Phil writes:
> Especially since there is really no possibility of having DFSG free
> license, since any DFSG license would be self-referential and I'm not
> convinced any of the legal profession are going to put up with that sort
> of thing.
---
On Sat, Aug 15, 1998 at 08:14:34AM +0200, Michael Bramer wrote:
> > >> Actually, I am going to make a stand about our Hypocrisy;
> > >> anything that you have said also applies to Licenses. You want to
> > >> throw things like the FHS and others out of main, you have to throw
> > >> out the DFS
>
> I don't see the point of a verbatim dist.. Perhaps a verbatim section in
> main...?
As I understand it, the purpose of a verbatim distribution is so that
we can ship documents (be it standards, books, graphic novels,
political opinion) that we have the right to distribute verbatim, but
no
> Phil writes:
> > Especially since there is really no possibility of having DFSG free
> > license, since any DFSG license would be self-referential and I'm not
> > convinced any of the legal profession are going to put up with that sort
> > of thing.
>
> -
On Tue, Aug 18, 1998 at 03:22:11AM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> > I don't see the point of a verbatim dist.. Perhaps a verbatim section in
> > main...?
>
> As I understand it, the purpose of a verbatim distribution is so that
> we can ship documents (be it standards, books, graphic novels,
> pol
Phil writes:
> I think the reason is that the licence for a work is not considered to be
> part of the work itself (IANAL so I could be wrong)
> If I'm right, then the second sentence above is the license for the
> licence (i.e. the first sentence above), and does not apply to itself.
If this is
Hi.
Seven days ago, I posted my second proposal for the splitting of
debian-devel-changes.
If I don't hear any serious objection, I will send the proposal to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], where is the bug which asked for the new upload
procedure, so that whenever the new upload procedure is implemented
>From discussions on IRC and from lintian errors, I can see that files
in /var/lib/games/ (generally high-score and save-game files) should
not be conffiles, but instead should be managed through the
postinst and removed in the postrm if we're doing a purge.
This makes a lot of sense.
However, I
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 contains the copyrights.
I believe still this is a bad thing. If we're going to do anyt
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).
The questions I can think of are:
I. How is amalgamation of data from various sources done ?
Is it done at the time the pac
I disagree with Manoj wrt the level of formality required for
maintaining the policy document.
I think we should have one or several policy editors who will produce
a reasonable procedure to ensure that everyone is aware of discussions
and their status. The editors would act as document editors d
I'm coming into this rather late, sorry. I'm still feeling my way
around these issues, and will probably pose more than just this one
question. I'm trying to see what people feel and to identify the
issues, rather than argue a position.
Guy Maor writes ("Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Free Software Need
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 corresponding change to
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: PROPOSAL: A mechanism for updating Debian Policy
documents"):
> [Guy Maor:]
> > Yes, but if consensus cannot be achieved then the technical committee
> > may make a decision.
>
> Only on Technical issues.
No:
6. Technical committee
6.1. Powers
The T
Can someone please run by me again why they think we need a new
category `verbatim' or whatever alongside main, contrib, non-free ?
I agree strongly with whoever it was that said that this was just
trying to duck the issue. Either we are happy with a particular kind
of documentation being more re
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Many of the proposals that I've seen so far have a fixed list of
> questions in a file. I don't think this is at all sufficient.
>
> For example, a sophisticated mail system configuration might have
> configs for different virtual domains. The configuration items for
> each
16 matches
Mail list logo
