MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2003-09-24 23:12:06 +0100 Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Software" is a controversial word in English.
>
> "Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the
> automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes." -
On 2003-09-30 02:13:23 +0100 Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe that a "no" answer to
"Is an MP3 file software?" implies that the respondent's primary
definition of software is not "anything made of bits".
I think you are extrapolating too far from that little data.
The main poi
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 13:13, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> "Software" is not a controversial word in English (roughly inverse of
> >> "hardware" in one sense). Some people advocate a bizarre definition of
> >> it in order to further their agenda. If you're
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think
> > it needs to be possible to use text from manuals in a program.
> > A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals.
>
> And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as
>
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We want to have freedom over what we distribute in "binary" packages.
> We are willing to tolerate noxious restrictions like the TeX ones only
> because they do not impact what we can distribute in the binary
> package: they only restr
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2003-09-24 23:12:06 +0100 Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Software" is a controversial word in English.
>
> "Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the
> automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes." --
> M
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 03:23:06AM +0900, Fedor Zuev brabbled:
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >> 8)Is Debian logo written on [cover of] the same CD-ROM software or
> >> hardware?
>
> >No. Is it in Debian?
>
> So, your definition of "software" is heavily
> Debian-specific. E
On 2003-09-29 18:03:09 +0100 Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, your new, corrected, definition of "software" [...]
Wrong. My preferred definition of software has been close to Tukey's
first use in print for quite some time. Designs of hardware held on
computer hardware are
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Fedor Zuev wrote:
>>Maybe neither, both or firmware. I don't really know what you mean.
>
> Is DFSG extends to cases when program distributed deep inside a
> consumer electronics (like a clocks, telephones, VCR, etc.)?
If we start distributing clocks (xclock), telephones
(as
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> First, try to answer to several simply questions.
>If you do likewise.
>> 0) Is printed Emacs Manual in bookstore a software or hardware?
>No. Is it in Debian?
>> 1) Is Emacs Manual recorded on CD-Audio a software or hardware?
>No. Is it in Debia
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
>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 f
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 01:16:12PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> There is certainly a significant group within Debian that would ilke
> to see non-free get axed. We'll find out how large soon enough; I
> would be surprised if the question has not been resolved by the end of
> the year.
As someon
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You have previously suggested we should consider whether documentation
> is free, based on the four basic freedoms as specified on
> http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/ . That includes 'the freedom to run the
> program, for any purpose'. Si
Op vr 26-09-2003, om 09:04 schreef Fedor Zuev:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Roland Mas wrote:
> >> "In the Debian Project, 'software' means anything that is not
> >> hardware. It does not mean just computer programs."
>
> >Seconded.
>
> First, try to answer to several simply questions.
If you do likew
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 03:04, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> First, try to answer to several simply questions.
First, let me note that I speak only for myself here, and I have a very
liberal use of the term 'software.' In the Social Contract, a more
conservative one is used, where we'd only consider it softw
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
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
>> >
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
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
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
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Roland Mas wrote:
>Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet, 2003-09-22 20:40:07 +0200 :
>> Given the amount of discussion this topic has started, perhaps
>> it might be a good idea to do it anyway, if only to reduce
>> the confusion for those who are not native speakers of English.
>>
>>
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 some more before bringing it to the
list, but the situation har
From: Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> As a matter of principle, the RMS and, I assume, the FSF want
> invariant sections.
Actually, I am not convinced that FSF _as_an_organization_ wants
invariant sections. It appears so far that when they are coupled to
_software_documentation_ that the
Richard Stallman wrote:
I don't think
> it needs to be possible to use text from manuals in a program.
> A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals.
And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as
text editors -- not as manuals o
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 asking
to refer to this definition.
ITYM "implicitl
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
>
>> Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> "Software" is not a controversial word in English (roughly inverse of
>> >> "hardware" in one sense). Some people advocate a bizarre definition of
>> >> i
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 09:58:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 03:45:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I'm not saying there should never be non-free stuff--only that the
> > DFSG manuals are not free.
>
> (Because they fail the GFDL, of course.)
/me does a doub
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
> Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> "Software" is not a controversial word in English (roughly inverse of
> >> "hardware" in one sense). Some people advocate a bizarre definition of
> >> it in order to further their agenda. If you're goi
Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Software" is not a controversial word in English (roughly inverse of
>> "hardware" in one sense). Some people advocate a bizarre definition of
>> it in order to further their agenda. If you're going to define common
>> words just because someone objects t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> I am not saying that the DFSG is evil, just that it isn't free (and
> our logos aren't either), and therefore can't be in a free OS (and so
> also our logos can't).
Of course I meant "GFDL" where I said "DFSG". Sorry for the
confusion.
On 2003-09-24 23:12:06 +0100 Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Software" is a controversial word in English.
"Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the
automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes." --
Monty Python's Flying Circus.
In an informal
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 03:45:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > My girlfriend photography sitting on my computer is not free
> > software. That's not something I think important to be shared.
>
> And it can't be part of Debian as long as it's not free.
>
> I'm not saying there should
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Everything in Debian is software; the "official logo" is not free, and
> therefore is not in Debian.
>
> Fortunately it is not necessary for me to understand this.
Many things are on Debian servers which are not part of the Debian
system. T
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This has been explained to you enough times that your attempt to
> pretend it hasn't can no longer be attributed to ignorance.
>
> I am not pretending anything--I consider the issue a red herring. So
> I have addressed the issues I think are
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't agree that the latter is the important question. I think the
> former is the question that matters. I am not sure if the GFDL is a
> free software license, but I don't think the question matters.
When people said the GFDL is incompatible wi
Everything in Debian is software; the "official logo" is not free, and
therefore is not in Debian.
Fortunately it is not necessary for me to understand this.
We want to have freedom over what we distribute in "binary" packages.
We are willing to tolerate noxious restrictions like the TeX ones only
because they do not impact what we can distribute in the binary
package: they only restrict the hoops that the source package must go
thro
You have previously suggested we should consider whether documentation
is free, based on the four basic freedoms as specified on
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/ . That includes 'the freedom to run the
program, for any purpose'. Since a manual can't be run, I'll interpret
that as
I don't think
> it needs to be possible to use text from manuals in a program.
> A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals.
And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as
text editors -- not as manuals or tetris games or news-rea
I am seeing a persistent pattern where you accuse me of dishonesty
based on little except supposition. Here are several examples from
the mail I received last night.
> Thomas Bushnell proposed another interpretation, in which certain
> things that are included in the Debian package files
> I don't think that section titles are a problem--it would not be
> hard to put them in a program. But it is true that you cannot take
> text from a GFDL-covered manual and put it into most free programs.
> This is because the GFDL is incompatible with the normal free
> softwa
> "Software" is not a controversial word in English (roughly inverse of
> "hardware" in one sense). Some people advocate a bizarre definition of
> it in order to further their agenda. If you're going to define common
> words just because someone objects to the normal meaning being used,
> you'll g
On 2003-09-23 20:20:41 +0100 Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
It is also known that undesirable stunts limiting freedom, such as
Invariant sections, are allowed under the FSF's definition of "free".
FSF do not claim that FDL-covered works are free software, use a
particular odd
Do you have numbers to back the claim that it is more widespread? I
thought only English had the free/free ambiguity enough to create a
market for the more ambiguous term "open source".
Most of the computer-using world uses English, and the English-language
press is most influential
But what if an Invariant Section was the only part of the document that
fell foul of the law?
I guess nobody could distribute that version, so it might be
non-free.
However, all free software and free documentation licenses share this
problem. You could simply add code for a DeCSS progr
RMS wrote:
> A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals.
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as
>text editors -- not as manuals or tetris games or news-readers or web
>browsers?
This is absolutely a *critical* point.
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 20:13, MJ Ray wrote:
> That is intersection, not equation. It is known that undesirable
> stunts limiting freedom, such as software patents, are allowed under
> most definitions of "open source".
>
It is also known that undesirable stunts limiting freedom, such as
Invaria
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>The DFSG lists three specific licenses that are meant to satisfy its
> >>criteria. Nowadays some Debian developers tend to say that these
> >>three licenses are list
On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 20:44, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 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 Englis
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The DFSG lists three specific licenses that are meant to satisfy its
criteria. Nowadays some Debian developers tend to say that these
three licenses are listed as exceptions to the rules of the DFSG, but
I think that is
* Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030923 08:51]:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> > Now, then next question is very clear for debian-legal: The Social
> > Contract (and the DFSG) say that all software in Debian must be 100%
> > free. So, the answer for Debian is: Every software.
>
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 03:46:53PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > No. "Software" is a collective noun, like "information" or "stuff".
>
> No, "software" is a mass noun, like "information" or "stuff".
>
> A collective noun is a word like "com
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think
> > it needs to be possible to use text from manuals in a program.
> > A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals.
>
> And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as
> t
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 c
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Many free documentation licenses won't permit use of the text in
> GPL-covered free programs, and practically speaking, this means I
> can't use them in any of the programs I might want to use them in.
> Whether the manual's text could be used in a fr
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell proposed another interpretation, in which certain
> things that are included in the Debian package files are not "part of
> Debian" for this purpose. That way, you don't have to apply the DFSG
> to them.
No, I did not, and you know i
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. But it is true that you cannot take
> text from a GFDL-covered manual and put it into most free programs.
> This is because the GFDL is incompatible wit
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 08:32:55PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > But Debian contains essays, logos, and licenses that cannot be
> > > modified. These are not programs; are they software
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
> hand
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 speake
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My girlfriend photography sitting on my computer is not free
> software. That's not something I think important to be shared.
And it can't be part of Debian as long as it's not free.
I'm not saying there should never be non-free stuff--only that the
DF
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The Debian project is dedicated to the Debian OS. Without this
> "collection of software", the Debian project is purposeless.
>
> If the Debian project does not follow the rules that the Debian
> project wrote itself for the Debian OS, the Debian project
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet, 2003-09-22 20:40:07 +0200 :
> Given the amount of discussion this topic has started, perhaps
> it might be a good idea to do it anyway, if only to reduce
> the confusion for those who are not native speakers of English.
>
> "In the Debian Project, 'software' means anyth
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 08:08:59AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> I still did not get the point. Many many people seems to enjoy Britney
> Spears.
Only with the sound off...
--
G. Branden Robinson|I've made up my mind. Don't try to
Debian GNU/Linux |confus
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> > > Something can be popular and also completely wrong.
> >
> > If you would have read the thread, or my opinions on 'open source'
> > versus 'free software' (consider this an exercise in Googling), you
> >
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> >
> > I still did not get the point. Many many people seems to enjoy Britney
> > Spears. Does it mean that Britney Spears is wonderful?
>
> Musical (or other) tastes are almost entirely matters of opinion.
Correct.
> >
> > Many people in France th
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 01:08, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>
> > On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 14:13, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > On 2003-09-23 00:45:52 +0100 Andrew Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > [2] Okay, this was just an extreme example. However: since I
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 14:13, MJ Ray wrote:
> > On 2003-09-23 00:45:52 +0100 Andrew Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > [2] Okay, this was just an extreme example. However: since I
> > > personally
> > > believe that, Invariant sections or
On 2003-09-23 20:55:20 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22free+software%22 - 4,840,000 hits.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22open+source%22 - 7,210,000 hits.
Distortions here include choice of language, importing of "open
source" compared to tran
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 14:13, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-09-23 00:45:52 +0100 Andrew Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > [2] Okay, this was just an extreme example. However: since I
> > personally
> > believe that, Invariant sections or no, the term "Open Source" will
> > *still* be more widesp
On 2003-09-23 00:45:52 +0100 Andrew Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[2] Okay, this was just an extreme example. However: since I
personally
believe that, Invariant sections or no, the term "Open Source" will
*still* be more widespread,
Do you have numbers to back the claim that it is more
Op ma 22-09-2003, om 16:58 schreef 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 impossibl
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> * 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.
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> 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:
Etienne Gagnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> 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 tra
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 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
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
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
>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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
1 - 100 of 870 matches
Mail list logo
