Branden Robinson wrote:
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> 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
>
paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 12:15:50AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > Without him, things are more unsettled. To be honest, I have no strict
> > guarantees that the FSF cannot change but I hope that if someday the
> > FSF disregard the GNU project and the Fr
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
> >
> > > You argue that RMS is incorruptible?
> >
> > I do.
> >
> > > I present as a counterargument the GFDL.
> >
> > The GFDL did not reached a
Hi,
I'd like to thank people who helped me making those things clear, and
especialy Nathanael Nerode and Josselin Mouette.
I think I can share my understanding of the GFDL problem to
debian-legal newcomers or those who did not participate to the
debate. I took me quite some time to understand but
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On 2003-08-29 22:49:57 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We are not about to list
> > which laws you can broke by doing that but whether the freedom the
> > GFDL
> > brings are enough or not.
>
> Enough for what? We've concluded that it's no
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
> The very text of the GFDL which you quote gives permission for
> translations as the *only* kind of derivative work possible for
> Invariant Sections: in particular, annotations are not permitted.
>
> Either way, we've gotten way off on a tangent.
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> Mathieu Roy wrote:
>
> >If you edit the GNU Manifesto and redistribute under the same name,
> >without telling clearly you modified it and what you modified, you
> >distribute a text which may be taken as someone's opinion while it's no
> >longer t
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On 2003-08-29 19:36:24 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > and so you "can regive his speech" (you can use the exact same wording
> > if you want).
>
> I am pretty sure that you are wrong on this, too. Sorry.
Sure, if he got proofs he previou
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 11:00:06AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > If it weren't for the restrictions that copyright laws place upon us, we
> > wouldn't ship these files at all.
>
> If no licenses were needed, nobody would be writing and shipping
> licenses.
The conclusion here is that copyright s
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 10:58:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Disclaimer: I hold one degree in this stuff and studied for another,
> but don't use it all that often just now, so get yourself a copy of
> "Statistics Without Tears" or "Statistics Explained" and check if you
> want to be bulletproof.
On 2003-08-30 10:44:07 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I said before, I think the GFDL provide the freedom that matters
for a documentation.
I agree with you for the documentation part, but I don't think it
gives the freedom that matters for the whole work and that's needed.
On 2003-08-30 12:19:04 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Don't forget to pick up "How to lie with statistics" while you're at
it; nobody should be allowed to listen to statistics without having
read it at least once.
Oh, I didn't want to encourage people to start using the tricks
Quoting Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> You always can retroactively change the license for your
> software. It's *too late* only if people who received your software
> before you change your license continue to distribute it. They can
> distribute it under your previous license, but only the
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hope that Debian and the FSF will keep on discussing and working
> > together and some solution will be found in the middle run to satisfy
> > our users.
>
> I agree. I hope we can avoid this being seen as "News at 11: FSF vs
> Debian deathmatch" because it
Mathieu Roy wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>> My GPLed code can be taken by you and racist error messages inserted.
>> If you continue to print my name as author in the help text, this
>> plainly misrepresents my opinions. Do you believe that the GPL should do
>> something t
Hi,
A few comments.
On 2003-08-30 09:46:45 +0100 Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - additionaly, the GFDL is not GPL-compatible so one cannot mix GFDL
> _works_ and GPL _works_
This is actually beside the point, I think.
> I'll personaly never been in favour of a big GFDL documentatio
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>
> iff -ur coreutils-5.0.90/src/ls.c coreutils-5.0.90.new/src/ls.c
> --- coreutils-5.0.90/src/ls.c 2003-07-27 07:33:36.0 +0100
> +++ coreutils-5.0.90.new/src/ls.c 2003-08-30 13:46:52.0
> +0100
> @@ -3758,6 +3758,7 @@
> Sort
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 03:45:51PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls --version
> ls (coreutils) 5.0
> Écrit par Richard Stallman and David MacKenzie.
>
> Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> Ce logiciel est libre; voir les sources pour les conditions de
> reproduct
* Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030830 16:05]:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>> [example of possibility of political statements in software]
> > + fputs (_("Note: The author of this software believes that the
> > invasion of Iraq was an act fully justified by internation
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 03:45:51PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls --version
> > ls (coreutils) 5.0
> > Écrit par Richard Stallman and David MacKenzie.
> >
> > Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> > Ce logiciel
Op za 30-08-2003, om 17:08 schreef Mathieu Roy:
> Hum, I think you misunderstood my answer. I was not aware of this
> issue in coreutils and I wonder about which author of ls we are
> talking about.
I think you misunderstood his example. To me, it looked like Matthew was
only talking about the hyp
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
>
>> You argue that RMS is incorruptible?
>
> I do.
>
>> I present as a counterargument the GFDL.
>
> The GFDL did not reached a consensus as the GPL is in the free
> software world, sure.
>
> But I wond
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 01:46:10AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> The FSF is in the privileged position of being able to change
> these sections when they need to be changed, and they're claiming
> that no-one else will ever need to.
Somewhat ironic really, for one of the most notoriously forked
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 07:44:51PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> IMHO, this is slightly outdated revision of Act.
This is the most enlightening thing you've said yet to this mailing
list.
Your view of the fact/opinion dichotomy should prove most helpful to
those attempting to argue with you.
--
G.
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 02:56:22PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 03:45:51PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > Who's this "author"?
>
> "Authors", then. Please don't degenerate to pedanticism when the meaning
> is clear.
But then he won't have anything to say! How cruel you
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 12:24:41PM -0400, Joe Moore wrote:
> Try making a "remake" of the Harry Potter books, and see how long it takes
> to be sued.
But J. Michael Straczynski remade the copyrighted _The Lord of the
Rings_, filing off the serial numbers in the process, called it _Babylon
5_, an
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 09:38:59AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Since the FSF's goal couldn't possibly be to attract a following of
> loyal idiots, I conclude that invariant sections are an ineffective
> strategy for reaching the FSF's target audience.
You're saying the FSF is less clever than V
On 2003-08-30 16:08:03 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's up to the author of the documentation to decide what he thinks
important to be in the documentation he's writing.
If you think that, how about: it was up to the authors of the DFSG to
decide what it applies to.
[...]
B
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There no contradiction with the Invariant part option: no invariant
> part can describe a particular function.
> You can provide an accurate documentation without changing a text
> written by the original author that explain why he started to write
> the s
While filing a bug on the non-free essays included with emacs21 (bug
#207932), I came across the file etc/termcap.src, which includes the
following disquieting text:
# COPYRIGHTS AND OTHER DELUSIONS
#
# The BSD ancestor of this file had a standard Regents of the University of
# California copyrigh
Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quoting paul cannon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
>> How about this scenario:
>>
>> 1- A hostile group gets control of the FSF (treachery, trickery,
>>bribery, lawsuits, ...?)
>>
>> 2- They release a new version of the GPLv4, which states that "this
>>sof
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the GFDL invariant section was used to include political statement
> that have nothing to do with computers (like racist statement, as
> proposed before), I would find normal to trash these documentation
> that use the GFDL invariant section for a purp
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 10:47:45PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-08-28 21:51:41 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Op do 28-08-2003, om 20:02 schreef MJ Ray:
> >>Ye gods! Who knew that "software" was such a contentious word?
> >Agreed. Perhaps we should...
> >... Oh, wait. I alre
On 2003-08-30 23:27:44 +0100 Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...and I said yes, but you should do it properly and define all the
words,
just to be on the safe side. Got anything new to say, or is the day
stuck
again?
If someone proposes to go out for a walk because it's such a ni
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 03:57:36PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Joe Moore ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > Perhaps a simple license clarification from Alexandre? Did he intend to
> > dual-license this work under the GPL?
>
> He turns out to have been unaware of the potential for licence conflict,
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:22:10PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > You do realize that we are distributing GFDL manuals as part of Debian
> > right now? The release manager isn't "deciding" that any more than
> > anyone else is. If you must point a finger at someone, point it at
> > the package m
CC me on replies. Thanks.
Branden Robinson writes...
> A little over one week ago, I posted a survey[1] to the debian-legal
> mailing list, requesting the opinion of subscribers regarding one of a
> pair of related questions that have been asked with increasing frequency
> on that list, and in a
Mathieu Roy wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>> "Authors", then. Please don't degenerate to pedanticism when the meaning
>> is clear.
>
>Hum, I think you misunderstood my answer. I was not aware of this
>issue in coreutils and I wonder about which author of ls we are
>talking
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:22:10PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > You do realize that we are distributing GFDL manuals as part of Debian
> > > right now? The release manager isn't "deciding" that any more than
> > > anyone else is. If you must poin
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:26:04AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Users would still be using the previous version during the delay, so
> > they won't be any better off.
> And after any delay, they will be better off. Much sooner than if
> they had to wait a complete release cycle. In any case,
40 matches
Mail list logo
