On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 6:07 PM NotPexel wrote:
> Hello! I would like to toy around with and write documentation for Debian
> gnu/Hurd and have not found an official wiki where I can write docs.
The best option is probably to contribute to the upstream GNU/Hurd
documentation first:
Le 2020-10-18 19:11, NotPexel a écrit :
Hello! I would like to toy around with and write documentation for
Debian gnu/Hurd and have not found an official wiki where I can write
docs.
Hi,
I'd try to start here:
https://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrontPage?action=fullsearch&context=180&a
Hello! I would like to toy around with and write documentation for Debian
gnu/Hurd and have not found an official wiki where I can write docs.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi Shirish, all
Sorry for the delay in coming back to this.
Finally, after reading the whole thread about this topic, and with
my anti-harassment team hat on, I can say that we acknowledge that
Shirish is not a harasser and we acknowledge his curre
Dear all,
For my part have put what is suggested at
https://flossexperiences.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/the-queen-is-dead-long-live-the-queen/
Maybe it could be better worded, I don't know.
Also I did try to figure out the technical solution at
http://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/104999/how
Reply in-line -
On 08/04/2017, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 03:00:10PM +0530, shirish शिरीष a écrit :
>>
>> Could you or anybody else please share even if unintentionally, I have
>> been demeaning to anybody in my writings. While I have repeatedly
>> apologized, I would like to
Le Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 03:00:10PM +0530, shirish शिरीष a écrit :
>
> Could you or anybody else please share even if unintentionally, I have
> been demeaning to anybody in my writings. While I have repeatedly
> apologized, I would like to know where I have demeaned people.
> Everybody is welcome t
in-line :-
On 07/04/2017, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> Is anything you ever wrote short? I have yet to see the day where you
> produce output thats less than a dozen paragraphs. And thats straight to
> the point instead of retelling the whole story of earth and humankind to
> set a base that in the
On 14635 March 1977, shirish शिरीष wrote:
> Thank you for your fine words. The same goes for everybody else as
> well. This is going to be a bit long-winded so please excuse.
Is anything you ever wrote short? I have yet to see the day where you
produce output thats less than a dozen paragraphs. An
something at home or the other.
When working in and with companies the idea was given/planted that all
work/intellectual property is there's so you can't talk anything about
the work you do, so apart from short note here and there there wasn't
much need of documentation.
Cut to 2003/
alberto fuentes dijo [Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 01:30:19PM +0200]:
> (...)
> It comes down to know if planet is about debian or about debian developers
>
> My personal opinion is that it should be about debian, not about debian
> developers. Random rants, specially cathartic ones slightly related to th
shirish शिरीष writes ("Inappropriate content on planet.debian.org and need of
evolution of documentation and CoC"):
> Please CC me as I'm not subscribed to the mailing list. Please excuse
> the non-brievity of the mail.
>
> Couple of weeks back, I
On 14634 March 1977, shirish शिरीष wrote:
> While Laura had shared with me that she is the only one who is behind
> the antiharassm...@debian.org, I was under the mis-guided
> understanding that pla...@debian.org was a team and not just Benjamin
> alone.
You can find out who is behind which team
On 14634 March 1977, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The content should be such that it is suitable for people over 12
> years of age.
> now in the PlanetDebian wiki page added with the above revision is, if
> true, quite significant. If that is Planet Debian policy, I'll switch my
> aggregation fe
Dear all,
@ Laura, thank you for your explanation. You are right, it was only
30th March so I over-reacted, sorry .
As shared let's take couple of weeks and then come back to this. It
would help everybody (including me) have a more cool, detached look at
things.
Having said that, I would urge al
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 01:50:33PM +0200, alberto fuentes wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>
> > In short, it's about Debian contributors, not just Debian. Based on my
> > memory, it has always been that way.
>
> I know the current (and past, since this is not the f
Hi
El 05/04/17 a las 22:09, shirish शिरीष escribió:
Dear all,
Please CC me as I'm not subscribed to the mailing list. Please excuse
the non-brievity of the mail.
Couple of weeks back,I put up a blog post
https://flossexperiences.wordpress.com/2017/03/30/the-tale-of-the-dancing-girl-nsfw/
So
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> In short, it's about Debian contributors, not just Debian. Based on my
> memory, it has always been that way.
>
I know the current (and past, since this is not the first time I argue
this) state of affairs :)
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 01:30:19PM +0200, alberto fuentes wrote:
> It comes down to know if planet is about debian or about debian developers
From https://wiki.debian.org/PlanetDebian:
What Can I Post On Planet?
Planet Debian aims to aggregate the blog posts of people who are
acti
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Separately, on the textual content... I'm not sure exactly the right way
> to phrase this advice, but I do think you use your blog to explore
> intensely personal philosophical questions. I understand that you really
> want to explore those w
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 07:19:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> now in the PlanetDebian wiki page added with the above revision is, if
> true, quite significant. If that is Planet Debian policy, I'll switch my
> aggregation feed for planet.debian.org over to only posts I explicitly tag
> with Deb
The meta issue here is who decides policy for Planet Debian, and how
that is done. This is important for the current case as well: the
controversial blog post is dates March 30, the change to require
suitability for 12-year-olds is from March 31, and the wiki change was
made by the author of the bl
shirish शिरीष writes:
> Please CC me as I'm not subscribed to the mailing list. Please excuse
> the non-brievity of the mail.
> Couple of weeks back, I put up a blog post
> https://flossexperiences.wordpress.com/2017/03/30/the-tale-of-the-dancing-girl-nsfw/
Okay, I've now thought about this som
shirish शिरीष writes:
> Please CC me as I'm not subscribed to the mailing list. Please excuse
> the non-brievity of the mail.
> Couple of weeks back, I put up a blog post
> https://flossexperiences.wordpress.com/2017/03/30/the-tale-of-the-dancing-girl-nsfw/
> Because the subject matter is matur
addition at bottom :-
On 06/04/2017, shirish शिरीष wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Please CC me as I'm not subscribed to the mailing list. Please excuse
> the non-brievity of the mail.
>
> Couple of weeks back, I put up a blog post
> https://flossexperiences.wordpress.com/2017/03/30/the-tale-of-the-dancin
Dear all,
Please CC me as I'm not subscribed to the mailing list. Please excuse
the non-brievity of the mail.
Couple of weeks back, I put up a blog post
https://flossexperiences.wordpress.com/2017/03/30/the-tale-of-the-dancing-girl-nsfw/
Because the subject matter is mature and uncomfortable to
Le Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:22:50PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> I don't think your attitude is at all the cause. Quite to the contrary, I
> really appreciate your continued effort to push this forward, since I
> think it's a major gap in Policy at the moment. I'm sorry that it's been
> so f
Charles Plessy writes:
> In the absence of help from other Developers, could for instance one of
> the four Policy editors, who were recently delegated and therefore
> re-stated their interest in editing the Policy, do something about it ?
It has been on my to-do list for nearly a year to look a
Hi Guillem,
regarding the Dpkg triggers (#582109), could you find some time to have a look?
Alternatively, do you agree that other developers are encouraged at looking by
themselves and second the patch, that is, that the integration of the Dpkg
triggers in the Policy can go without your review ?
On Sb, 01 dec 12, 11:57:05, Osamu Aoki wrote:
>
> 2. Debian web site
>
> This is the pages accessible as www.debian.org and mostly managed by
> people discussing on debian-...@lists.debian.org . Actual contents are
> managed by CVS at :ext:usern...@cvs.debian.org:/cvs/webwml as explained
> http:
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 08:25:17PM +0200, Alexandru Vochescu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am working at a task at google code-in where i have to
> write about "documentation structure of other projects". I chose to
> write about Debian, beca
On Mi, 28 nov 12, 20:25:17, Alexandru Vochescu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am working at a task at google code-in where i have to
> write about "documentation structure of other projects". I chose to
> write about Debian, because i'm used to D
Hi,
I am working at a task at google code-in where i have to
write about "documentation structure of other projects". I chose to
write about Debian, because i'm used to Debian (I have Debian Sid). And
this task also says "plus finding a wa
On ke, 2010-09-15 at 09:45 +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> Good point about debian/watch.
>
> The simplest proposal right now is to make the Source field free-form
> text, and since I like simplicity, I support this. More detailed
> specification for documenting mechanical rules of transformations
On ti, 2010-09-14 at 17:35 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>
> > Makes sense to me.
>
> > Let's define only a single free-form field in the header section now.
>
> > I suggest it then be a field specifically for notes regarding source not
> > being "pristine" in the sense
e tarball release as well, and I used to use them, but this is
a lot simpler and having the upstream tarball isn't horribly useful.
Finally, the upstream tarballs include the source for the Windows
implementation as well, which is 52MB (since it includes lots of
translated Windows-specific doc
Optionally - it is not mandatory to document that.
It's mandatory to document the origin of the upstream software.
I'm not disagreeing with you about the documentation requirements. I
just don't like Source-Manipulation as a field name and don't see much
point in requi
ent that for our users.
> Optionally - it is not mandatory to document that.
It's mandatory to document the origin of the upstream software.
I'm not disagreeing with you about the documentation requirements. I just
don't like Source-Manipulation as a field name and don'
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 06:23:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
To me, "Source:" contains origins. Makes sense to me for that field
to be mandatory and only contain URLs.
I would like an optional field indicating that our redistribute as
the "source" (rather than our
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> To me, "Source:" contains origins. Makes sense to me for that field to
> be mandatory and only contain URLs.
> I would like an optional field indicating that our redistribute as the
> "source" (rather than our "overlay" part in the form of either a patch
> or (with dp
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 05:35:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
Makes sense to me.
Let's define only a single free-form field in the header section now.
I suggest it then be a field specifically for notes regarding source
not being "pristine" in the sense that the
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Makes sense to me.
> Let's define only a single free-form field in the header section now.
> I suggest it then be a field specifically for notes regarding source not
> being "pristine" in the sense that the form as redistributed by Debian is
> different from how it wa
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:57:28PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On ti, 2010-09-14 at 00:07 +0100, Stuart Prescott wrote:
Personally, I'd like a nice machine-readable list of files/dirs/globs
that should be removed from the tarball. I'd like it to be kept in a
canonical location in the source ta
On ti, 2010-09-14 at 00:07 +0100, Stuart Prescott wrote:
> Personally, I'd like a nice machine-readable list of files/dirs/globs that
> should be removed from the tarball. I'd like it to be kept in a canonical
> location in the source tarball (debian/copyright, perhaps?)
This all sounds good, with
On ma, 2010-09-13 at 14:54 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> There should still be an explanation in debian/copyright of what that
> script does, since that's the Policy-required location for specifying
> where the upstream source came from.
Oh, I thought only devref was requiring that to be in debian/
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:07:21AM +0100, Stuart Prescott wrote:
- if the transformation can be expressed as a script, use
"debian/rules get-orig-source"
Since the purpose of the get-orig-source target seems to have become
unclear over time, this doesn't sound like a good plan to me. The
part
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I think at this point, we have to solve other problems with policy and
devref, and having solved them the correct outcome for DEP5 will become
obvious.
> - if the transformation can be expressed as a script, use "debian/rules
> get-orig-source"
Sinc
Lars Wirzenius writes:
> If we do put the stripping information into debian/copyright, can
> someone please suggest a concrete way to actually do that? What is
> actually needed to implement the stripping automatically in
> get-orig-source?
A free-form field into which I can put things like:
Lars Wirzenius writes:
> Dev-ref §6.7.8.2 recommends that if you have to repackage the original
> source, that the transformations that are performed be recorded in
> debian/copyright. While there was recently some discussion on d-devel
> about whether repackaging just to remove distributable-but
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 06:05:12PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On ma, 2010-09-13 at 16:58 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
It makes good sense to me that we (continue to) track stripped files
at the same place as distributed files.
On the other hand, I don't see the point of using debian/copyri
* Lars Wirzenius [100913 19:05]:
> On ma, 2010-09-13 at 16:58 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > It makes good sense to me that we (continue to) track stripped files at
> > the same place as distributed files.
>
> On the other hand, I don't see the point of using debian/copyright to
> document co
On ma, 2010-09-13 at 16:58 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> It makes good sense to me that we (continue to) track stripped files at
> the same place as distributed files.
On the other hand, I don't see the point of using debian/copyright to
document copyright information of files that are not par
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 03:03:00PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
From the DEP5 wiki page:
Dev-ref §6.7.8.2 recommends that if you have to repackage the original
source, that the transformations that are performed be recorded in
debian/copyright. While there was recently some discussion on d-de
Le Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 03:03:00PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
>
> My opinions:
>
> - if the transformation can be expressed as a script, use "debian/rules
> get-orig-source"
> - otherwise, debian/README.Source seems like a better place to document
> this than debian/copyright, since it has o
>From the DEP5 wiki page:
Dev-ref §6.7.8.2 recommends that if you have to repackage the original
source, that the transformations that are performed be recorded in
debian/copyright. While there was recently some discussion on d-devel
about whether repackaging just to remove distributable-but-not-d
Greetings!
long time debian lover, first time emailer!
I had a thought on how to share debian with anyone
wanting to check it out.
I have installed debian on my laptop via VMWare
Workstation and have captured the install to a 8meg
10minute avi file.
If people wanted to see the install, they cou
talking properly instead of
continuing your DFSG rant all the time.
Anyway, can you tell me how you rationalise arguing about
"some things are too trivial for sane people to care about"?
[...]
> > Documentation can be software and software can be documentation.
> only in th
license it, or merge it with incompatible
licenses. so does the GPL. so does every other free license.
> > i specifically said "additional invariant sections in the
> > documentation", and i implied that that was OK because some things
> > don't matter, some things are to
the uses of derived works,
which I think might be a problem meeting DFSG 6. Invariant sections
themselves are not a problem unique to the FDL, but this effect on the
editable part of the work isn't something I've seen before.
> i specifically said "additional invariant sectio
ode
> or help, but maybe I misinterpreted:
i specifically said "additional invariant sections in the documentation", and
i implied that that was OK because some things don't matter, some things are
too trivial for sane people to care about.
> I do wonder if craig only ever adds to
ms are also OK, as long as it's not the main code
or help, but maybe I misinterpreted:
> "literate programming" and other related kinds of self-documenting code are
> far more software than documentation and require a free software license
> rather than a free documentation
point. i don't care one way or the other if people choose
to use literate programming techniques, but i certainly don't think it's a
useful or admirable thing that deserves to be encouraged.
in any case, it's an issue that only applies to some software and related
technical
Somebody calling himself "Craig Sanders" wrote:
"a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals
*exclusively* with the *relationship* of the publishers or authors of the
Document to the Document's overall subject" (emphasis mine) -- it does not
matter in the slightest if thes
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> 1. The kama sutra is not software, because it is not part of anything
>containing executable code *and* it was *not* created with the intent
>of ever being such.
So you're claiming that none of the instructions in the kama sutra
were intended to be carr
* Michael K. Edwards:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:49:36 +0100, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * Craig Sanders:
>>
>> > and, as you pointed out yourself, this freedom (to patch) exists
>> > even when it is not explicitly granted by the license.
>>
>> Without permission from the author,
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 09:15:47PM +1100, Sam Couter wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > right. even after 6 days you can't come up with any answer to over 70 lines
> > of argument in that message, so you retreat to the position of a coward and
> > a
> > cretin - delete all but
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> right. even after 6 days you can't come up with any answer to over 70 lines
> of argument in that message, so you retreat to the position of a coward and a
> cretin - delete all but one flippant throw-away line and make a stupid
> ad-hominem attack based
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:49:36 +0100, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Craig Sanders:
>
> > and, as you pointed out yourself, this freedom (to patch) exists
> > even when it is not explicitly granted by the license.
>
> Without permission from the author, you may not redistribute patch
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 07:14:55AM +1100, Sam Couter wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:03:49PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > Indeed. But not everyone agrees with your opinion that invariant sections
> > are trivialities.
>
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > well, that just make
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:03:49PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> Indeed. But not everyone agrees with your opinion that invariant sections
> are trivialities.
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> well, that just makes them wrong. and if they're obsessive about it, zealots.
So your opin
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 03:05:33PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> The GFDL is non-free, even without invariant sections. See:
>
> http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
>
> for a summary of a previous time this was discussed to death. :)
Thanks :-)
I feel a little embara
rmat, or that it be usable by any particular program, or that
it be usable by any program at all. it uses the generic term "patch".
> You seemed to agree that they wouldn't in source code; I'm not sure why you
> think they are sufficient elsewhere.
because documentation
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 08:34:39PM +0100, Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> If I get it right, the practical question at hand is:
>
> "Should we allow / do we need invariant sections (beyond
>meta-data such as licenses or legally required snips of
>text) in documentatio
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 05:31:31AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 10:56:57AM +0100, Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> > So, I conclude that the Debian license scheme should cater in some way
> > for allowing invariant sections as part of the documentation (but not
t supposed
> > regardless of the licensing, right? Right now I can make GPL programs that
> > report the author's name report my name instead. Yet this doesn't seem to
> > tbe a rampant problem. Why is documentation different?
> because it's part of the culture
gt; How can you know why someone else wants to modify an invariant section?
> Maybe they simply want to correct mispellings or something. (Yes, we know
> they can make an addendum to do that.)
>
> Why does documentation have these special needs that software doesn't need.
it doesn&#x
They also feel non-free to me
> but I'm still listening to the debate.
>
> > claiming that the GFDL is non-free doesn't make it so. if you make a
> > claim, the onus is on you to prove it.
>
> You keep claiming invariants (and the other issues which seem to be
>
y want to correct mispellings or something. (Yes, we know
they can make an addendum to do that.)
Why does documentation have these special needs that software doesn't need.
Let's say I had the following program:
// Begin invariant
int
main( int, char ** ){
std::cout << "A
biden by a license
or not, because they are either unethical or illegal or both, anyway.
> Of course, non-free documentation can and does go in non-free. I'm
> not quite sure what your position is (above you seem to say invariant
> text is acceptable, here you seem to say that
Andrew Suffield writes:
> If you are handing [out binary CDs] then you should also be prepared to
> hand out source CDs to anybody who wants one.
Or provide a written offer.
--
John Hasler
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 09:28:59PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Florian Weimer dijo [Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 10:16:11PM +0100]:
> > > So... If I hand over a Debian CD to someone, will I be breaching the
> > > law as I am giving him only the binaries, even if they have a very
> > > easy way of getting t
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 02:18:13PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Peter Vandenabeele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I did not understand why a document with invariant sections cannot
> > be part of "Free/main" (in the Debian context) and the GPL license
> > which states that it only allows verbatim copies
peter.vandenabeele wrote:
> Thanks. I hope I understand it now:
>
> Because the license is _legally required_ it is acceptable (as an exception)
> to be in an "invariant" form in "main".
IIRC, most licences are licensed under their own terms, so aren't
invariant, except as needed by copyright law
Peter Vandenabeele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I did not understand why a document with invariant sections cannot
> be part of "Free/main" (in the Debian context) and the GPL license
> which states that it only allows verbatim copies can be.
What do you think the GPL only allows verbatim copies o
y allows verbatim copies can be.
>
> An invariant section is an integral part of the documentation; by the
> GFDL's definition, it is otherwise irrelevant content. The license is
> legally required metadata: The copyright owner provides a particular
> license to users, and those
m fairly new to this list, but I have followed this thread for
> some time now.
>
> I did not understand why a document with invariant sections cannot
> be part of "Free/main" (in the Debian context) and the GPL license
> which states that it only allows verbatim copies ca
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 05:31:31AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 10:56:57AM +0100, Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> > An interesting consequence of this proposal is that a Copy-Exact of
> > the GPL License could not longer go into main (as it is essentially
> > one large invaria
software, well too bad, don't use it. Right;
Debian doesn't like proprietary software, and doesn't use (ship) it, and it
shouldn't ship this non-free documentation for the same reasons.
> * in source code of a program, the code _itself_ is the subject matter. The
> co
ot, you do not have the right to change or delete what they
> said, you only have the right to comment upon it.
>
> this is perfectly OK for documentation because only secondary sections may be
> invariant. the primary content (i.e. the subject matter) can never be
> invariant and m
Florian Weimer dijo [Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 10:16:11PM +0100]:
> > So... If I hand over a Debian CD to someone, will I be breaching the
> > law as I am giving him only the binaries, even if they have a very
> > easy way of getting the sources?
>
> It's generally believed that it's sufficient to offe
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 09:14:44AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > Okay, since you refuse to converse civilly, without constantly throwing
> > around
> > "zealot", "lunatic" and "loonies", I'm not going to converse with you. (I
> > don't really have to, since your flaming rants aren't convincing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Gunnar Wolf:
>
>>> No, Debian distributes source and binaries on the same (virtual)
>>> medium. This is different from handing over a physical object with
>>> the "binary" and providing a URL for some re
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 04:09:26PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 07:36:02PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > according to your particular degree of zealotry...but your zealotry is more
> > intense than what was common when we wrote the DFSG, so it's entirely
> > possible
> >
patch files" for the purpose of modifying
> > >the work at build time
> > >
> > > 2) the modified form built from the patched work to be
> > >distributed
> > >
> > > These conditions are not satisfiable for GFDLed documentati
n a document, that's good
enough.
for a document, one person's "bugfix" is another person's "censorship".
the point of invariant sections is that nobody can come along later and censor
the original author's words or put words in their mouths. whether you agre
Florian Weimer dijo [Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 07:22:45PM +0100]:
> >> This is an unusual GPL interpretation. Most commentators assume that
> >> providing a *separate* URL is *not* enough.
> >
> > That's exactly what Debian does, isn't it?
>
> No, Debian distributes source and binaries on the same (vi
* Gunnar Wolf:
>> No, Debian distributes source and binaries on the same (virtual)
>> medium. This is different from handing over a physical object with
>> the "binary" and providing a URL for some resource on the Internet.
>
> So... If I hand over a Debian CD to someone, will I be breaching the
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 07:36:02PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> according to your particular degree of zealotry...but your zealotry is more
> intense than what was common when we wrote the DFSG, so it's entirely possible
> that even crazier lunatics will arrive in the future (encouraged, no doubt,
Florian Weimer dijo [Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 07:14:55PM +0100]:
> > Well... Remember the GPL does not require you to provide the sources
> > _together_ with the binary/printout/whatever - It requires you to
> > provide means to get the sources. So if you print a book that [...]
> > has the URL for the
Florian Weimer dijo [Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 02:21:00PM +0100]:
> I'd prefer a slightly different set of freedoms, but this goal is
> impractical. For instance, I believe that the GNU GPL is not a free
> documentation license because it unnecessarily complicates the
> distribution
1 - 100 of 170 matches
Mail list logo
