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 04:13:25PM +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 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 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, 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 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, 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 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 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 05:10:18PM +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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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
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 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:
>
>
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 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, 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 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
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
* Matthew Garrett:
> Perhaps an easier way to do this would be to look at the DFSG and work
> out what changes need to be made. We have a set of freedoms that we
> believe software should provide - rather than providing an entirely
> different set of freedoms for documentation, we should try to ju
* 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
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 02:21:00PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett:
>
> > Perhaps an easier way to do this would be to look at the DFSG and work
> > out what changes need to be made. We have a set of freedoms that we
> > believe software should provide - rather than providing an e
Am Wed, 05 Jan 2005 02:30:12 +0100 schrieb Brian Masinick:
>
> I agree with you. What is there currently is quite clear, and I don't
> think that it is misleading, either. Just as Richard Stallman states,
> the system comes with GNU utilities, and in our case, GNU utilities,
> various other un
* Gunnar Wolf:
> 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 place you can refer to in order to get the
> source,
* Gunnar Wolf:
> 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 [...]
>>
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 of printed copies,
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
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 08:04:24PM -0500, Brian Masinick wrote:
> Think about it, just as there is "Debian GNU/HURD"
It's the Hurd, not the HURD.
cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Greetings and Happy New
Year!
I recieved a Dell 5160
laptop as a holiday gift and require assistance finding a distro that supports
the included components. I have tried several live disks (knoppix,
linspire, mandrake) but wireless networking and video components continue
to be problema
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,
* 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
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
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 04:06:51PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
> -public_html on gluck and refered to by
> +~/public_html on gluck and refered to by
s/refered/referred/
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=referred
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=refered
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 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 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
> >
-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 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
* Johannes Rohr
| Linus says: Linux is an OS, using the GNU tools and being packaged by
| distributors.
nah, he doesn't. He says that Linux is a kernel and useless without
any programs to use. It's also fairly boring to most people.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
El mar, 04-01-2005 a las 19:50 -0500, Glenn Maynard escribió:
> 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
Hi Rybon,!
You wrote:
>I recieved a Dell 5160 laptop as a holiday gift and require assistance
>finding a distro that supports the included components. I have tried
>several live disks (knoppix, linspire, mandrake) but wireless
>networking and video components continue to be probl
A Dimecres 05 Gener 2005 21:19, Rybon, John P. va escriure:
> Greetings and Happy New Year!
>
> I recieved a Dell 5160 laptop as a holiday gift and require assistance
> finding a distro that supports the included components. I have tried
> several live disks (knoppix, linspire, mandrake) but wirel
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 01:23:33AM +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
> But trademarks are strict and not free by default. If I can use a
> trademark to name my own products when they don't belong to me, it is no
> longer a trademark.
Sure. A trademark license that's "free"--when evaluated a
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
49 matches
Mail list logo
