On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 11:49 +0300, Thibaut VARENE wrote:
(I've shifted this to -project - it's not really relevant to -private)
> This is yet another interesting concept of freedom, democracy, and
> "interest of our users". For the benefit of the *very small part of
> mind-twisted people that abs
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:05:07AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> But we *can* make people happy in this respect. It's possible for the
> GFDL to achieve its goal without preventing this use case.
I remain unconvinced that the freedoms required for documentation are
the same freedoms required for
---
> On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 11:49 +0300, Thibaut VARENE wrote:
>
> (I've shifted this to -project - it's not really relevant to
-private)
>
> > This is yet another interesting concept of freedom, democracy, and
> > "interest of our users". For the benefit of the *very small part
o
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 12:29 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> I remain unconvinced that the freedoms required for documentation are
> the same freedoms required for software. I think the best way to fix
> the current situation is to propose the Debian Free Documentation
> Guidelines and modify the SC
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-12 20:58]:
> Will the outgoing DPL do this for the domains which triggered this
> enquiry, please? It seems like it's a simple update to the summary
> posted to debian-project with copies of any original emails.
There are other domains which are imho more prob
Thibaut VARENE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This has a name: ideology. Rarely (if not never) can it be actually
> implemented in real life.
What is free software if not an ideology? We make the main/non-free
distinction because we (generalising madly) believe that our users
should have certain fr
Quoting Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:05:07AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > But we *can* make people happy in this respect. It's possible for the
> > GFDL to achieve its goal without preventing this use case.
>
> I remain unconvinced that the freedoms require
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 08:19:11AM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 12:29 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > I remain unconvinced that the freedoms required for documentation are
> > the same freedoms required for software. I think the best way to fix
> > the current situation is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> There are other domains which are imho more problematic than those
> mentioned in this thread. Anyway, before we can enforce our
> trademark, we actually need an updated and coherent trademark policy.
I'm disappointed by your inaction. The current permission
statement d
Matthew Garrett writes:
> I believe that for software to be free, it must be possible to distribute
> it in DRM-encumbered formats, providing an unencumbered version is also
> available. Do you disagree? If so, why?
Why is it not sufficient for the copyright owner to disclaim DMCA DRM
protection?
Matthew Garret wrote:
> Thibaut VARENE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This has a name: ideology. Rarely (if not never) can it be
actually
> > implemented in real life.
>
> What is free software if not an ideology? We make the main/non-free
> distinction because we (generalising madly) believe t
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 08:19:11AM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 12:29 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > I remain unconvinced that the freedoms required for documentation are
> > the same freedoms required for software. I think the best way to fix
> > the current situation is
Thibaut VARENE wrote:
> That's what I call favorizing the minority over the majority.
I acknowledge the context of this remark, but I ask you
to remember the trouble that the other view can cause when
generalised and majority takes all, regardless of minority.
Compromise is only possible when the
Thibaut VARENE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garret wrote:
>> I believe that for software to be free, it must be possible to
>> distribute it in DRM-encumbered formats, providing an unencumbered
>> version is also available. Do you disagree? If so, why?
>
> Of course I don't. This looks pl
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:23:35AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 08:19:11AM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 12:29 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > I remain unconvinced that the freedoms required for documentation are
> > > the same freedoms required
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 08:19:59AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
> > I believe that for software to be free, it must be possible to distribute
> > it in DRM-encumbered formats, providing an unencumbered version is also
> > available. Do you disagree? If so, why?
>
> Why is it
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 12:29:31PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:05:07AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > But we *can* make people happy in this respect. It's possible for the
> > GFDL to achieve its goal without preventing this use case.
>
> I remain unconvinced that
I wrote:
> Why is it not sufficient for the copyright owner to disclaim DMCA DRM
> protection?
Andrew Suffield writes:
> It is always possible to convert a non-free license into a free one by
> sufficient modification; often this can be done by attaching a rider to
> the license. So yes, this prob
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:50:26AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> I'm asking why the GFDL cannot simply waive DMCA rights instead of
> awkwardly banning "technical measures".
There are much better ways to write the clause than this. The only
reason it's broken is because the FSF are crap at writing
l
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 02:55:39PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I remain unconvinced that the freedoms required for documentation are
> > the same freedoms required for software. I think the best way to fix
> > the current situation is to propose th
Andrew Suffield writes:
> There are much better ways to write the clause than this. The only reason
> it's broken is because the FSF are crap at writing licenses.
They did an excellent job with the GPL, but the GFDL is horrible. It's not
just that it's non-Free: it's nearly incomprehensible. I w
* Ean Schuessler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050412 18:40]:
> I don't understand it and I'm not happy about it but I accept it. A market
> almost always makes better decisions than an individual. If the majority of
> the Debian project doesn't carry a grudge about the SPI accounting mishap
> then I gue
We already dismantled that machine's power supply to resolder a new fan into
it, Mr. Fingerpointer. Are you volunteering to provide a new boot drive? How
very awesome!
Just because Lully is hosted here doesn't mean there is local Alpha expertise.
There is just free bandwidth and a free rack an
Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is actually the fourth draft, but wanted to polish it a bit before
> everyone got to see it:
>
> http://people.debian.org/~willy/dfdocg-0.4.txt
Nice piece of work, thanks!
...
> I expect controversy over section 4 primarily with perhaps minor com
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 06:44:02PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> I approach this primarily from a pragmatic point of view (from a "our
> priorities are our users and free software" PoV if you want to think in
> terms of the social contract). The GNU manuals are useful and important.
Lots of non-
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 01:17:02AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Henning Makholm wrote:
> There's probably also the "free-use" and "nonprofit-use" properties --
> can I use this package without having to worry about the license, can I
> use it at home, or at work as well? Maybe:
>
> free
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 05:34:51PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> duplicated, or a blanket grant to include anything in main. As best we
> know so far, there is no useful point between these (unmodifiable or
> unredistributable documents are not considered useful).
I disagree. Standards documents
Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I approach this primarily from a pragmatic point of view (from a "our
> priorities are our users and free software" PoV if you want to think in
> terms of the social contract). The GNU manuals are useful and important.
> They have always had the restric
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 01:47:06AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 01:17:02AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > There's probably also the "free-use" and "nonprofit-use" properties --
> > can I use this package without having to worry about the lic
Then shouldn't its status be updated to indicate its real status rather
than 'root fs drive died, no response from local admin'
The accurate story indicates a need for help & hardware, the posted
status something else.
Dave
Ean Schuessler wrote:
We already dismantled that machine's power supply
On Tuesday 05 April 2005 3:06 am, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> For the video recording, do remember post-processing. In Oslo, we
> tried to do video recording, but when the recordings were done, no-one
> had thought about the need for post-processing, and the tapes just
> ended up on my desk. The
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 7:24 pm, Dave Hornford wrote:
> Then shouldn't its status be updated to indicate its real status rather
> than 'root fs drive died, no response from local admin'
> The accurate story indicates a need for help & hardware, the posted
> status something else.
I don't know i
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:21:42AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 05:34:51PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > duplicated, or a blanket grant to include anything in main. As best we
> > know so far, there is no useful point between these (unmodifiable or
> > unredistributabl
Ean Schuessler writes:
> I don't know if it is possible to catch more sh*t from people for helping
> them out.
> ...
> I didn't post that status nor are we actively monitoring it.
Then complaints about the posted status are not criticism of you.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAI
> http://people.debian.org/~willy/dfdocg-0.4.txt
This inherits its definition of Transparent from the FDL, but
some DDs consider that awkward. Is there a better one?
"Integrity of The Author's Document" looks like it might
permit practically unmodifiable documents, as "certain ways"
is very vague
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 02:35:17PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> We already dismantled that machine's power supply to resolder a new fan into
> it, Mr. Fingerpointer. Are you volunteering to provide a new boot drive? How
> very awesome!
> Just because Lully is hosted here doesn't mean there is
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 7:52 pm, John Hasler wrote:
> Then complaints about the posted status are not criticism of you.
Oh. Good point. I guess I'm mashing Andreas' criticism in with Dave's message.
Maybe that isn't what he meant at all.
In any case, if someone wants to requisition a new driv
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 06:44:33PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 April 2005 7:24 pm, Dave Hornford wrote:
> > Then shouldn't its status be updated to indicate its real status rather
> > than 'root fs drive died, no response from local admin'
> > The accurate story indicates a need
Ean Schuessler wrote:
> We already dismantled that machine's power supply to resolder a new fan into
> it, Mr. Fingerpointer. Are you volunteering to provide a new boot drive? How
> very awesome!
If it only lacks a boot drive, this can probably be arranged. I assume,
that lully read SCSI, so e
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:41:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Regarding your "Issues", note that only the DFSG's
> explanations/examples use the word "programs". If you did
> introduce a simple word change, I think it would be pretty
> likely to succeed but there would be accusations about
> "editorial
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 01:44:22AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:21:42AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 05:34:51PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > duplicated, or a blanket grant to include anything in main. As best we
> > > know so far, the
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:37:02PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Standards documents (eg RFCs) are useful references, even if you can't
> change them. Like when writing software that needs to implement the
> standards.
Computer programs are useful tools, even if you can't change them.
--
Glenn
On Thursday 14 April 2005 07.37, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> *We* don't add IPv6 support to standards documents just by changing
> those documents. Instead you go to the standards body, propose a change,
> it gets discussed etc and then ratified if everyone likes it. Then a new
> document is published
43 matches
Mail list logo
