gt; > These invariant sections must be secondary sections; a secondary
> > > section is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the
> > > Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the
> > > publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall
> > > subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could
> > > fall directly within that overall subject. These parts include:
> > >
> > > * Invariant Sections
> > > * Cover Texts
> > > * Acknowledgements
> > > * Dedications
> > >
> > > However, modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian
> > > Free Software Guidelines, which state:
> > >
> > > 3. Derived Works
> > >
> > > The license must allow modifications and derived works, and
> > > must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the
> > > license of the original software.
> > >
> > > As such, we cannot accept works that include "Invariant Sections"
> > > and similar unmodifiable components into our distribution.
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
pgpZ4h3pse16M.pgp
Description: PGP signature
tating
how the Debian project is interpreting the DFSG with respect to the GFDL.
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
pgpkmX7XhvnIL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sunday 22 January 2006 11:59, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:21:13 -0700, Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> > On Saturday 21 January 2006 13:52, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> So, I am seeking arguments and guidance from the developer body
not permit royalty-free redistribution of
>the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly
>through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this
>License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the
>Program.
>
> We do not think that this requirement of GPL makes GPL covered
> programs non-free even though it can potentially make a GPL-covered
> program undistributable. Its purpose is against misuse of patents.
> Similarly, we do not think that GFDL covered documentation is non-free
> because of the measures taken in the license against misuse of
> DRM-protected media.
>
> [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html
> [2] http://www.gnu.org/doc/gnupresspub.html
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
pgp2QHcXEjwpG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
mmatical nitpicking. So a vote on this doesn't
require any changes to what the document says, nor does it change what the
document means. It's merely showing what how majority of developers think
the guideliens should be applied to the GFDL.
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
oject actual believe.
Whatever their decision, this doesn't change the DFSG, nor does it change
the "spirit" of it. It just means that the non-majority (whichever "side"
that is) apparently is interpreting the DFSG incorrectly in the opinion of
the project as a whole.
--
W
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 11:36, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> "Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Sure, it says it must permit modifications, but it doesn't way that it
> > must permit ALL modifications. The way it reads, literally, could
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 14:32, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:36:48AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > "Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Sure, it says it must permit modifications, but it doesn't way
>
meone else reads it and assumes that it means some limits are
okay.
If there is nothing that is absolutely specific and leaves absolutely no
doubt in anyones mind which is intended, why are you right and they are
wrong, or vice versa?
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP:
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 14:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 07:44:58PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 11:13:05AM -0700, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> >&g
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 14:24, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 11:13:05 -0700, Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> > On Wednesday 01 February 2006 09:41, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> "The license must permit modifications". No if,
.
Anyway, maybe you could give us an example format showing your point of view
and then if someone wants to show and alternate interpretation/point of
view, they can do it in a fashion that would be acceptable to you?
(I'm serious, not being sarcastic.)
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
pgpdzYKl3vHD4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:20, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> "Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm seriously asking, because I don't see it either permitting OR
> > limiting; it just says modifiablility. You read it assume it mean
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:17, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Nobody has, at all, even in the least even *presented* this supposed
> interpretation of the DFSG under which the GFDL passes.
Okay, I just presented on in my last e-mail, so you can stop saying this.
--
Wesley J. La
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:22, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> "Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I really see this as a push to kill a valid interpretation by forcing
> > it to have a supermajority. I would feel the same way even if the
> &
s a decision and it's been done completely in good
faith, then nobody is going to belly-ache after-the-fact. Okay--reality
check--maybe a bunch of people will. But at least for me, *I* will support
the secretary's good faith decisions--he's just doing his job.
--
Wesley J. Landak
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:42, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> "Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If you are saying that "The license must permit modifications" has one,
> > and only one interpretation, and that that interpretation is
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:53, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:23:43 -0700, Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> > Manoj, I really don't see how you can believe that this proposal is
> > "novel and unconventional", but if you real
secretary has my input and will go
ahead and make the decision he thinks is right. I think it might not be
what I agree with, but that's okay, he's doing his job (and this arguing is
just me trying to do mine!).
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 47
age documentation authors to license
> their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the
> same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional
> free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license.
>
> --->8---
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
pgpVnSJb9DD0U.pgp
Description: PGP signature
?
It also checked as an invalid signature here.
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
pgpAEtdvruckQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
this really needs to be cleared up, as it is very misleading and
seems to imply that the _proposal itself_ stated that it needed a 3:1
majority and requires a DFSG change, which is completely opposite what the
amendment actually states.
Thanks.
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Op
to perform
> combined source and binary packages uploads should be allowed to perform
> binary-only packages uploads for the same set of architectures.
>
> -----------
Seconded.
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2
only uploads.
Do you mean, someone should propose something so that source-only uploads
that would be an alternative option on this GR? Or do you mean that the GR
text as is could be interpreted as allowing/requiring/[somethinging]
source-only uploads? (I don't see how the latter is could b
owledge, this has been discussed many times before
but never proposed officially.
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
pgp68NXOqFxXV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
uing for
src+bin uploads with sources autorebuild on *all* architectures (which
incidentally, I believe I would be all for).
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
pgp8fwvuWhN3u.pgp
Description: PGP signature
*all* of these
things resulting in bad reproducibility or failed builds. Yet, in practice,
these things are not really worth worrying about.
To me this just sounds like anti-emulator superstition.
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4
re we going to do when/if we have more than 15
choices on a ballot? It's not an unthinkable situation. Would we not call
it hex, but continue the alphabet to use G-Z? Or would we enter choice
number 17 as 11?
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726
On Friday 09 March 2007 18:06, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:08:05 -0700, Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> > I don't object to hex (although I dislike prefix-less hex notation
> > quite a bit in general), but this looks like it was chosen j
he inevitable flames
because I dared say something vaguely positive about Sven.
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
pgpIf1fUcgbVd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
cant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
> AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
>
> and I ask for seconds.
Seconded.
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
for this vote. Also, this key must be used when submitting an encrypted
ballot. The public key for the vote, signed by the Project secretary, is
appended below.
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Monday 15 December 2008 12:09:28 Frans Pop wrote:
> I also call on all Debian Developers to *not* vote in this poll.
I must be missing something: is there some percieved harm in Debian
Developers voting on an *unofficial poll*?
--
Wesley J. Landaker
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9
D count
> does work for all the other parts too, so I see no reason to define
> something special now, in fear of "people wont vote".
If we think Q or 2Q is too high, someone could propose requiring floor(Q/2)
or floor(Q/4). I think Q is still a good reference point.
-
On Sunday 12 April 2009 17:43:36 Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 01:01:38AM +0200, Luigi Gangitano wrote:
> > Hi Kurt,
> > can you please report on issue in the voting software that prevented
> > some ballots to be processed? I sent my vote twince on April 9 and April
> > 11 and got th
d* use this time for campaigning.
Even if it's debatable if that "should" is exlcusive or inclusive, it's
still just a "should". I don't see why a DPL candidate couldn't go
until the day the vote ends, or start compaigning for 2012 starting now
if they real
to have done to inform
> >> > themselves about all the candidates, myself.
> >>
> >> Just because people vote in a way that you might not does not
> >> mean they are uninformed.
> >
> > I'm not convinced.
>
> Happily, the OP still has a
On Thursday, 24 March 2005 19:57, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 24 March 2005 16:52, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >> Happily, the OP still has a chance to change his mind ;-)
> >
> > Unless someone else sends in
On Thursday, 24 March 2005 20:15, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 02:57:43AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 24 March 2005 16:52, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > >> Happily, the OP s
osted publicly was never sent
in, then there wouldn't be any record of the vote--so if it was sent in at
the last minute, devotee would be seeing it for the first time...
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
pgpwsPQdJIxiz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ld sure be nice to have
a Debian package, as the software sounds quite useful. =)
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
pgpcwu75bU2IL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
41 matches
Mail list logo
