On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:11:11PM -0500, Christopher Martin wrote:
> The important question here is one of legitimacy. Who exactly has the
> authority to determine these matters of interpretation? Specifically, who
> decides what is in accordance with the DFSG? The developers do, through
> GRs
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 03:33:10PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> So I don't understand what you're trying to get at, or what possible
> relevance this theoretical discussion could have to anything else we're
> talking about.
If we have many documents covered under GFDL and all of them contain
di
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 10:59:09AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
>
> GFDL explicitly permits licenses that disallow any combined works.
Sorry, I wanted to say DFSG explicitly permits.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 06:57:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2006, Lionel Elie Mamane spake thusly:
>> Should the situation arise with the current constitution, the
>> secretary can use 7.1.4 to avoid impropriety or we can still
>> formally have the election run by the secretary, b
On 8 Feb 2006, Lionel Elie Mamane said:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 06:57:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On 7 Feb 2006, Lionel Elie Mamane spake thusly:
>
>>> Should the situation arise with the current constitution, the
>>> secretary can use 7.1.4 to avoid impropriety or we can still
>>> fo
On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The GR as amended might appear to contradict the Social Contract, or the
> DFSG, but it certainly *does not* modify them, and hence cannot be said to
> require a supermajority.
This comment seems insincere.
If the GR is adopted by Debian, ther
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 03:33:10PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> So I don't understand what you're trying to get at, or what possible
>> relevance this theoretical discussion could have to anything else we're
>> talking about.
> If we have many documen
A thought came to me as I was waking up this morning, so it might not be
the best thought-out example, but I thought I'd toss it out and see what
people think.
It seems to me that a secondary section can turn into a non-secondary
section in a modified document.
Suppose that I want to write a docu
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:21:36PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> What it says, for those who can't (or can't be bothered) to read it is
> essentially this:
>
> We will include GFDL'd works that have no bad bits unless we have
> permission to remove them.
>
> Or rewritten slightly more clearly (
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:40:36AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> The problem with the GFDL with invariant sections is very, very simple: it
> doesn't allow modifications of portions of the work. Either people
> consider that non-free or not. People who don't consider that non-free
> are probabl
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:47:10AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 8 Feb 2006, Lionel Elie Mamane said:
>> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 06:57:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> On 7 Feb 2006, Lionel Elie Mamane spake thusly:
Should the situation arise with the current constitution, the
>>
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:40:36AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> The problem with the GFDL with invariant sections is very, very simple:
>> it doesn't allow modifications of portions of the work. Either people
>> consider that non-free or not. People
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The first notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
> do whatever we want with it.
>
> The second notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
> adapt it to various needs and to improve it.
This is a false dilemma, of c
Hello,
* Anton Zinoviev [Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:33:30AM +0200]:
> During the the discussions in this and the previous month it became
> clear there are two completely different notions of "freedom" among
> us.
>
> The first notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
> do whateve
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:47:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:21:36PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > What it says, for those who can't (or can't be bothered) to read it is
> > essentially this:
> >
> > We will include GFDL'd works that have no bad bits unless we h
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:50:51AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The GR as amended might appear to contradict the Social Contract, or the
> > DFSG, but it certainly *does not* modify them, and hence cannot be said to
> > require a supermajority.
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that
> developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority,
> it would therefore seem to be the case that the majority of developers
> agreed with it. In which case those asse
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 07:56:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that
> > developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority,
> > it would therefore seem to be the cas
Anthony Towns writes:
> In any event, there is in fact a meaning in that case: the 3:1
> suerpmajority would still apply to issues where the majority of developers
> felt that the proposed resolution did contradict the social contract or
> DFSG -- and that the social contract/DFSG happened to be
Hello,
After my amendment to the GFDL GR was accepted, there was a bit of
discussion about the majority requirement that should be put on it. In
a nutshell, this is what happened:
- in what may have been a bad decision but seemed appropriate at the
time, I wrote the amendment from
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > In any event, there is in fact a meaning in that case: the 3:1
> > suerpmajority would still apply to issues where the majority of developers
> > felt that the proposed resolution did contradict the so
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The GR as amended might appear to contradict the Social Contract, or the
> DFSG, but it certainly *does not* modify them, and hence cannot be said to
> require a supermajority.
Well, um. That depends if you want the GR-as-amended to actually *do*
anythi
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, the amendment (Adeodato's) itself. I've just noticed that it's a
> complete waste of space as presented at
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 -- the second paragraph of
> point 2) of the first (un-headed) section reads as follows:
>
> Formall
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If the project secretary decides
> that my proposal (for GFDL) requires 3:1 supermajority, this would
> mean that the project secretary decides on behalf of the whole project
> that our notion of "free software" differs from the notion of FSF.
This is not corr
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:02:54PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > Actually, I think that both FSF and DFSG define "free software" pretty
> > similarily. The problem arises from the fact that our Social Contract
> > applies DFSG to all works, not just software, whereas FSF considers
> > software
I second the Amendment fully quoted below, as a replacement of the
previous one Adeodato wrote.
Le Jeu 9 Février 2006 06:26, Adeodato Simó a écrit :
> ---8<
>---
>
> Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> ===
26 matches
Mail list logo
