On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:37:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You are of course assuming that there is some way of making an absolute
> > determination as to the DFSG-compliance of a license, when there is not.
>
> No, I'm not. I'm saying
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:37:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
> > contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
> > whether something is in compliance with them. If a majority say that
> > that is the
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:21:57PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
> contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
> whether something is in compliance with them. If a majority say that
> that is the case, then for
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm glad you enjoyed. It was a great fun. But, you know, since I'm not
>> subscribed to -legal, I had to find another way. There was a choice between
>> simply closing the silly bug, or playing a bit with extremists for free (as
>> beer!!!)
>
> Yeah
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:30:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >>
> >> But that isn't my point. My point is that you can't include the
> >> GFDL'd material in any free
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:20:36PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:43:30 +0200, Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > The interpretation that I hold is the following:
>
> >The license must give us permissions to modify the work in
> > order to adapt it to var
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:30:05PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Returning back to the topic, we have the following situation:
> >
> >1. The binary form of GDB would be covered under BSD license
>
> Wrong. Because the binary would be inc
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:29:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is strange. :-) The program is covered under BSD license and you
> > say it is non-free.
>
> No. The resulting program is covered under the BSD license and the
> GFDL toge
On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns verbalised:
> Meh, -devel dropped.
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:27:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns outgrape:
>>> That view, namely "other people may propose ballots that aren't
>>> good enough, and it's my job to stop that", is p
On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns stated:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 03:22:28PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> Anyway, I've got better things to do, so I'll see you all in
>> another two weeks, when this vote will've been in discussion for
>> two months.
>
> Actually, there's one other possibility:
>
On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns told this:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:08:32PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Anthony Towns writes:
>>> That view, namely "other people may propose ballots that aren't
>>> good enough, and it's my job to stop that", is precisely a
>>> supervisory one.
>> Often
On 9 Feb 2006, Marco d'Itri told this:
> On Feb 10, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Surely it does. People who say "I was deceived; and I didn't
>> bother to take elementary steps to avoid deception" have chosen to
>> be deceived.
> Well, at least now you agree that the GR tit
On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns outgrape:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:34:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On 8 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns stated:
>>> Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are
>>> honourable enough to note vote for a proposal they think
>>> contradicts the social c
On 9 Feb 2006, Marco d'Itri spake thusly:
>On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely
>> honorable, this is not true of everyone. Now that this is the *third*
>> time we are being asked to vote on essentially the sa
On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 05:47, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns verbalised:
> > It might be better at setting people's expectations: where they
> > might expect the secretary to be "unbiassed", or at least to pretend
> > to be, presumably they wouldn't expect that of people pro
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>On 9 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant spake thusly:
The only people it made happy are extremists.
>
> Oh, so I am extremist now. By believing that all bits
> modifiable by the computer are software? And the overwhelming
Yes, I think it is an
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Certainly looks like you think that there is some absolute way to
> determine that the license is not DFSG-compliant to me. If there
> isn't, then the "if" in the first part of your sentence is never
> satisfied, and the rest is completely hypothetical.
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:30:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> >>
>> >> But that isn't my point. My point is that you
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you want your binary to use pieces from the manual for help
> strings, then your binary has to read these pieces from auxiliary file
> which would be (speaking in the terms of GFDL) an opaque copy and
> would be covered under GFDL.
Likely not. In a
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would you please tell me how necessary it is to modify RMS essays, the
> GNU Manifesto, and so on, and how removing them from Emacs will make
> Debian more free? I'm afraid it sounds ideological.
Actually, I'd rather we could keep them.
And we do have
On 11 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant outgrape:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
On 9 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant spake thusly:
> The only people it made happy are extremists.
>>
>> Oh, so I am extremist now. By believing that all bits
>> modifiable by the computer are software? And
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 09:48:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If you want your binary to use pieces from the manual for help
> > strings, then your binary has to read these pieces from auxiliary file
> > which would be (speaking in the term
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the binary doesn't even depend on the auxiliary opaque copy for its
> work then there is no reason to consider them combined works. Many
> GPL-covered programs can print the text of GPL but this doesn't mean
> that the text of GPL is part of these p
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Would you please tell me how necessary it is to modify RMS essays, the
>> GNU Manifesto, and so on, and how removing them from Emacs will make
>> Debian more free? I'm afraid it sounds ideological.
>
At Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:33:54 +0100,
Frank Küster wrote:
>
> Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The fact that people expressed the opinion that Debian doesn't
> > consider non-free software as antisocial and unethical scares me a
> > lot.
>
> There are several reasons why people "are f
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 10:42:19AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> We're talking about a binary which is so integrated that it snarfs
> bits of documentation and prints them as docstrings
The integration is not very tight. The binary can work without the
auxiliary file so it can not be con
On 11 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant stated:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Would you please tell me how necessary it is to modify RMS essays,
>>> the GNU Manifesto, and so on, and how removing them from Emacs
>>> will make Debian m
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 11 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant outgrape:
>
>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
> On 9 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant spake thusly:
>> The only people it made happy are extremists.
>>>
>>> Oh, so I am extremist now. By believing that al
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:54:04 +0200, Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:07:00AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>
> The Emacs Manual requires rather more than one additional sheet of
>> paper. If a small footnote could handle it, that would be fine.
> You can
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 06:19:28AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:21:57PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
> > contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
> > whether something is in com
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:34:28 +0200, Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:20:36PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
>> Leaving aside the (seemingly) highly charged issue of the Emacs
>> manual and the GNU Manifesto, let's go into the fantasy world. Let's
>> say that I writ
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:53:33 +1000, Anthony Towns said:
> (It would also mean that any interpretation is done when the code's
> being written; so the decisions are predicatable in advance, and if
> any of them appear to be wrong, they can be debated in advance, rather
> than being a distraction f
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 10:07:23AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. If it makes part of the
> constitution look silly or pointless to you, then there are at least
> two other possible sources of that silliness.
I think this circling argument is silly, not the
On 2/10/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:37:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > And, likewise, you can't argue that the secretary must treat an option
> > as accepted when preparing the ballot. Treating controversial
> > general resolution proposals as if t
On 2/10/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I didn't say anything about the ballot options being ignored -- I said the
> constitution doesn't say anything about ignoring foundation documents --
> ie the social contract or the DFSG. We're actually doing that right now
> in a sense, by continuing to leave bu
On 2/11/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:21:57PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
> > contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
> > whether something is in compliance wi
On 2/10/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as possible,
> even to the point where votes would be run without any human intervention.
> I've thought about that before, but I don't have the inclination to
> write any code for it.
I don't know what
On 2/11/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Branden, under 4.2(4) you're empowered to vary the minimum discussion
> period of 2 weeks for this vote by up to one week; given the discussion
The minimum discussion period is a lower bound on the time for the
discussion. It's not an upper bound.
Casting a di
On 2/11/06, I wrote:
> Casting a discussion about when the voting should begin in terms of
> changing the minimum discussion period seems misleading.
P.S. I also think that the minimum discussion period is the minimum
discussion period for a resolution or an amendment.
P.P.S. I also think the Sec
Hi,
I second Adeodato Simó's proposal but at the same time I consider it
still leaves some spaces for the absolutism interpretation which tends
to plague Debian. I consider we should have reasonable space for
"judgment" for many things in life.
Let's consider a documentation written in the SGML
Hi,
Raul Miller schrieb:
>>This is silly. It seems like the constitution effectively says "if the
>>resolution passes it required a simple majority; if it failed, it needed 3:1".
> The only silliness is the verb tenses. Once some concept passes
> supermajority it doesn't need to pass again, be
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:22:11 +0900, Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> GFDL blah, blah,...
> Invariant section being following comment section in SGML
>
[...]
This cannot be an invariant section as defined by the GFDL, because the
GFDL says that an invariant section must be a secondar
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 07:14:22PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:22:11 +0900, Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> [...]
> > GFDL blah, blah,...
> > Invariant section being following comment section in SGML
> >
> [...]
Hmmm... my example may have been confusing.
> Thi
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 11:58:14AM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 07:14:22PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:22:11 +0900, Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> > [...]
> > > GFDL blah, blah,...
> > > Invariant section being following comment section i
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:20:36 -0700, Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Leaving aside the (seemingly) highly charged issue of the Emacs manual
> and the GNU Manifesto, let's go into the fantasy world. Let's say
> that I write some software, and some documentation for it. Suppose
> that I lic
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 12:03:01 +0900, Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 11:58:14AM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 07:14:22PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
>>> This cannot be an invariant section as defined by the GFDL, because
>>> the GFDL says that an i
On 2/11/06, Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem case is where the option has majority, but fails
> supermajority.
Another problem case is where we pass a GR that expresses
some judgement about past events.
For example, imagine a GR that says "we have never received any spam".
47 matches
Mail list logo
