On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 06:12:21PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Jan Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (using an expired key) writes:
> > Do you believe
> > unmodifiable essays like the GNU Manifesto could be accepted in Debian with
> > the DFSG as they stand?
>
> This is not a ma
Barak Pearlmutter said:
> The GNU manifesto is in
>Debian right now, right where it belongs: /usr/share/emacs/21.2/etc/GNU
>and analogous locations in emacs20 and xemacs.
And how precisely does it belong there? That's a stupid, obscure location.
:-)
(OK, perhaps you meant "Whereever upstream p
This would be a purely cosmetic change. But it might make some people
(the "X is not software" crowd) happier, and would in some ways be
clearer.
I'm just suggesting this as a way to possibly reduce the level of people's
tempers. If other people think it would help, someone might consider
sugges
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 20:17, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Here's the test. I want to write a brand new program. I insist it be
> free software, but I am otherwise entirely agnostic about which free
> software license I use. I will use any license.
>
> I want to incorporate parts of a GFDL'd m
Let's say that I fork a version of gcc. I think we all agree this is
allowed under the GPL, and, indeed has been done in the past. I make
significant changes.
Now, I need a manual for my new compiler fork. I naturally look to the
GNU's GCC manual. However, there are two problems I see in particula
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> * Richard Stallman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030927 17:16]:
> > This policy has existed as long as our web site. The links to such
> > sites were mistakes; I found out about them as a result of the recent
> > discussion, but the removal of these links has
On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 20:48, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> This came up recently. The GPL does not say "preferred form for
> modification out of those forms that still exist" or "of those forms
> that are available". It says "preferred form for modification".
It is difficult for me, at least, to imagi
Branden, this level of email forging skills is completely unacceptable
from someone as nefarious as yourself. I request --- no, demand --- that
you take a few days to "edumacate" yourself on this matter. I mean,
really, the only way you could of done worse would be to sign the damn
thing.
PS: Was
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 Fri, 2003-09-26 at 14:43, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I've put a copy of the GFDL with descriptions of various issues at
> http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/fdl.html . It's likely that I've missed
> things, made mistakes or phrased stuff badly, so feedback would be good.
Quickly, you missed the req
On Sat, 2003-09-27 at 15:48, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> (2) I *did* include concrete examples of snippets under a different
> license than the package which includes them.
> $ head -10 /usr/share/emacs/21.2/etc/GNU
#207932
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 28 September 2003 02:12, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Jan Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (using an expired key) writes:
> > Fair enough. However, all of these statements are removable, and their
> > modification is probably not prohibited by th
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 Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 11:05:05PM +, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> On 2003-09-27, Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In any case, presuming debian-legal becomes satisfied that I don't
> > need to do anything about these files, I'll either mark this bug
> > wonfix, or more likely, close it.
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 06:12:21PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> > Do you believe
> > unmodifiable essays like the GNU Manifesto could be accepted in Debian with
> > the DFSG as they stand?
>
> This is not a matter of belief. This is longstanding, and heretofore
> uncontrovers
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 02:38:44AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> This would be a purely cosmetic change. But it might make some people
> (the "X is not software" crowd) happier, and would in some ways be
> clearer.
>
> I'm just suggesting this as a way to possibly reduce the level of people's
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
Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2003-09-26, Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The conflict is around the need professed by FSF to hitch political speech
>> to the cart of software documentation, and the fact that Debian, while it
>> may have been designed in part to achive
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
> The following persons have agreed to serve on a committee regarding the
> FSF - Debian discussion:
>
> Eben Moglen, Attorney for the Free Software Foundation.
> Henri Poole, Board member, Free Software Foundation.
> Benj. "Mako" Hill, De
Jan Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Fair enough. However, all of these statements are removable, and their
> > > modification is probably not prohibited by the license.
> >
> > The flow of the argument was: one example of Debian's respect for
> > upstream authors is not removing these
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 05:46:30AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> PS: Was that dadadodo?
Yes. Apart from the indentation and ordering of the paragaphs (I picked
one that sounded "openy", and one that sounded "closey", and how could I
resist ending with angry demands by cyborgs?), everything i
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 12:22:31PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Scanning all our packages for such snippets would be a truly
> gargantuan task.
And yet at the same time you claim that the inclusion of any particular
such "snippet" was a fully conscious decision made at the time the
Social Con
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 05:22:56AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
[...]
> I see this as a problem because my new manual has to include false
> statements on the covers. It isn't a GNU manual anymore, and the FSF
> certainly doesn't publish copies. Putting "A GNU Manual" on the cover
> would, I th
> Most non-DFSG-free materials that we find in main are there because
> they were overlooked. I see no reason to suspect the GNU Manifesto
> of being any different.
I think you're wrong about that. Most Debian developers have, I
suspect, read the GNU Manifesto. Its unmodifiable status is not
hi
On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 15:22, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Interesting. Do you think this may be an intended consequence?
I have no reason to believe so. Hopefully in a day or two, RMS will
clarify (to me at least).
> It would certainly serve to discourage forking.
I hope RMS realizes that egcs was
A while ago, you gave a nice explanation of the correct meaning of the
term "begging the question" as used in the study of logic and
discourse.
I'd like to thank you for helping to make sure everyone understands
the concept by giving us such a clear example.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 28 September 2003 20:22, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Jan Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Fair enough. However, all of these statements are removable, and
> > > > their modification is probably not prohibited by the license.
> >
In my very first message on this subject I stated (in their
definition) that snippets were "usually unmodifiable." I gave
specific examples whose modifiability is easy enough to determine:
$ head -7 /usr/share/emacs/21.2/etc/GNU
Copyright (C) 1985, 1993 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 15:22, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Interesting. Do you think this may be an intended consequence?
>
> I have no reason to believe so. Hopefully in a day or two, RMS will
> clarify (to me at least).
>
> > It would certainly se
Brian Sniffen wrote:
>A good candidate would also be familiar with debian-legal's analysis
>of the GFDL. Any of N Nerode, D Armstrong, or A DeRobertis would
>serve well -- Branden Robinson would, I suspect, be objectionable to
>the FSF, and Thomas Bushnell is a GNU developer as well.
I am a GCC
On 2003-09-28, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we decide to go on a crusade against them, it would be a really big
> deal for a couple reasons:
>
> - Debian is absolutely *rife* with such snippets.
> - This is because upstream tarballs are absolutely rife with them.
> - Scannin
On 2003-09-28, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> About the "README" offer you allude to, do you really think an
> upstream author's statement:
>
> Copyright blah blah blah ...
>
> Distributed under the GNU GPL v2 ...
>
> Source licenses for inclusion of this code in proprietary prog
Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
About the "README" offer you allude to, do you really think an
upstream author's statement:
Copyright blah blah blah ...
Distributed under the GNU GPL v2 ...
Source licenses for inclusion of this code in proprietary programs
are available from the author for $10,00
But you're allowed to paraphrase anything, so what's your point?
You can even paraphrase non-modifiable essays. "In an essay RMS
explained that he used to work at ... and then Symbolics ... and he
felt that ... and so he climbed to the mountain top and hacked for
forty days and forty nights witho
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 01:09:14PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> *** BY MY DEFINITION:
> ***
> *** A "snippet" is a file in a source tarball which:
> ***
> *** - MERELY ACCOMPANIES and is not an integral part of the source
> *** - is REMOVABLE
> *** - is NON-FUNCTIONAL (not code, not documen
Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
But you're allowed to paraphrase anything, so what's your point?
You can even paraphrase non-modifiable essays. "In an essay RMS
explained that he used to work at ... and then Symbolics ... and he
felt that ... and so he climbed to the mountain top and hacked for
forty
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 05:46:30AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Branden, this level of email forging skills is completely unacceptable
> from someone as nefarious as yourself. I request --- no, demand --- that
> you take a few days to "edumacate" yourself on this matter. I mean,
> really, the
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> A good candidate would also be familiar with debian-legal's analysis
> of the GFDL. Any of N Nerode, D Armstrong, or A DeRobertis would
> serve well -- Branden Robinson would, I suspect, be objectionable to
> the FSF, and Thomas Bushnell is a GNU deve
> > - Debian is absolutely *rife* with such snippets.
> > - This is because upstream tarballs are absolutely rife with them.
> > - Scanning our sources for them would be a gargantuan undertaking.
> > - They'd keep sneaking back in.
>
> All of these apply to ordinary bugs much better than to sni
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 02:30:04PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
>
> > The following persons have agreed to serve on a committee regarding the
> > FSF - Debian discussion:
> >
> > Eben Moglen, Attorney for the Free Software Foundation.
> > Henri
You don't even have to go through that much of a hassle.
Old-Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That could of been forged.
On 2003-09-28, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > - No other free software organization eschews such snippets.
>>
>> I disagree with the premises of those two, as well. For instance: no
>> other free software organization edits out the non-free fonts from
>> XFree86 or the non-free
Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm much more interested in the arguments why it's a good idea in the
> first place to include the snippets than in these arguments about how
> much work it would be to remove the unmodifiable snippets.
Fair enough.
(1) Allowing snippets to be include
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 08:37:07PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >>
> >
> >You don't even have to go through that much of a hassle.
> >
> >Old-Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> That could of been forged.
Could *have*.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://ww
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 04:23:08PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> But you're allowed to paraphrase anything, so what's your point?
>
> You can even paraphrase non-modifiable essays. "In an essay RMS
> explained that he used to work at ... and then Symbolics ... and he
> felt that ... and so he
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 02:04:55PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> I'd like to thank you for helping to make sure everyone understands
> the concept by giving us such a clear example.
This is a factually incorrect non sequitur.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http
On 2003-09-29, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (2) No practical problems have arisen from allowing snippets to be
> included. No one has proposed any gedanken practical problem.
OK, here's one: what if the Japanese government wants to make a
completely localised version of emacs?
47 matches
Mail list logo
