On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 11:28:25AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If you want to say that a particular judgement can have both moral and
> technical aspects, that's fine; but saying that any judgement which
> has moral aspects can never be justified by technical means is false,
> and claiming that
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 12:44:12PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:51:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > Note that you do _not_ get to assume "privacy is good and moral and a
> > > > right of both individuals and corporations". Justify it in other terms,
> > > Why? Mo
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:51:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Note that you do _not_ get to assume "privacy is good and moral and a
> > > right of both individuals and corporations". Justify it in other terms,
> > Why? Moral judgements can never be justified ex nihil.
>
> Nonsense. I can j
Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 07:45:36PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > If anyone had claimed such any kind of distribution
> > in this area some years ago, I'd taken it for a good joke[1].
> [...]
> > [1] compareable to a cat /bin/clear on a Solaris of the right version.
>
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 07:45:36PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> If anyone had claimed such any kind of distribution
> in this area some years ago, I'd taken it for a good joke[1].
[...]
> [1] compareable to a cat /bin/clear on a Solaris of the right version.
I presume this was like Solaris's /
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 05:05 AM, Anthony Towns wrote:
Giving away
CDs at tradeshows that don't include source comes under 3(b). I suppose
you could arrange to give everyone both binary and source CDs, then ask
them to give the latter back to you.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.
* Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030312 18:53]:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> So they take
> commonly available Free software packages and stick them behind a web
> interface. Gcc, tetex, emacs, etc. They lock them down so that no
> one can access the filesystem of the
Jeremy Hankins said:
> Imagine a world with omnipresent connectivity, and a lot of copylefted
> software. Someone decides that they could make the browser into a
> platform (remember Netscape & the MS antitrust trial). So they take
> commonly available Free software packages and stick them behind
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 06:44, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030311 00:46]:
> > Because the four freedoms do talk about freedom to use the software, but
> > don't say anthing about the freedom to *not* disclose source code under
> > certain conditions.
>
> I may not t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Jeremy Hankins hasn't explained well enough for me why in that
> future we would be unable to make the kinds of free software we have
> now.
Ah, I wasn't aware of that. I'll see if I can flesh it out a bit for
you.
Imagine a world with omnipres
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:58:59PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 09:16:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Note Barak Perlmutter's newly proposed "tentacles of evil" test:
> >3. The Tentacles of Evil test.
> > [...] The license cannot allow
> > even t
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:14:44PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> Thomas, I'm responding to your questions, but I'm actually directing my
> response to Branden Robinson, since I don't know your position on his
> DFSG-interpretation proposal.
>
> Branden, if the FSF's four freedoms are the consitutio
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:44:15PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> Even http://www.fsf.org/philosophiy/free-sw.html, where the four
> freedoms are written, talks about:
> #You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
> #privately in your own work or play, without even mentio
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:02:06PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:15:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Anthony Towns writes:
> > > > Consider Frank the lawyer who takes some nice source code from a GPLed
> > > > project, and a
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:00:38PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > Because it's not onerous if someone else covers your costs. In the same
> > way "You must give me your sources at cost if you give me your binaries"
> > isn't onerous.
> It has been pointed out that t
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, I think we have to go back to looking at which restrictions we
> allow. For instance, we allow the GPL's section 4, which prohibits
> certain people (on account of their past actions) from copying,
> modifying, or distributing GPL'd software. Why?
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 00:10, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Because the four freedoms do talk about freedom to use the software, but
> > don't say anthing about the freedom to *not* disclose source code under
> > certain conditions.
>
> Why is this di
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 14:51, Stephen Ryan wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > I find this an acceptable compromise. The GPL already implements
> > something very close to this: if you give someone a copy, they're able
> > to pass it on to a third party who in some c
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 00:16, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 08:04, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > > Sure. Compare this to some code using the GPL; same sort of information,
> > > > same problem with it: their trade secrets are woven
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:33, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 08:04, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > > In that case you can simply choose to distribute the program only to
> > > people you trust. You can't do this if the license carries an
>
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 00:11, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 16:00, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > Arguments about practicality, that this makes doing legitimate things
> > > > harder
> > > > or impossibl
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:15:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> > > Consider Frank the lawyer who takes some nice source code from a GPLed
> > > project, and adds some code his friend was telling him under NDA. He
> > > puts it up on the
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 09:15:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Sample onerous conditions:
> > 1) Pay money.
> > 2) Send your changes back always.
> > 3) Pay money on request.
>
> "I'm broke and on a desert island, I can't do any of these."
>
> > 4) Send your c
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I find this an acceptable compromise. The GPL already implements
> something very close to this: if you give someone a copy, they're able
> to pass it on to a third party who in some cases then has grounds for
> demanding source from the autho
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Sniffen (who secretely wants to write proprietary software)
>
> I think you just lost your credibility in this discussion.
Absolutely: I'm extremely public about it. I want to write
proprietary software. I insist on the integrity and privacy of my
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 06:41:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:27:44PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> > > Basically, as far as I can see, the dissident test is exactly equivalent
> > > to saying "we don't want to close this ASP loophole thing"
Scripsit David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 08:04, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > In that case you can simply choose to distribute the program only to
> > people you trust. You can't do this if the license carries an
> > obligation to distribute to a fixed third party, too.
> In
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 03:46:57PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> As I said: existing mechanisms of licensing Free Software (e.g. GNU
>> GPL and MIT/X11) provide an impetus for improvement. A
>> compulsory-sharing license, as might bring us closer to
* David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030311 00:46]:
> Because the four freedoms do talk about freedom to use the software, but
> don't say anthing about the freedom to *not* disclose source code under
> certain conditions.
I may not talk about freedom, but it talks about:
* The freedom to study how
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 11:46:03AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Actually, I think the GPL would have serious problems if it didn't have
> 3(a). Having to keep the source around for three years would be a
> significant burden. What keeps the GPL free is that you have the option
> to offer sour
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 06:31:05PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 09:15:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > We already reject (1), (2), and (3). Why is (4) suddenly not rejected
> > as onerous?
>
> Because it's not onerous if someone else covers your costs. In the
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:27:44PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > Basically, as far as I can see, the dissident test is exactly equivalent
> > to saying "we don't want to close this ASP loophole thing".
> I don't think this is true, if you accept the substitution of users
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 09:15:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sample onerous conditions:
> 1) Pay money.
> 2) Send your changes back always.
> 3) Pay money on request.
"I'm broke and on a desert island, I can't do any of these."
> 4) Send your changes back on request.
"I'm broke and on
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:59:19PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 18:18, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > In the dissident case, we're trying to protect the people from having to
> > reveal their changes to the government they're protesting. But this just
> > doesn't make any real sense
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:15:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > Consider Frank the lawyer who takes some nice source code from a GPLed
> > project, and adds some code his friend was telling him under NDA. He
> > puts it up on the web, and suddenly gets demands for
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 01:00:29PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Arguments about practicality, that this makes doing legitimate things harder
> > or impossible in some situations for purely technical reasons (the stranded
> > on an island test does this), are valid, but I
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 09:16:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Note Barak Perlmutter's newly proposed "tentacles of evil" test:
>3. The Tentacles of Evil test.
> [...] The license cannot allow
> even the author to take away the required freedoms!
The license doesn't have t
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:08:58PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Anthony Towns
> > "it's about privacy, it's about the freedom to keep things private,
> > it's about not fundamental rights" 'til you're blue in the face, and
> > even though every word of it's completely true, it's *not r
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 08:04, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > Sure. Compare this to some code using the GPL; same sort of information,
> > > same problem with it: their trade secrets are woven into the functionality
> > > of the code itself.
> >
> > In that
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But in order that users may evade the government's laws, Free Software
> must allow certain freedoms (although Thomas Bushnell and I may disagree
> on what they are).
>
> But the dissident test require licenses to allow every possible tactic
> for evad
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 16:00, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Arguments about practicality, that this makes doing legitimate things
> > > harder
> > > or impossible in some situations for purely technical reasons (the
> > > stranded
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because the four freedoms do talk about freedom to use the software, but
> don't say anthing about the freedom to *not* disclose source code under
> certain conditions.
Why is this different from:
"Because the four freedoms do talk about freedom to use
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 08:04, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Sure. Compare this to some code using the GPL; same sort of information,
> > same problem with it: their trade secrets are woven into the functionality
> > of the code itself.
>
> In that case you can simply choose to distribute the program o
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 16:00, Walter Landry wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Arguments about practicality, that this makes doing legitimate things harder
> > or impossible in some situations for purely technical reasons (the stranded
> > on an island test does this), are valid, but I haven't reall
Thomas, I'm responding to your questions, but I'm actually directing my
response to Branden Robinson, since I don't know your position on his
DFSG-interpretation proposal.
Branden, if the FSF's four freedoms are the consitution to DFSG's case
law, they have a lot in common with the US constitution
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 18:18, Anthony Towns wrote:
> In the dissident case, we're trying to protect the people from having to
> reveal their changes to the government they're protesting. But this just
> doesn't make any real sense: the code they're hacking on is the least of
> their worries - it's t
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For me, _The Transparent Society_ might more closely resemble a
> dystopian novel than a utopian one.
Perhaps Yevgeny Zamyatin's "We", wherein the perfect number-citizens
of a future totalitarian world-state live in apartment blocks with
completely
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 07:46:18PM -0700, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> I've edited that nascent DFSG FAQ and put it at
>
> http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
>
> I'd appreciate comments. Especially from the OSD/DFSG "WE MUST UNIFY"
> folks, who might perhaps be able to use some of this
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 10:42:18PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
> > > Q: What about licenses that grant different rights to different groups?
> > > Isn't that discrimination, banned by DFSG#5/6?
> > > A: For Debian's purposes, if all the different groups can exercise their
> > > DFSG rights,
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:39:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 10:53:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Fred wants to use a popular free software package which almost does
> > just the job: QNU Madlibs. But QNU Madlibs is distributed under the
> > QPL. What the
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 03:46:57PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> As I said: existing mechanisms of licensing Free Software (e.g. GNU
> GPL and MIT/X11) provide an impetus for improvement. A
> compulsory-sharing license, as might bring us closer to BrinWorld,
> removes much of the financial ince
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:25:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[ more good argument snipped]
> Even if there were *no* legal limitations of any kind on the copying
> and modification of any software, there would *still* be no way to
> give that liberty to users, since (when user and posses
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Arguments about practicality, that this makes doing legitimate things harder
> or impossible in some situations for purely technical reasons (the stranded
> on an island test does this), are valid, but I haven't really seen any.
What about an ATM machine? If the ATM machin
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 01:37:54PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> >> * There's less incentive to develop new changes: unless you can afford
>> >> a stable of developers large enough to deploy new features faster
>> >> than your competitors can cop
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it users of programs or owners of copies of programs that should
> have freedom? As far as I can see the answer is clearly users.
> Currently those two groups are roughly the same, and the second group
> is *much* easier to draw a line around. So w
Anthony Towns writes:
> Yes, it does: it's quite possible to write code in such a way that when
> compiled, it's near impossible to work out exactly what's going. There's
> a whole swath of research on obfuscation. The GPL says "well, sure,
> go ahead, but you have to include the source code anyw
"Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't quite understand how you get this from the GPL.
>
> (Assumption: you give binaries to Y, but only a written offer for source,
> since it's "your secret". You'll give them to Y if they ask for them)
>
> The "offer to any third party" in Clause 3
Anthony Towns writes:
> Fred's pretty silly for not having looked into this in the first place.
> Especially being a lawyer.
That's not the point. The point is that demanding disclosure is like
demanding payment: it's NOT FREE. The point is not that Fred is
trapped; it's that he *would* be tra
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 01:37:54PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> >> * There's less incentive to develop new changes: unless you can afford
> >> a stable of developers large enough to deploy new features faster
> >> than your competitors can copy them, you gain no competitive
> >> advantage
Anthony Towns writes:
> This detailed wrangling is really missing the point that I'm interested
> in, though. Is there a _fundamental_ difficulty with such licenses?
Is it users of programs or owners of copies of programs that should
have freedom? As far as I can see the answer is clearly users
Thomas Bushnell, BSG said:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
>> Sure. Compare this to some code using the GPL; same sort of
>> information, same problem with it: their trade secrets are woven into
>> the functionality of the code itself. If one of your customers is a
>> competitor, or a competitor buys ou
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:23:26AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> * There's less incentive to develop new changes: unless you can afford
>> a stable of developers large enough to deploy new features faster
>> than your competitors can copy them, y
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:23:26AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> > Convince me that in this imperfect world, as we try to make things
> > more transparent, and give people more control and access over the
> > software that affects them, that being able to get access to the
> > sourcecode for www
Anthony Towns writes:
> It certainly does force you to share your secrets. It forces you to share
> your secrets only with your customers, though.
I don't believe this is the case: I have code which is a proprietary
typesetting package based on GPL'd works. My customers give me paper
and I give
Scripsit Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Were you to say that the teachers may only take the software under the terms
> of the BSD license, and that everyone else may only take it under the terms
> of the GPL, then I don't believe we would have such a clear consensus.
> It would make me uneas
Scripsit Anthony Towns
> It certainly does force you to share your secrets. It forces you to share
> your secrets only with your customers, though.
Nonsense. It is perfectly possible to use a modified GPLed program
internally and never tell one's customers about it.
> That's great, Thomas, but
Scripsit Anthony Towns
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 10:19:16PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I believe that there IS a fundamental difficulty with such licenses.
> > Consider the case where a company's modifications encode certain business
> > logic details. =20
> This doesn't make something mor
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
> "If you have created a modified version of the Work, and receive
>a request by the Primary Copyright Holder, you must provide
>a copy of your modifications as at the date of the request in
>source form, at cost, to the Primar
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 10:53:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Consider Fred the Lawyer. [...]
> He'll write a computer program, tailored specially for Joe's Sheet Rock;
> Joe can then input the details of the particular arrangement, [...]
> Fred wants to use a popular free software pac
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 09:48:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > Sure. Compare this to some code using the GPL; same sort of information,
> > same problem with it: their trade secrets are woven into the functionality
> > of the code itself. If one of your customers
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think it would cause a problem with the majority of people who
> are using or modifying Free Software, as (I would imagine) most of
> them don't have anything to hide... but to someone who does?
I thought of a scenario, which seems entirely plau
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Is there a _fundamental_ difficulty with such licenses?
I'm beginning to think that there is, as it restricts the use that an
individual can put a given bit of source to in his or her own home.
> First, does that cause any problems for Debian?
I don't
Anthony Towns writes:
> Sure. Compare this to some code using the GPL; same sort of information,
> same problem with it: their trade secrets are woven into the functionality
> of the code itself. If one of your customers is a competitor, or a
> competitor buys out a user, any requirement to distr
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 10:19:16PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Does it make it anything you might want to do with free software
> > technically any more difficult? I don't think so -- you have to be asked
> > by the original author, and they have to cover your costs in fulfulling
> > the reque
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 03:11:29PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 05:49:28PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
> > Q: What about licenses that grant different rights to different groups?
> > Isn't that discrimination, banned by DFSG#5/6?
> > A: For Debian's purposes, if all the diffe
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:52:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 08:19:33PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > If you want the possible term defined more precisely, consider
> > > something more like:
> > > "If you have distribu
Anthony Towns writes:
> This detailed wrangling is really missing the point that I'm interested
> in, though. Is there a _fundamental_ difficulty with such licenses?
>
> "If you have created a modified version of the Work, and receive
>a request by the Primary Copyright Holder, you
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 08:19:33PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> >I'm an anarchist dissident (who runs RaiseTheFist), and for reasons
> >known only to me, I have altered a web based forum to encode
> >messages to other dissidents in the so
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 08:19:33PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > If you want the possible term defined more precisely, consider
> > something more like:
> > "If you have distributed a modified version of The Work, then
> > if you receive a requ
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 08:19:33PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
>I'm an anarchist dissident (who runs RaiseTheFist), and for reasons
>known only to me, I have altered a web based forum to encode
>messages to other dissidents in the source code of the forum
>software itself. The PCH
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 05:49:28PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
> Q: What about licenses that grant different rights to different groups?
> Isn't that discrimination, banned by DFSG#5/6?
> A: For Debian's purposes, if all the different groups can exercise their
> DFSG rights, it's OK if there are othe
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If you want the possible term defined more precisely, consider
> something more like:
>
> "If you have distributed a modified version of The Work, then
>if you receive a request by the Primary Copyright Holder
>(named above), you mu
Anthony Towns writes:
> Uh, no. The difference is here that we want to allow the people to do
> free software development on the island, assuming they already have the
> abilitiy to. The copyright license is the sole worry we have here --
> nothing else affects what they're permitted to do.
Yes,
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 01:44:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > The whole point is to make the test be extreme, that's how you get
> > clarity. But it still has to make sense. It's entirely plausible that me
> > and a friend could be stuck with our solar powered
Anthony Towns writes:
> No, I'm saying Debian's about free software, not about your favourite
> set of politics. We don't have a problem with the United States using
> Debian to aim their nuclear weapons, nor China using Debian to track
> down the Falun Gong.
China is opposed to *free software*.
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Now you're saying that we must be nice and polite to the PRC. Let's
> all be friends! (And not pay attention to the people crushed by the
> tanks.) I remember Tianenmen Square; it seems that the world has
> mostly forgotten.
Worse things have happene
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 12:46:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > Personally, if we're going to document this and use it as an official test
> > rather than a helpful rule of thumb, I don't think we need to be insulting
> > a country that's potentially going all pro
Anthony Towns writes:
> Personally, if we're going to document this and use it as an official test
> rather than a helpful rule of thumb, I don't think we need to be insulting
> a country that's potentially going all pro-Linux while we need to do it.
So what you're saying is, as long as China cl
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 07:20:36PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > It has been suggested that this test be referred to as simply as the
> > > "Dissident" test.
> > /me grumbles about wasting time with excessive PC noises, rejects this
> > suggestion
Scripsit Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I've edited that nascent DFSG FAQ and put it at
> http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
> I'd appreciate comments.
Cool. I like question 5 especially. :-)
Add to the "desert island" test that it also explains why postcardware
(or emailwa
Scripsit Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It seems a bit eager about the GPL. I'd much prefer if it gave equal
> time to the GPL and the BSD camps.
Yes. In particular the reasons for choosing BSD are not limited to "I
want people to be able to take my software proprietary". In the free
sof
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 05:49:28PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
> > It has been suggested that this test be referred to as simply as the
> > "Dissident" test.
> /me grumbles about wasting time with excessive PC noises, rejects this
> suggestion and continue
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 07:46:18PM -0700, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> > I've edited that nascent DFSG FAQ and put it at
> >
> > http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
> >
> > I'd appreciate comments.
>
> It seems a bit eager about the GPL. I
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 07:46:18PM -0700, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> I've edited that nascent DFSG FAQ and put it at
>
> http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
>
> I'd appreciate comments.
It seems a bit eager about the GPL. I'd much prefer if it gave equal
time to the GPL and the BSD ca
On Sat, 08 Mar 2003, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> I've edited that nascent DFSG FAQ and put it at
>
> http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
>
> I'd appreciate comments.
It seems quite usefull to me, at least for starters.
However, if you (or your contributors) could add links to the porti
I've edited that nascent DFSG FAQ and put it at
http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
I'd appreciate comments. Especially from the OSD/DFSG "WE MUST UNIFY"
folks, who might perhaps be able to use some of this material to
clarify their OSD into conformance with Debian practice, ie to reje
Nathan E Norman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 01:38:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > >2. the Chinese Dissident.
> > >
> > > It has been suggested that this test be referred to as simply as the
> > > "Disside
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 01:38:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > >2. the Chinese Dissident.
> >
> > It has been suggested that this test be referred to as simply as the
> > "Dissident" test.
>
> But the suggestion has not been taken. The
On Fri, 07 Mar 2003, Mark Rafn wrote:
> An additional point to make is that a license is neither free nor
> non-free.
We've examined licenses before to determine whether they live up to
the DFSG in the general sense, although you are correct that such an
interpretation doesn't necessarily extend
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Joe Moore wrote:
> > Q: How can I tell if some license is free?
> Q: How do you determine if a license is DFSG-Free?
An additional point to make is that a license is neither free nor
non-free. Packages are judged for freeness, not licenses. Two packages
with the same licens
1 - 100 of 171 matches
Mail list logo
