I believe this is the last mail that wasn't delivered due to failure.
Regards,
Joey
- Forwarded message from Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> Great option. Imagine the free software would follow the s
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> Great option. Imagine the free software would follow the same
Marcus> criterion. "If you want to publish a variant C compiler, you
Marcus> can always rewrite gcc".
*Sigh*. Again you harp on software, and ins
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Philip Hands) wrote:
>I licence all my own code under a DFSG compliant licence, how can I ever get
>shafted by the licences ?
You can't like a GPL library to a BSD program and keept that resulting
program under BSD license, for example. Both lic
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You do this, then it is no longer a standard, it is the
>> documentation of a particular program.
Raul> So? We're talking about treatement of the document, not
Raul> treatment of th
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You do this, then it is no longer a standard, it is the
> documentation of a particular program.
So? We're talking about treatement of the document, not treatment
of the specifically named standard. Otherwise it would be sufficient
to call it
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why? What harm dos the community suffer from Debian
>> distributing the FSSTND?
Raul> In main? Or as an accompanying (non-main) document?
I was thinking of the community in
>
> >
> >Including anything that is non-DFSG in main, means that people have to
> start
> >checking licences, before playing with the source --- a Bad Thing IMHO.
> >
> >Cheers, Phil.
> >
> >
>
>
> People should always check licenses when they are playing with source.
> "was that library LGPL or
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> What I'm envisioning is that you'd take what the standard has
Raul> to say about, for example, the implemented language, leave that
Raul> as quoted text and flesh it out with notes about implementation
Raul> dependent choices and su
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why? What harm dos the community suffer from Debian
> distributing the FSSTND?
In main? Or as an accompanying (non-main) document?
Anyways, that's a single case.
Here's different hypothetical single case: a KDEBASE reference standard,
sourc
On 12 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Jules" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jules> The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that a separate
> Jules> distribution tag is appropriate.
>
> Jules> 'immutable' - This tag is intended for documents which are fre
Hi,
>>"Jules" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jules> The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that a separate
Jules> distribution tag is appropriate.
Jules> 'immutable' - This tag is intended for documents which are freely
Jules> distributable, but are not modifiable. It
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul> Or maybe you're implying that the authors of the program have a
> Raul> duty to re-write the concepts described in the standard, from
> Raul> scratch but phrased differently so that it doesn't violate the
> Raul> copyright on the standard?
>
>
Hi,
>>"Jules" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jules> I agree with Phil here.
The only reason Phil had was sanctity of main.
Jules> I vote for maintaining the 'sanctity' of main. The only
Jules> exceptions
Exceptions? There is no such thing as almost pregnant. If
Hi,
>>"Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Philip> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think that mutable strandards are an anathema: supporting a
>> plethora of modified almost standards dilutes the benefits of a
>> standard, the strength of a standard lies in the
>>
>> What about stuff like the Jargon File or FSF articles ?
>>
>
>The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that a separate
>distribution tag is appropriate.
>
>'immutable' - This tag is intended for documents which are freely
>distributable, but are not modifiable. It may not be us
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So? The program should still come with usage and configuration
>> documentation. Even then, the standard does not describe th e program
>> -- if the program does not do what the standar
On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, [iso-8859-1] Adrián De León wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
>
> >I vote for maintaining the 'sanctity' of main. The only exceptions that I
> >personally would grant are: 1) legal licenses (e.g. the GPL itself) and
> >2) short, relevant personal communications (such as
-Original Message-
>I vote for maintaining the 'sanctity' of main. The only exceptions that I
>personally would grant are: 1) legal licenses (e.g. the GPL itself) and
>2) short, relevant personal communications (such as when we stick an email
>from the upstream maintainer in /usr/doc bec
On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Philip Hands wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think that mutable strandards are an anathema: supporting a
> > plethora of modified almost standards dilutes the benefits of a
> > standard, the strength of a standard lies in the fact that *everyon
>
>Including anything that is non-DFSG in main, means that people have to
start
>checking licences, before playing with the source --- a Bad Thing IMHO.
>
>Cheers, Phil.
>
>
People should always check licenses when they are playing with source.
"was that library LGPL or GPL?" "Can I use that GPL
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So? The program should still come with usage and configuration
> documentation. Even then, the standard does not describe th e program
> -- if the program does not do what the standard says, the program is
> buggy, and should be changed -- not
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that mutable strandards are an anathema: supporting a
> plethora of modified almost standards dilutes the benefits of a
> standard, the strength of a standard lies in the fact that *everyone*
> follows the same document.
I agree absolu
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Marcus> a) Without documentation, you can't use the software.
>>
>> Does not apply to a standard. You use the standard by reading
>> it -- nothing has to be modified. A standard is not d
Hi,
>>"Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> a) Without documentation, you can't use the software.
>>
>> Does not apply to a standard. You use the standard by reading
>> it -- nothing has to be modified. A standard is not documentation for
>> a program.
Philip> Lets s
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marcus> a) Without documentation, you can't use the software.
>
> Does not apply to a standard. You use the standard by reading
> it -- nothing has to be modified. A standard is not documentation for
> a program.
"This program implements the
> Marcus> a) Without documentation, you can't use the software.
>
> Does not apply to a standard. You use the standard by reading
> it -- nothing has to be modified. A standard is not documentation for
> a program.
Ok, lets take an example I know about: Mgetty and the Class 2 Fax standa
> On Tue, Aug 11, 1998 at 07:34:05PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> > Fantastic. I agree -- as far as these reasons apply to
> > documentation of software. And no further. I have already said,
> > software docuemtnation needs be under tha same licence as the
> > software it self. Why
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> You know that it is my opinion that the same reasoning counts
Marcus> for technical documents and maybe even for other data
Marcus> entities. If you didn't know it, well, then I say it here.
Marcus> You asked for reasons w
Marcus writes:
> Here is my opinion: Standard documents are technical documents and should
> fulfill the same guidlines as software documentation.
They should, but they often don't.
> They should be dfsg compliant to be included in the Debian main
> distribution.
But for practical reasons we som
On Tue, Aug 11, 1998 at 07:34:05PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> Fantastic. I agree -- as far as these reasons apply to
> documentation of software. And no further. I have already said,
> software docuemtnation needs be under tha same licence as the
> software it self. Why are you be
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> No offense taken. I think this indeed needs to be adressed, but only
to give
Marcus> you a short idea why I think that this is important:
Marcus> a) Without documentation, you can't use the software.
Marcus> b) Documentat
On Tue, Aug 11, 1998 at 05:47:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Marcus> We have promised an entirely free distribution, and that we
> Marcus> give back to the community. [opinion: it is my opininon that
> Marcus> we can gi
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> I, too, prefer standards that use the modification-means-rename claues,
> and they should be goven preference -- but I do not think that standards
> that are freely distributable but do not allow modifications do not
> deserve a place in main.
> I think we differ in wher
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> We have promised an entirely free distribution, and that we
Marcus> give back to the community. [opinion: it is my opininon that
Marcus> we can give back better when we are allowed to improve
Marcus> standards.] So, if we p
On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 1998 at 03:18:05PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> > I think we differ in where we draw the line, and that is
> > essentially opinion. What do others on the policy list think?
>
> Hello,
>
> I want to add here that it may
On Tue, Aug 11, 1998 at 03:18:05PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> I think we differ in where we draw the line, and that is
> essentially opinion. What do others on the policy list think?
Hello,
I want to add here that it may be essentially opinion, but it is worth to
note that this op
On Tue, Aug 11, 1998 at 08:35:15AM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> > To sum up a bit as I see it: RMS's arguments about technical
> > documentation are sound, imo. Do the same arguments apply to
> > standards? If not, what is the difference between technical
> > documentation and a standard.
>
> I d
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Once again: yes, if it's legal to distribute standards which don't
Raul> allow revision then we should do so, but not as part of main.
Raul> But standards which merely ask that modified results be identified
Raul> as not that stand
Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Program documentation may have bugs relating to technical content:
> What it says program X does may not reflect the reality, but it
> should. Standards documents cannot have bugs relating to technical
> content, since it doesn't reflect a reality, only a "g
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Imagine of evryone started tweaking the header sizes of IP
> packets. Heh.
As long as it's not represented as text which is standard, what's the
problem? Here: ip headers should consist of 10 bit bytes.
Now, try sticking that into some s
> To sum up a bit as I see it: RMS's arguments about technical
> documentation are sound, imo. Do the same arguments apply to
> standards? If not, what is the difference between technical
> documentation and a standard.
I don't think they do, because in a fundamental way, while standards
are te
Hi,
>>"Guy" == Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Guy> To sum up a bit as I see it: RMS's arguments about technical
Guy> documentation are sound, imo. Do the same arguments apply to
Guy> standards? If not, what is the difference between technical
Guy> documentation and a standard.
To sum up a bit as I see it: RMS's arguments about technical
documentation are sound, imo. Do the same arguments apply to
standards? If not, what is the difference between technical
documentation and a standard.
Guy
> Raul> It's also important to recognize that the DFSG does not even
> Raul> address the problem of preventing buggy software. I feel that
> Raul> stupid modifications of standards documents are in some way
> Raul> analogous to this.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Buggy softwar
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> It's also important to recognize that the DFSG does not even
Raul> address the problem of preventing buggy software. I feel that
Raul> stupid modifications of standards documents are in some way
Raul> analogous to this.
Bu
Transplanted from debian-private which maybe wasn't the right place to
send this originally.
Other people have already some of the concepts in this message, but
perhaps this post will still be useful.
- Forwarded message from Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PRO
46 matches
Mail list logo
