On Wed, Aug 19, 1998 at 11:30:53AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > But if someone modifies the GPL and releases a program under the modified
> > GPL, that is an incompatibility which you can't correct. You can't
> > modify his program to put it under the real GPL!
>
> But if someone writes hi
Hi,
>>"Joseph" == Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Since you are ignoring all the discussion that has gone on
before, you obviously have far more cogent arguments than have been
advanced here before. I am eager to hear them.
Joseph> I'd say non-free is the place for them, actu
Hi,
>>"Joseph" == Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> There were sme fairly strong objections to putting them in
>> main. And I don't think that contrib or non-free are justified
>> either.
Joseph> I'd say non-free is the place for them, actually. The reason
Joseph> it's not is be
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 19, 1998 at 11:27:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> I can live with that. I won't agree to throwing the FSSTND and
> the GPL into non-free (if there is a gpl_2.0-1_all.deb). Or contrib.
About FSSTND I wonder why you point it out so often... we'll switch to FHS
an
On Wed, Aug 19, 1998 at 09:31:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Joseph> No, we can all agree that Free Software is important. It
> Joseph> seems like a very good split as to whether or not every
> Joseph> collection of words included on the CD (licenses, standards
> Joseph> documents, lg)
Splitting of debian-devel-changes
=
I'm going to summarize everything so far:
* The list may be filtered in many several ways, but this does not solve
the problem of bandwidth for people using POP (the "too late" problem).
Therefore, most people seem to agree tha
Richard Stallman writes:
> But if someone modifies the GPL and releases a program under the modified
> GPL, that is an incompatibility which you can't correct. You can't
> modify his program to put it under the real GPL!
But if someone writes his own license and screws it up, you may not even be
Joseph Carter writes:
> The software is free because it's software and the documentation is
> "submit any changes you'd like upstream but don't distrubute modded
> versions" to protect the integrity of the document. Then what? Are you
> going to tear apart a package in main that shouldn't be torn
Marcus Brinkmann writes:
> Every source file should have a header where it says "This work is
> copyrighted under whatever license".
Should, but often don't.
> Just because a license is in the same tar archive does not mean that all
> files are covered under it.
I think it can be reaonably argue
Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> On 19 Aug 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Manoj writes:
>> > I beg to disagree with this assesment. I was under the
>> > imprtession that we were moving towards the verbatim solution; with
>> > allowances being made to e
On 19 Aug 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Manoj writes:
> > I beg to disagree with this assesment. I was under the
> > imprtession that we were moving towards the verbatim solution; with
> > allowances being made to ensure that licenses were distributed with
> > the software that required them.
>
Hi,
>>"Joseph" == Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joseph> No, we can all agree that Free Software is important. It
Joseph> seems like a very good split as to whether or not every
Joseph> collection of words included on the CD (licenses, standards
Joseph> documents, lg) or else they
Manoj writes:
> I beg to disagree with this assesment. I was under the
> imprtession that we were moving towards the verbatim solution; with
> allowances being made to ensure that licenses were distributed with
> the software that required them.
I thought that we had pretty much agreed on verbatim
So far, we've been able to address these issues more-or-less adequately as
they've come up, but it would be a lot easier if the GPL were protected
by a license of the sort you recommended for standards...
I agree that treating the GPL like the other documents might help
persuade some p
On Tue, Aug 18, 1998 at 10:40:37PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> The verbatim section can help. We may decree that every
> >> official CD contain a verbatim dir, which has *at least* the package
> >> that contains the copyrights.
>
> Joseph> I believe still this is a bad thing. If we're
On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Santiago Vila wrote:
> > If I don't hear any serious objection, I will send the proposal to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [.. snip snip ..]
>
> Could you first take a look at all comments made and post a new proposal?
> If I remember correctly so
On Sun, Aug 16, 1998 at 07:48:12PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Something to consider: Unlike the GPL, most licenses do not include their
> own license. Most packages come from upstream in a single tarball,
> including the file containing the license, which is considered to apply to
> all th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
> BTW, noticed grammar and spelling issue. "Light-weight" should by
> hypenated.
I'd say one word:
# ispell -a
@(#) International Ispell Version 3.1.20 10/10/95
lightweight
*
Martin.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Ian> I disagree with Manoj wrt the level of formality required for
> Ian> maintaining the policy document.
>
> Then your is the first objection that I have seen regarding
> the proposal.
> I think I have a proposal for a condition to help identify
> documentation which ought to be DFSG-free:
>
> If a document (or other work or part of one) is so closely connected
> to a piece of software that when modifying the software a
> conscientious programmer would wish to make a correspondi
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We are nearing the end of the proposed discussion period. The
> proposal so far has met with almnost universal approval
Let me just say right from the start that I think that your current
guidelines for updating policy (they really are guidelin
Hi,
We are nearing the end of the proposed discussion period. The
proposal so far has met with almnost universal approval, with the
exception of Ian Jackson, who thinks formal process is not required
for policy updates.
I think I disagree with Ian; we have grown too large to a
Hi,
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> I disagree with Manoj wrt the level of formality required for
Ian> maintaining the policy document.
Then your is the first objection that I have seen regarding
the proposal. If you wish to make this a formal objection, then un
Hi,
>>"Drake" == Drake Diedrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Drake> On Wed, Aug 19, 1998 at 12:30:03AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Can someone please run by me again why they think we need a new
>> category `verbatim' or whatever alongside main, contrib, non-free ?
Drake>It is pretty well
Hi,
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> Can someone please run by me again why they think we need a new
Ian> category `verbatim' or whatever alongside main, contrib, non-free ?
There were two reasons given.
a) Even if we agree to keeping the immutable documents as p
Hi,
>>"Joseph" == Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joseph> [1 ]
Joseph> On Mon, Aug 17, 1998 at 08:56:09AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> The verbatim section can help. We may decree that every
>> official CD contain a verbatim dir, which has *at least* the package
>> that contai
On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Joey Hess wrote:
> Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > For simple packages I (the user) probably do NOT CARE what they configure
> > themselves to be. I have no interest in mime-type configuration, no desire
> > to do things with my mailer or apache. I just want them to work and I
> >
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> For simple packages I (the user) probably do NOT CARE what they configure
> themselves to be. I have no interest in mime-type configuration, no desire
> to do things with my mailer or apache. I just want them to work and I
> don't want to be bothered because I have nothing
Previously Santiago Vila wrote:
> If I don't hear any serious objection, I will send the proposal to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [.. snip snip ..]
Could you first take a look at all comments made and post a new proposal?
If I remember correctly some nice suggetions were made.
Wichert.
--
=
On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I. How is amalgamation of data from various sources done ?
We can probably regulate this to a more implementation issue. So long as
when the package requests something it is retrieved from -someplace-
exactly how is quite flexable.
> II. Where are the q
Previously Ian Jackson wrote:
> I've been reading this discussion, and we seem to have jumped past a
> couple of important structural questions (I think we already know what
> problems we're trying to solve).
I don't they we really jumped past them, although some might not have
received quite enou
On Wed, Aug 19, 1998 at 12:30:03AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Can someone please run by me again why they think we need a new
> category `verbatim' or whatever alongside main, contrib, non-free ?
It is pretty well agreed (I think) that Official CD's should carry even
immutable standards that w
32 matches
Mail list logo
