On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 05:19:32PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 10:44:51PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > What if he wants to further distribute the stuff to other
> > people who are using a device like his? I mean, sharing stuff useful
> > to me is one of the
[Hamish Moffatt]
> That Debian "expects that simply providing the source alongside ..."
> does not appear to make this non-free. It might make be inconvenient
> for us and/or require us to change the ftp-master scripts, but that
> doesn't seem to affect its freeness.
One must remember, however, t
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 00:14:55 +0100, Benj. Mako Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Under this logic, copyleft is also a use restriction. It bars
proprietary use of free software.
Being proprietary is not an attribute of the use. It is a description
of the exclusion of other uses than the mention
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:34:32AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Hamish Moffatt]
> > That Debian "expects that simply providing the source alongside ..."
> > does not appear to make this non-free. It might make be inconvenient
> > for us and/or require us to change the ftp-master scripts, but th
"Lasse Reichstein Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Being proprietary is not an attribute of the use. It is a description
> of the exclusion of other uses than the mentioned. Nothing
> distinguishes the "proprietary usage" from the "non-prorietary usage"
> when looking at the actyual useage o
On 13 Feb 2006, Craig Sanders outgrape:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 10:44:51PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> What if he wants to further distribute the stuff to other people
>> who are using a device like his? I mean, sharing stuff useful to me
>> is one of the prime reasons I like free software
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the GPL says you must include the full machine-readable/editable source
> code, so if you can't do that in a given medium (say, a chip with 1KB
> capacity) then GPL software is not free in any medium.
Of course, but that isn't an imposition on changes.
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> why are you obsessing with a convenience issue and pretending that it
> has ANY BEARING AT ALL on freedom issues? it doesn't.
I think if you'll look at the header you'll see that this is about "a
new practical problem". If you aren't interested in the
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If you're having problems accessing the site, contact
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] If it's a serious problem and the FSF isn't
> responding, you can e-mail me, and I'll input your comments for you.
I'm currently in discussion with them. They are responding,
but it seems
> > Technically, Mako and I aren't there to represent Debian
> > specifically; we're there because we are... something or
> > other. Branden Robinson and Greg Pomerantz are "officially"
> > representing Debian.
>
> Can you tell us what committee(s) they are on?
They are both on committee A which
* Craig Sanders:
> there's nothing in the GFDL that prevents you from doing that. the
> capabilities of your medium are beyond the ability of the GFDL (or any
> license) to control.
Uhm, the existence of the anti-DRM clause disproves this claim.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wi
Em Sáb, 2006-02-11 às 13:46 -0500, Nathanael Nerode escreveu:
> The problem is quite specifically that we have unmodifiable license
> texts, not unmodifiable license terms. These texts are in Debian,
> making it technically untrue that "Debian will remain 100% free."
I have one single question...
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:19:32 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> if there is a particular process which can shoehorn the document into
> the limited device, then it's perfectly OK to distribute the document
> along with with instructions (whether human-executable instructions or
> a s
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Em Sáb, 2006-02-11 às 13:46 -0500, Nathanael Nerode escreveu:
> > The problem is quite specifically that we have unmodifiable license
> > texts, not unmodifiable license terms. These texts are in Debian,
> > making it technic
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:37:07 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> the GPL says you must include the full machine-readable/editable
> source code, so if you can't do that in a given medium (say, a chip
> with 1KB capacity) then GPL software is not free in any medium.
>From the GPL:
,-
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:32:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Craig Sanders:
>
> > there's nothing in the GFDL that prevents you from doing that. the
> > capabilities of your medium are beyond the ability of the GFDL (or any
> > license) to control.
>
> Uhm, the existence of the anti-DRM cl
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> bullshit. "freedom", as used by Debian, is explicitly defined in the
> DFSG. the DFSG has a number of clauses detailing what we consider
> free and what we don't consider free. convenience is NOT one of those
> clauses, and never was. in fact, convenienc
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:01:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > why are you obsessing with a convenience issue and pretending that
> > it has ANY BEARING AT ALL on freedom issues? it doesn't.
>
> Err, because I do not see this as a matter of mere
> convenience. If I spend a signifi
On 2/13/06, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you people never give up, do you? as soon as one bogus claim against
> the GFDL is disproved, you recycle another one that was demolished
> months, weeks, or only days ago. repeat ad nauseum.
Another possibility is that you're begging the qu
you people love to recycle the same lies over and over and over again.
i'm becoming convinced that it is a deliberate strategy - repeat the
same lies and eventually everyone will just give up out of exhaustion.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 01:42:44PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
> 3a only says that a bina
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 01:42:44PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
>> 3a only says that a binary has to be *accompanied* with the source code.
>> Hence it can be on a separate medium. So you can distribute your 1KB
>> chip, stapled to a CD-ROM that contains t
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:29:05 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> you people love to recycle the same lies over and over and over again.
> i'm becoming convinced that it is a deliberate strategy - repeat the
> same lies and eventually everyone will just give up out of exhaustion.
> On
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:34:32AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> Nothing in the SC or DFSG requires Debian to accept any software that
> comes along and adheres to the letter of the DFSG.
true.
the convention so far, though, has been "if it's free and someone can
be bothered packaging it, the
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:52:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > you can do the same with GFDL documents. e.g. the stupid coffee cup
> > example so popular with you zealots - if you can't fit the invariant
> > sections on the cup itself, then print it on paper and include it in the
> > box.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:33:01PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > bullshit. "freedom", as used by Debian, is explicitly defined in the
> > DFSG. the DFSG has a number of clauses detailing what we consider
> > free and what we don't consider free
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:52:28PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 01:42:44PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
> >> 3a only says that a binary has to be *accompanied* with the source
> >> code. Hence it can be on a separate medium. So you can distribute
> >> your 1KB chip, stapled
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:07:21AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> By contrast, if there is an invariant section written in Japanese, I
> cannot remove it, I cannot distribute a translation instead, I must
> instead simply not transmit the document *at all* if I am stuck with
> an ASCII-only me
"Craig Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:01:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> why are you obsessing with a convenience issue and pretending that
> it has ANY BEARING AT ALL on freedom issues? it doesn't.
Err, because I
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 07:42:23PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote:
> I'm not one for entering flamewars, but I must ask what is freedom if not
> convience?
dict is both free AND convenient!
>From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
freedom
n 1: the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or
Craig Sanders wrote:
> don't be an idiot. you only have to keep the invariant sections if you
> are DISTRIBUTING a copy. you can do whatever you want with your own
> copy.
Well, creating modified versions of a copyrighted work requires the
permission of the copyright holder. In some countries t
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the GFDL does not say "you can not modify at all", it says "you can
> not delete or change these small secondary sections, but you can add
> your own comments to them".
I did not find any statement in the license with the text in quotes
('but you can add
Craig Sanders wrote:
> stop trying to pretend that convenience is a freedom issue. it isn't.
[snip]
> it may be horribly inconvenient to not be able to usably install a
> foreign language document on an english-only device, but that is UTTERLY
> IRRELEVENT TO WHETHER THE DOCUMENT IS FREE OR NOT.
Craig Sanders wrote:
> the DFSG also allows that the modification may be by patch only.
No, it does not.
Quoting DFSG 4, with emphasis added:
> The license may restrict source-code from being distributed
> in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution
> of "patch files" with the
Craig Sanders wrote:
> if there is a particular process which can shoehorn the document into
> the limited device, then it's perfectly OK to distribute the document
> along with with instructions (whether human-executable instructions or
> a script/program) for doing so. i.e. this meets the requir
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> I bet another EURO 50 (through PayPal) that Red Hat and Novell are
> also going to lose and won't get dismissal under 12(b)(6).
I wish I could play, but I'm pretty sure wagering like that is illegal
in the jurisdiction I live :-(
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL P
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Em Sáb, 2006-02-11 às 13:46 -0500, Nathanael Nerode escreveu:
>
> I have one single question... Does copyright law even applies to legal
> agreements and license terms? I'm pretty sure noone can be sued for
> using the terms some
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:38:57 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> the GFDL has a similar provision. you can provide a link to an
>>> internet address containing the full document.
>>
>> Please show me where the GFDL has such a provision. The passage that
> i've shown it before. i h
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:55:35PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> > the DFSG also allows that the modification may be by patch only.
>
> No, it does not.
yes it does.
> Quoting DFSG 4, with emphasis added:
> > The license may restrict source-code from being distribu
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:07:48PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:38:57 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >>> the GFDL has a similar provision. you can provide a link to an
> >>> internet address containing the full document.
> >>
> >> Please show me where the
olive wrote:
> Of course you can. You just keep the bytes representing the Japanese
> version intact even if these does not display properly on your device.
"L. Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document, UNALTERED IN
THEIR TEXT and in their titles."
I think changing 標準語 to æ¨æºèª would
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:06:09 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:07:48PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
>> You made the assertion that it was sufficient to just include a link
>> to the full document (including invariant sections) or to just the
>> invariant sect
Craig Sanders wrote:
>>>The license may restrict source-code from being distributed
>>>in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution
>>>of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying
>>>the program at build time. THE LICENSE MUST EXPLICITLY PERMIT
>>>DISTRIBUTI
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 02:41:08PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:55:35PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Craig Sanders wrote:
> >
> > > the DFSG also allows that the modification may be by patch only.
> >
> > No, it does not.
>
> yes it does.
>
> > Quoting DFSG 4
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> once again: you *can* modify an invariant section by "patching" it. the
> GFDL does not say "you can not modify at all", it says "you can not
> delete or change these small secondary sections, but you can add your
> own comments to them".
A patched ver
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:34:32AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
Nothing in the SC or DFSG requires Debian to accept any software that
comes along and adheres to the letter of the DFSG.
true.
the convention so far, though, has been "if it's free and someone can
be bot
Raul Miller wrote:
On 2/13/06, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
you people never give up, do you? as soon as one bogus claim against
the GFDL is disproved, you recycle another one that was demolished
months, weeks, or only days ago. repeat ad nauseum.
Another possibility is that you
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:49:33PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I have a simple question for you: Is the following license free?
>
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
> copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
> "Software"), to deal
47 matches
Mail list logo
