* Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-27 10:53]:
> The following persons have agreed to serve on a committee regarding
> the FSF - Debian discussion:
I wholeheartedly support the formation of this committee. In order to
foster the discussion, I am willing to pledge some of Debian funds for
* Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-28 16:35]:
> > 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 Bus
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 12:19:33PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> No one has shown any evidence that the interpretation you're drawing
> (in which Debian should laboriously find and purge itself of things
> like a README.why file in which an author quotes heart-rending email
> from his sister wh
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 10:44:38AM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> I would like to know if the following license meets the DFSG and is ok for me
> to upload the software to main(or if not, what needs to change). The software
> is "lsblibchk", a tool for checking the LSB compliance of a runtime
> en
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
>Slipping between two definitions can be used to perform a
>rhetorical trick: first get agreement that "All X's are Y's" under
>the common definition of X, then change the definition of X and
>carry over the earlier agreement using the new definition.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 02:38:26PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
>
> (emphasis mine, of course) you'll notice it refers to the "program".
> So these do not imply that "snippets" in the tarball are under the
> GPL, because they aren't in fact part of the program. In other words,
> it is not a co
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 12:02:21PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 2003-09-30 05:25:50 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This appears to be a variation on the "If we can't all be rich then we
> > > should all be poor" i
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:01:19AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Burden of proof arguments are, at best, very trick to make -- I
>> suggest you not rely on it. Certainly I don't buy it in this case.
>> Unless you can actually point to someplace tha
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:01:19AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> * If the answer to the above is no, should we distribute them
>> anyway, simply because we don't have them in a free form?
>
> Hi. I think my first reply to this mail didn't get to
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 12:02:21PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 2003-09-30 05:25:50 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This appears to be a variation on the "If we can't all be rich then we
> > > should all be poor" i
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 10:44:38AM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> +LIBCHK END USER LICENCE+++
>
> BY RETRIEVING THIS DISTRIBUTION OF LIBCHK, YOU ARE CONSENTING
> TO BE BOUND BY THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ALL OF THE
> TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, DO NOT INSTALL THE PRODUCT
[RMS not CCed]
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 05:39:13PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I have only criticized Debian for one thing, and that is the practice
> > of distributing non-free software (programs). This is something
> > Debian has done
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 01:06:37PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Unless you can find some evidence in the -private archives that the GNU
> > Manifesto was specifically mentioned and a conclusion reached, I
>
> I do agree that history, and pre
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 04:00:36PM +1000, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> I would like to invite Don to participate in this committee. As per
> the constitution (5.1.1), I cannot make him an official delegate since
> he's not yet a Developer. However, Debian has always welcomed
Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> I don't have any problems with Don personally, but I personally would
> rather we had a full-fledged Debian Developer as our other delegate to
> this committee.
i tried to volunteer[1] but i have not seen that message hit the list
yet.
[1] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTE
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 01:29:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> That way there would be no need to regard this delegate as a "junior
> partner" to Mako, and we'd have a representative who had gone through
> the stages of the NM process, pledged to uphold the Social Contract, and
> who is formal
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:35:32PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> Not everyone that is a Debian developer has gone through the NM process or
> pleged to uphold the social contract. I, for instance, became a Debian
> developer after sending an e-mail to Bruce and waiting for him to create my
> acc
I wrote:
> ... we won't go on a snippet witch hunt, but we also won't
> encourage snippets or even really talk about them. That would be
> my preference.
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> replied:
> I fail to see how this [argument] substantially differs from the one I
> already made:
Well
I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free
software.
I should have said "the GNU Project" rather than "the FSF", since the
GNU Project led to FSF and has always been larger.
When the GNU Project started, there was no other organized effort
to make software free. W
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free
> software.
>
> I should have said "the GNU Project" rather than "the FSF", since the
> GNU Project led to FSF and has always been larger.
>
> When the GNU Project started, t
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, I think this creates a bit of cognitive dissonance. So,
> presumably, does Bruce Perens, who has called upon us to kick non-free
> to the curb.
>
> I mean, come on. We expect people to intuitively understand
> "distribution" as something othe
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:53:21PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Well this is good. So we'd agree that, as a practical matter, we
> should not file bugs about snippets, not worry about them, not talk
> about them, and just leave snippet-related issues to the discretion of
> individual package
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 10:44:38AM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> I would like to know if the following license meets the DFSG and is ok for me
> to upload the software to main(or if not, what needs to change). The software
> is "lsblibchk", a tool for checking the LSB compliance of a runtime
> en
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:35:32PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Not everyone that is a Debian developer has gone through the NM process or
> pleged to uphold the social contract. I, for instance, became a Debian
> developer after sending an e-mail to Bruce and waiting for him to create my
> accoun
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:53:21PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> I wrote:
>
> > ... we won't go on a snippet witch hunt, but we also won't
> > encourage snippets or even really talk about them. That would be
> > my preference.
>
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> replied:
>
> > I fail t
I'm sorry, I really didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I thought
that was what you were saying.
> You seem to be proposing that we deliberately close our eyes to DFSG
> problems we may encounter, as long as the problem encountered is
> "small".
That is not my position! As I hope you would
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 14:53:21 -0600, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I wrote:
>> ... we won't go on a snippet witch hunt, but we also won't
>> encourage snippets or even really talk about them. That would be
>> my preference.
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> replied:
>> I fa
> The difference that I see boils down to this: while it might be
> morally upstanding and forthright to investigate every file in every
> package for the licensing terms and make sure that they are, in
> fact, 100% Free Oats, this is a task of such size and scope as to be
> impractical to accompli
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That doesn't mean we regard people who were born British subjects as
> eligible for the office of president today.
Some such people are, of course, since one can be a dual national.
The requirement is that you be a natural born citizen, not that you
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 08:12:25PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
| I think people are underestimating a couple things:
And I think that you are grossly exaggerating what are essentially
non-problems.
| - the lack of benefit of removing snippets (so far no convincing
|practical advantage
On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 21:12, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Currently we to my knowledge have one (1) package containing
> "dingleberries", which I will define as materials that we feel
> must be removed for license reasons from the upstream tarball in
> order to make the debian
On 2003-10-02, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - the enormous number of snippets. I would be surprised if fewer
>than 10% of our source tarballs contain snippets. Maybe a lot more.
In the interests of furthering the discussion, can I suggest limiting
the discussion further, b
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 08:12:25PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> > The difference that I see boils down to this: while it might be
> > morally upstanding and forthright to investigate every file in every
> > package for the licensing terms and make sure that they are, in
> > fact, 100% Free Oat
Cameron Patrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... intentionally not upholding the social contract by knowingly
> distributing non-free snippets ...
Let me see if I have this straight.
Are you actually claiming that a particular paragraph of text in a
removable "README" file would be a "violation
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (frankly, I'd be fine with it being unmodifiable *but removeable*, and
> distributing it thus, since anyone who cares *can* remove it, still).
Um, isn't that precisely what we're talking about?
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One of the reasons I like Debian is because the maintainers care
> about stuff like this. I'm assured that free means *totally* free,
> all of it, even when upstream ships non-free software (including
> "dingleberries"). I didn't agree to the SC only wh
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One of the reasons I like Debian is because the maintainers care
> about stuff like this. I'm assured that free means *totally* free,
> all of it, even when upstream ships non-free software (including
> "dingleberries"). I didn't agree to the SC only wh
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 02:30:04PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> Is Mr. Hill a frequent reader of debian-legal? I know I have not seen
> him posting here.
I do not post here often but I read -legal regularly and am up to the
date on the issues.
I believe I was approached for a number of reaso
38 matches
Mail list logo
