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 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 :
> >
> > 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
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
> >
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
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:56:27AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le lun 22/09/2003 ? 09:46, Glenn Maynard a ?crit :
>> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:47:26AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
>> > > IBM distributes the Linux driver and the binaries in a tarbal
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
Le lun 22/09/2003 à 16:04, Sam Hocevar a écrit :
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> > If the binaries were entirely written using assembly code, the binary
> > here equates the source.
>
>This is very rarely true. Even assembly code has variable and function
> names, comments
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > This reinforces my conclusion that it is essential for these sections
> > to be unremovable as well as unmodifiable.
>
> To serve the ends of GNU, perhaps. But it doesn't seem to serve
> the needs of the larger Free Software communit
It depends. If there a mutual one-to-one correspondence
between assembler line and DSP processor command it is, mainly, a
differences in format.
Most (almost all?) non-trivial assembly code contains things like
variable names and comments.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:58:27AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer
> would remove the political statements one could find in it.
>
> Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot
> be modified.
And what w
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
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
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
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
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:
> I value freedom in documentation just as much as I do for programs. I
> value it so much that I designed the GFDL specifically to induce
> commercial publishers to publish free documentation.
You don't value the freedom to modify the whole book. Yo
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
In chiark.mail.debian.legal, you wrote:
>If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer
>would remove the political statements one could find in it.
>
>Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot
>be modified.
If the *whole* doc was DFSG free, we woul
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:
> 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:
> You've asked me to explain why the criteria for free documentation
> licenses should be different from free software licenses (or, as you
> would perhaps put it, free computer program licenses). I would rather
> ask why they should be the same, since
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you are aware of the existence of unmodifyable essays and logos in
> debian main, please file an RC bug against the package in question.
>
> You seem to be saying that if our political statements, which are
> included as invariant sections
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > A few weeks ago someone was trying to argue that nobody would do
> > this, and that invariant sections were designed to solve a
> > nonexistent problem. Now we know the problem is not just
> > theoretical.
>
> No, it's still a
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But if they were only removable without being
> modifiable, then yes, removing them would be the only way to include the
> accompanying documentation while still ensuring that all bits in Debian
> guarantee the freedoms that we requi
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer
> would remove the political statements one could find in it.
>
> Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot
> be modified.
DFSG prohibits such unmodifiab
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
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Many people, including the author of the DFSG, have stated that they
> believe that the DFSG was intended to apply to documentation as well.
> The number of people arguing that documentation should not fall under
> the standards of freedom set out by t
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:
> Your casual suggestion to "pick whichever seems better" leaves out the
> object: better for whom? For the Free Software community? For the
> Free Software Foundation, whose goals are quite different?
>
> That is a cheap shot, because it
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer
> would remove the political statements one could find in it.
>
> Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot
> be modified.
Notice that the first person sai
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2003-09-22 16:05:31 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Because you are confronted with a situation where your arguments, that
> > you repeat and repeat, do not convince your interlocutor (me in this
> > case)?
>
> There are two ways to argue a
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
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2003-09-22 15:14:45 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Does the DFSG definition of freedom that applies to program
>> (nobody question that) help us to draw the line at the correct place
>> also for documentation?
>
> Trivially, all Debian devel
34 matches
Mail list logo
