unsubscribe
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! Try it today!
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:24:56AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 03:43:15PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> > [ redacted because it pointlessly appeared on debian-private ]
> >
>
> (Permission to forward my text below to any one/list that people might
> choose is hereb
I've Cc:ed this to -project - followups should probably go there.
On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 10:24 -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Either way, the people who are pushing the strict DFSG above all else
> have to see that the fundamental problem is that there are useful bits
> out there that Debian users
Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(Re: requirements for documentation)
> There are many more contentious points that we ought to be able to
> enumerate as we did in while creating the DFSG. I shall try to post a
> summary, frequently, of guidelines raised to keep discussion progressing[1].
O Mércores, 5 de Xaneiro de 2005 ás 03:39:25 +1100, Anand Kumria escribía:
> We wrote the Debian /Free Software/ Guidelines, there isn't anything
> stopping us from creating the Debian /Free Documentation/ Guidelines.
For Debian, software is everything that is stored or transmitted in digital
f
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005, Anand Kumria wrote:
> We wrote the Debian /Free Software/ Guidelines, there isn't anything
> stopping us from creating the Debian /Free Documentation/ Guidelines.
Indeed. And as you suggested, we can just let the maintainer choose whether
a document is to follow the DFSG (bec
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
As for what could compose the DFDG, there is a farily good set of ideas on
Manoj's page (which are in line with the DFSG):
< begin quote >
Freedoms for Documentation
Analogous to the software program freedoms, we need to articulate the
freedoms required for th
Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't believe that Documentation is similiar enough to Software that
> we can blindly apply the DFSG.
Please explain what documentation is in debian which is not also software.
That is conspicuously absent from your summary. I suggest that there is
no no
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > We wrote the Debian /Free Software/ Guidelines, there isn't anything
> > stopping us from creating the Debian /Free Documentation/ Guidelines.
>
> Indeed. And as you suggested, we can just let the maintainer choose
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't believe that Documentation is similiar enough to Software that
>> we can blindly apply the DFSG.
>
> Please explain what documentation is in debian which is not also software.
> That is conspicuously absent from
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005, David Schmitt wrote:
> And here the whole thing falls on its face: As I read it in the other
> messages, GFDL docs with (big) invariant sections must be rejected under
> this point, thus adopting such a policy wouldn't change the situation much.
This is a *given*. The DFDG
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Here is my problem, and my take, on the situation. If we have a Free
> Documentation Guideline, where would these documents reside? In main? In
> doc/main?
Wherever they are now. If they are acceptable, they go in main somewhere,
this really matt
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2005, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
>> If in main, what distinguishes the bits in a document (README.TXT) from
>> the program (hello_world)? If in doc/main, would there be a single
>
> Since this is an old point, and we already
Jacobo Tarrio:
For Debian, software is everything that is stored or transmitted in
digital form.
I just checked my dictionaries and checked "define:software" on Google, and
most sources define software along the lines of "computing programs designed
to perform various applications, e.g. word
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> So far, I have not seen a single convincing argument as to why
> documentation needs different freedoms to executable code. The existence
> of this thread is a good opportunity to try to find some.
Well, let's rename the thread then (did that).
Here's
Peter Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is it so clear that in Debian, we chose to subscribe to the second
> definition? Apparently from these discussions that pop up every now and then
> there are several people that agree more with the first one (that would
> include me).
It doesn't
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
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh:
>2. The freedom to study how the text is written, and adapt it to your
> needs. Access to the text in the preferred form for modification is a
> precondition for this. This includes the ability to modify the work to fit
> in low memory situations, reference cards
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Henrique de Moraes Holschuh:
> >2. The freedom to study how the text is written, and adapt it to your
> > needs. Access to the text in the preferred form for modification is a
> > precondition for this. This includes the ability to modify the work
(Cc:ed to -project, since it's effectively an interpretation of the DFSG
argument. Again.)
On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 22:53 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Ah, maybe the posts stuck here are not "problems"? Well haleluja - let's
> rewrite our contract to clarify that we will hide anything but problem
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,
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
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 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 04:45:34PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I've Cc:ed this to -project - followups should probably go there.
>
> On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 10:24 -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
> > Either way, the people who are pushing the strict DFSG above all else
> > have to see that the fun
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(invariant sections)
> why not? we allow it for software, so why not for documentation?
>
> in case it's not obvious what i'm talking about, we (grudgingly) allow
> software which only allows distribution of modifications by patch. this is in
> no way d
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:12:42AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> We can provide the logo under a free copyright license but fairly strict
> trademark license. A restrictive copyright license prevents legitimate
> modifications as well, which isn't what we want.
It's not clear whether a work whic
Think about it, just as there is "Debian GNU/HURD" there is "Debian
GNU/Linux" and if you want to make it short just make it "Debian".
Not that I feel like arguing about or changing the intro text on the
website though... It looks ok right now.
Cheers
Floris
I agree with you. What is there cu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thank you for posting in public, matthew!
On 04-01-2005 23:28, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> The social contract says that our bug database will be publicly
> available. That's all.
Right.
[I would've added something here, but then realized that I would
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 12:12:42AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On the other hand, I find the idea of post-installation modification
> interesting. I think we'd want to talk to a lawyer first, though.
> Preferably several.
I vaguely recall that we raised this issue with the FSF and they
express
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
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
Peter Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just checked my dictionaries and checked "define:software" on Google, and
> most sources define software along the lines of "computing programs designed
> to perform various applications, e.g. word processing"[1]. That is, only the
> pieces of informati
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 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 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
37 matches
Mail list logo
