether the GNU Emacs documentation is covered by
> a non-Free license or a Free license.
No you don't care: you don't use Emacs.
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
wait.
>
> Maybe I don't agree.
Well, all your examples deal with coding activities so you didn't
give any proper counter-example.
I'm still waiting for one.
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 13 May 2003 09:52:16 +0200 (CEST)
> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm talking about documentation which comes with free software from
>> GNU. You deliberately removed the last part of my message,
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> En réponse à MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> > =?iso-8859-15?q?J=E9r=F4me?= Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > As long as I am a G
say it does, some other say it doesn't.
We need to make a decision about this ASAP otherwise we're going
to everlasting discussions.
--
Jérôme Marant
omplaining to the wrong people, I think. Fix the licence,
> not the social contract.
After reading RMS's reply, it seems not really possible to me.
But then, if we're seeking for enemies, I believe they
are not on GNU side ...
--
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://marant.org
En réponse à James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes:
>
> > As long as I am a GNU Emacs user, I object to see the Emacs manual
> > going to non-free. Currently, it is provided by the emacs package
> > and I'm able to read
the documentation in a Free manner.
I'm not asking Debian to include components in main. Those components
are already in main. I'm asking to keep in main GNU documentations.
RMS himself gave no hope to a near modification of the GNU FDL.
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
ee any benefit of moving
it elsewhere.
I'm not in favour of applying such treatments to GNU documentation
because GNU people will probably never act an evil way with their
invariant sections.
I know that everyone should be considered equally but I'm convinced
that the evil will not com
t believe the former. I do believe the latter.
Can a manifesto be considered as documentation? And more
generaly, what about verbatiml texts?
--
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://marant.org
share/doc/emacs, eg).
Other packages yes, but not built from the same source I guess ...
However, I cannot imagine the GNU manifesto in non-free :-P
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
hould we remove them from the pistine tarball?
Do we have to work out the problem with RMS?
Or can we live with it? After all, we've been shipping them for years
and they're unlikely to be modified ...
The most important would probably be to find a concensus about
such files in Debian.
Chee
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes:
>> take some time to deal with, but it's not remotely difficult.
>
> How should we proceed? Should we contact RMS directly?
> Should a RC bug be opened? Note that we've been shipping theses
> files for quite a while now.
t;GFDL is not DFSG-compliant" discussion.
> take some time to deal with, but it's not remotely difficult.
How should we proceed? Should we contact RMS directly?
Should a RC bug be opened? Note that we've been shipping theses
files for quite a while now.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
#x27;s essays.
If you think so, we're going to have a hard time dealing with this
then.
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
people think of this?
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
sophy/license-list.html
>
> and many press releases covering the incident where Qt
> was released under GPL/QPL dual-license.
No need to worry about this.
The whole OCaml runtime is LGPL (with one exception) that make it
possible to ship GPL'ed OCaml binaries.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
his package that the license was GPL but I couldn't
find any copyright notice in both the upstream tarball and the
website. I simply refused to upload any package until I got the
copyright notice within the upstream tarball.
--
Jérôme Marant
y have to make the note publicaly available before the
package is put together, because one must be able to check the license
conditions without having to download the package. Where/when do they
intend to make the note available?
--
Jérôme Marant
ce of the debian package is related to what has
been downloaded isn't? No matter the printed version has the notice
or not.
> Anyway I will suggest O'Reilly to add these copyright notes also to the
> web site.
This is a must-be IMHO.
--
Jérôme Marant
e present in the
> debian package of the book.
I think that this note must be located within the book and at the
download location as well, since it must not be specific to
the debian package.
--
Jérôme Marant
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Previously J?r?me Marant wrote:
> > IIRC, Debian does not provide patented software (no MP3 encoder,
> > no DeCSS, etc).
>
> We do. Look at gif handling code for example.
I forgot about gif. Do you have any other e
> haven't seen anything on it, so here goes:
>
> Why not split non-US into "crypto" and "patents"? The reason being:
IIRC, Debian does not provide patented software (no MP3 encoder,
no DeCSS, etc).
So, I don't know what you want to split.
--
Jé
When looking at the opensource.org page, I discovered that the Vovida
Licence (http://www.vovida.org/licence.html) is considered as
OSD compliant.
However, the fourth clause tells that
"4. Products derived from this software may not be called "VOCAL", nor
may "VOCAL" appear in their name, wit
Hi,
I noticed that the package libapache-mod-fastcgi mysteriously disappeared
from the archive but still referenced at packages.d.o. I guess this comes
from its licence.
Why is this licence considered as non-free? Thanks.
This FastCGI application library source and object code (the
"S
Hi,
I'm wondering whether the Erlang Public Licence and the GPL
are compatible. The EPL is a Mozilla PL derivative and
the MPL is incompatible with the GPL, so I fear about the
EPL status.
Can anyone confirm ?
Thanks.
--
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://jerome.marant.free
Hi,
Imagine that I take the latest stable debian distribution as it
is and that I decide to improve it with modifying boot floppies,
adding new install procedures and creating new tools (for instance
administration tools). Everything developed DFSG-compliant of course and all
developments offe
82 matches
Mail list logo
