Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Whatever. If fiat is legitimate, that is. I'm not sure what your point
> is. A rose is a rose is a rose. DFSG 3 contains absolutely no
> implication of the existence of any exception to its terms.
You steadfastly want to skip that little word "so
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 07:05:10PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I thought there was general agreement that a proportional limit was
> > better than a simple number.
>
> Maybe this is how you feel, but I so far haven't seen general agreement
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 10:52:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> You steadfastly want to skip that little word "software". It's the
> Debian free *software* guidelines, and if your goal is to be
> literalistic, then you can't appeal to the DF *Software* G to argue
> about things which are n
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If it's not *Software* then either,
>
> 1) We must treat it as such, or;
> 2) We have no mandate to deal with it at all.
We don't need a mandate. The US Congress is (theoretically) limited
to the enumerated powers given in the US Constitution, but
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 10:56:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> But then say: "My goal is going to include the exclusion of the
> following GNU packages". Come right out and say it--and then see if
> people are willing to go along!
I can't honestly say that because I don't know for sure t
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 11:14:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If it's not *Software* then either,
> >
> > 1) We must treat it as such, or;
> > 2) We have no mandate to deal with it at all.
>
> We don't need a mandate. The US Congress
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011202 02:23]:
> On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 11:14:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > If it's not *Software* then either,
> > > 1) We must treat it as such, or;
> > > 2) We have no mandate to deal with i
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 02:49:10AM -0600, Scott Dier wrote:
> Perhaps call it the DFLG, Debian Free Licensing Guidelines, where as
> the License is the focus, and not the contents.
That sounds eminently sensible to me. However, it will be likely quite
some time before the DFSG can be amended in a
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011202 02:53]:
> > but do we want to deticate space and bandwidth to non-free licensing,
> > or does the cabal of publishing ideas limit us to thinking of
> > documentation as Free?
> I'm sorry, I don't understand this part.
Theres been business models made
I Second the proposal by Branden Robinson contained below.
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011201 16:52]:
> [Debian Policy group: I am not sure if the Debian Policy Manual is an
> appropriate forum for any of the following material. I invite your
> opinions.]
>
> [Debian GNU Emacsen main
Anthony,
There are some URL errors in the current debian-policy package. Can
we upload a patched version without changing any other content?
Julian
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 12:07:58AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 11:04:56PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > > Where exa
Previously Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> we can support the installation of lsb binaries HOWEVER the lsb spec adds a
> 'status' option to init scripts which lsb packages may expect to exist. So at
> the bare minimum we need to support that.
At the bare minimum we'll need to support dependencies fo
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 01:54:55PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> At the bare minimum we'll need to support dependencies for init scripts
> which means we need to modify most of our own init scripts as well as
> update sysvinit to provide the necessary infrastructure.
This doesn't need to be don
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't agree with that interpretation. "Software" can be a very
> slippery term. I recall a friend of mine from Purdue who asserted that
> the only real software is processor microcode -- everything else is just
> data files. To get around these a
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011202 14:21]:
> So the BTS, the mailing lists, the apparatus of the Debian
> Constitution, the logo, and all that is now to be excluded? Come on,
We distribute the BTS and the lists in the distribution? We might
distribute the 'code' behind it. But I
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 12:21:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > "Software" can be a very slippery term.
> *Yawn*. You mean you can't tell the difference in practical contexts?
> Puhleez!
The arbitrary definition of "software" that you seek undermines your
objections to my arbitrary thr
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 05:51:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Summary:
>
> Per recent discussion on the debian-legal mailing list regarding DFSG
> section 3 and provisions of recent documentation-specific licenses that
> have been developed in recent years, that allow for non-modifiable
> po
Hackers have put my user id into some redistributing
list of your technical forum.
I can't unsubcribe with automated system because my
user id is not on the main list.
Please help. I received tons of unwanted mails.
Please forward this request to the list owner
Thanks
--- Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL P
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> This doesn't need to be done for Debian packages at all (LSB init script
> dependencies that interact with vendor scripts can all be trivially
> satisfied by doing all the vendor scripts first), and the dependencies
> for the LSB scripts can be resolved at package
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 01:49:09AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> > This doesn't need to be done for Debian packages at all (LSB init script
> > dependencies that interact with vendor scripts can all be trivially
> > satisfied by doing all the vendor scripts firs
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The arbitrary definition of "software" that you seek undermines your
> objections to my arbitrary threshold on the quantity of invariant text.
I understand what "software" means, and I guess it's quite sad that
you don't. Oh well. I don't claim the
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 06:43:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I understand what "software" means, and I guess it's quite sad that
> you don't. Oh well. I don't claim there *is* a rigid
> definition--it's *you* who are seemingly obsessed with the need to
> rigidly define everything in si
22 matches
Mail list logo
