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:
https://www.
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&value=hurd&titles
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
craig wrote:
> > I don't think that was the point being made, though. One problem with
> > the FDL is that an invariant section limits the uses of derived works,
>
> the limit is that you can't relicense it, or merge it with incompatible
> licenses. so does the GPL. so does every other free lice
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 01:49:16PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> craig wrote:
> > try reading and responding to what i actually wrote, not to your lame
> > straw-man bullshit.
>
> I didn't understand what you wrote, so I questioned its meaning. What
> do *you* do when you don't understand? Oh yeah, you f
craig wrote:
> try reading and responding to what i actually wrote, not to your lame
> straw-man bullshit.
I didn't understand what you wrote, so I questioned its meaning. What
do *you* do when you don't understand? Oh yeah, you flame and swear a
lot, trying to suggest that the person you don't un
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 02:45:29AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> "craig" wrote:
> > > >(b) This prevents the documents from being adapted for another
> > > >purpose (suchas documenting ways of funding free software).
> > regardless of how admirable a trait this is, it is not a requirement of the
> > DFSG,
"craig" wrote:
> > >(b) This prevents the documents from being adapted for another
> > >purpose (suchas documenting ways of funding free software).
> regardless of how admirable a trait this is, it is not a requirement of the
> DFSG, and never has been. [...]
Has craig just walked off the map by a
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 07:48:53PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
(learn how to quote. quoted text is preceded by ">" or similar. original
text is not).
> Somebody calling himself "Craig Sanders" wrote:
>
> >"a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that
> >deals *exclusively
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
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:18:55AM -0500, Dale E. Martin wrote:
> > other things distributed with (and required to be distributed with) free
> > software are "secondary" and may be invariant. e.g. copyright notice and
> > license text.
>
> [...]
> So is your point the project _could_ decide that
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 documentation that goes in "main"
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
> > necessarily
> other things distributed with (and required to be distributed with) free
> software are "secondary" and may be invariant. e.g. copyright notice and
> license text.
Even if Debian wanted to mandate "licenses may be changed at will" we have
no legal authority in most (? I'm no lawyer) countries t
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 05:17:41PM -0500, Dale E. Martin wrote:
> > by insisting on the right to delete/change attribution, and the right to
> > delete/change secondary sections, that is *exactly* what you are
> > demanding - the right to plagiarise and misrepresent.
>
> How can you know why someo
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 17:17:41, Dale E. Martin wrote:
> > it doesn't matter whether these things are specifically forbiden by a
> > license or not, because they are either unethical or illegal or both,
> > anyway.
>
> Exactly, hence invariants seem unnecessary. They also feel non-free to me
> b
> by insisting on the right to delete/change attribution, and the right to
> delete/change secondary sections, that is *exactly* what you are
> demanding - the right to plagiarise and misrepresent.
How can you know why someone else wants to modify an invariant section?
Maybe they simply want to co
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:
> > The way it is presented here, makes perfect sense to me. The author must
> > have the right to keep certain "background/political/philosophical" parts
> > of
>
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
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 08:53:45AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Peter Vandenabeele writes:
> > 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.
>
Peter Vandenabeele writes:
> 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 i
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
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 10:56:57AM +0100, Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> The way it is presented here, makes perfect sense to me. The author must
> have the right to keep certain "background/political/philosophical" parts of
> his text (secondary) invariant, while allowing all needed updates, additio
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 08:53:07AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:03:49PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 08:05:57PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > Because this is *exactly* the situation you get with invariant sections.
> > Sure, you can add ano
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
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
> >
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 01:13:51AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:43:43AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > The license must allow:
> > >
> > > 1) the distribution of "patch files" for the purpose of modifying
> > >
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:03:49PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 08:05:57PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 09:54:38AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 07:36:02PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > "wa
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,
* 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 patches
in many jurisdictions. (DJB's analysis clearly does not apply to the
situation in Germ
O Mércores, 5 de Xaneiro de 2005 ás 20:09:01 +1100, Craig Sanders escribía:
> i can take a GFDL document with an invariant section, add another
> section which argues against, subverts, or just supplements the
> invariant section, AND i can distribute the result as either a new
> source t
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 08:05:57PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 09:54:38AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 07:36:02PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > > "wannabe-Holier-Than-Stallman zealots" is not a rebuttal, it's merely a
> > > su
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:43:43AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > The license must allow:
> >
> > 1) the distribution of "patch files" for the purpose of modifying
> >the work at build time
> >
> > 2) the modified form built from the pa
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 09:56:09AM +0100, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> O M?rcores, 5 de Xaneiro de 2005 ?s 19:42:46 +1100, Craig Sanders escrib?a:
>
> > because the DFSG explicitly allows a license to restrict modification so
> > that
> > it is only permitted by patch.
>
> As long as we can distribu
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 09:54:38AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 07:36:02PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > "wannabe-Holier-Than-Stallman zealots" is not a rebuttal, it's merely a
> > succinct description of the anti-GFDL crowd.
>
> Not agreeing with you does
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:43:43AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > whether you call it commentary or a patch, it's still a patch and is
> > explicitly allowed by the DFSG.
>
> The section of the DFSG to which you are refering is the following:
>
>
O Mércores, 5 de Xaneiro de 2005 ás 19:42:46 +1100, Craig Sanders escribía:
> because the DFSG explicitly allows a license to restrict modification so that
> it is only permitted by patch.
As long as we can distribute a modified binary.
There's no way we can distribute a GFDL-licensed documen
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 07:36:02PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
[snip]
> "wannabe-Holier-Than-Stallman zealots" is not a rebuttal, it's merely a
> succinct description of the anti-GFDL crowd.
Not agreeing with you does not necessarily make people zealots. Have
you ever considered that you're a ze
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005, Craig Sanders wrote:
> whether you call it commentary or a patch, it's still a patch and is
> explicitly allowed by the DFSG.
The section of the DFSG to which you are refering is the following:
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
The license may restrict sourc
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 06:04:08PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 06:01:41PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:10:18PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > Lack of source code and no permission to modify the existing article
> > > are just convenience.
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 02:01:31AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > I'm not aware of any other non-free bits of data in Debian with the
> > > status of "we have absolutely no choice", other than license texts, so
> > > nothing else
> >
> > i don't believe that we do have "absolutely no choice".
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:46:56PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:38:31PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > (similarly, you CAN modify an invariant section - but you can only
> > do so by adding a new section that subverts or refutes or simply
> > adds to the invariant sect
On Tuesday 04 January 2005 10:07 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> License texts are allowed to be invariant because there's no choice.
> Debian could try to lobby for modifiable licenses, but it can't use the
> "punt it to non-free" lever that it has available with everything else.
Also, the fact tha
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 06:01:41PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:10:18PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:03:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > no, acroread is DFSG non-free for other reasons that have nothing
> > > to do with convenience. m
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:10:18PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:03:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > no, acroread is DFSG non-free for other reasons that have nothing
> > to do with convenience. most notably, the complete absence of
> > source-code, and the right to
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:38:31PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> IMO all three together are, as i said, sufficient reason to be a bit more
> tolerant about licensing for documentation.
I disagree, and I also think it's insane to claim that "a bit more tolerant"
includes "allow the license to prohi
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:38:31PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> (similarly, you CAN modify an invariant section - but you can only do so by
> adding a new section that subverts or refutes or simply adds to the invariant
> section. i.e. you can make whatever comments you like about it, but you can
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:56:29AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 04:02:38PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > sorry, but that argument is bogus. convenience is NOT the same as freedom.
> > more to the point, freedom does not require convenience.
>
> This isn't a matter of co
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 01:15:13AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:10:18PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > the format for an RFC is pretty much prescribed by convention if not by
> > > explict written rule, and the data is implicit in what you're writing.
> > > given
>
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 04:13:25PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > Ghods, not this one again. The GPL, as a text of it's own, would
> > most certainly fail the DFSG.
>
> it doesn't matter what reason we might have for distributing it.
> what matters is
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:10:18PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > the format for an RFC is pretty much prescribed by convention if not by
> > explict written rule, and the data is implicit in what you're writing.
> > given
> > those two conditions, any "clean room" re-implementation of an RFC i
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:03:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 04:13:25PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 04:02:38PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > sorry, but that argument is bogus. convenience is NOT the same as
> > > freedom.
> > > more to
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 04:13:25PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> Ghods, not this one again. The GPL, as a text of it's own, would most
> certainly fail the DFSG. We only include the GPL as a description of the
> terms under which much of the software in Debian is distributed, which is
> very, ve
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 04:13:25PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 04:02:38PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > sorry, but that argument is bogus. convenience is NOT the same as freedom.
> > more to the point, freedom does not require convenience.
>
> Convenience and freedom
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 04:02:38PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> sorry, but that argument is bogus. convenience is NOT the same as freedom.
> more to the point, freedom does not require convenience.
This isn't a matter of convenience. A "standard" which is explained as
a set of changes to a prev
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 04:02:38PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:28:29PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 02:11:03PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > [ ... referencing earlier docs ... ]
> >
> > Sometimes this is a good approach, sometime it isn't
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:28:29PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 02:11:03PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > [ ... referencing earlier docs ... ]
>
> Sometimes this is a good approach, sometime it isn't. It certainly isn't
> good to do this for several generations of protoc
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 02:11:03PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > But that's covered by DFSG 4 - it would be acceptable for people to have
> > to rename modified versions. What if I base my fridge stock querying
> > system on IMAP? The easiest way to describe it to others would be to
> > modify th
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 11:17:06PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 Jan 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> If so, why do you believe that these freedoms are less useful for
> >> documentation than executables?
> >
> > I always go
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:08:57PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Let's just list the 9 points of the DFSG:
>
> Free Redistribution
> Source Code (ie, it has to have it)
> Derived Works (ie, the right to create them)
> Integrity of The Author's Source Code (patch files and forced renamings
> are
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 11:17:06PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 Jan 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> If so, why do you believe that these freedoms are less useful for
> >> documentation than executables?
> >
> > I always go
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> If so, why do you believe that these freedoms are less useful for
>> documentation than executables?
>
> I always go back to the technical standards when asked that.
>
> Clearly, if anyone can
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:04:41PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> I always go back to the technical standards when asked that.
>
> Clearly, if anyone can change a standard (without going through whatever is
> the revision procedure for that standard), it loses most of its most
> impo
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Right. But all you've said is "I think these things are not software",
> not how or why they should have different freedoms. Let's just list the
> 9 points of the DFSG:
>
> Free Redistribution
> Source Code (ie, it has to have it)
> Derived Works (ie,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would not have too much trouble with GFDL documentation that is not
> software in Debian, the same way that I certainly would like to have the
> RFCs and other standards in Debian. In fact, I'd quite happly welcome such
> documentation in
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 11:13:46AM +, root wrote:
> Word of advice.if you are going to have a home web site for Debian,
> make sure your hyperlinks work. Over half of them are pointed at
> www.linux.org and they don't work!
Which are those, exactly? We've got a bad link scanner but I can
77 matches
Mail list logo
