Steve == Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve I'd be happy to hear clarifications from the author and
Steve contemporaries, then; to be honest, my memory of Debian
Steve history isn't good enough to even know who to approach. (The
Steve debian-doc package is conspicuously lacking
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The membership also seems
to have shifted towards a more radical^H^H^H^Henthusiastic support of
_only_ free software, and helping people use whatever they wish on
Debian, while providing them with free alternatives, seems to be on
the wane.
On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 12:43, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
Witness the response to Jeroen.
I don't think we can draw any conclusion from the response to Jeroen
other than a lot of us think rudeness is a bad thing. (Including even
Jeroen himself, per his apology a few flames back in that thread.)
--
Steve == Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve As a developer, I am by no means in a position to try to
Steve interpret what the phrasers of the Social Contract /really/
Steve meant to say. They wrote what they wrote, and I agreed to it
Steve as written; as did many other developers
On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 14:39, Steve Langasek wrote:
I'd be happy to hear clarifications from the author and contemporaries,
then; to be honest, my memory of Debian history isn't good enough to
even know who to approach. (The debian-doc package is conspicuously
lacking of the relevant
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 19:03, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
I wrote this up last night after getting fed up with this thread, then
modified it this morning after reading the thread on -legal that was
referred to. Flame away.
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 15:21, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Why? What freedoms are important for software that aren't for
documentation?
Revisionist history, for one. I'm sure the FSF wouldn't appreciate the
GCC document being
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 00:55, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 01:42, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
DFSG stand for Debian Free Software Guidelines. IMHO we ave to
Anthony == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Anthony How about correcting a supposedly historical document, for
Anthony example, taking a document that describes Windows as the
Anthony progenitor of the trend for GUIs, and adding some
Anthony explanation about Apple and Xerox and
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 22:49, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
So, we change either the status quo, or the DFSG, or issue
clarifications on why the status quo (with GFDL-licensed components)
doesn't violate the DFSG.
Where clarification
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:08:53PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?
No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
considered free by
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Also consider that pulling gcc from main would fracture the project; it
would become literally impossible to build a completely free OS, given
that the whole ball of wax would depend on a non-free compiler.
Why do we need to pull
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:54:40PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
I don't know. Call me an optimist, but I seem to be hearing a rough
consensus.
Where? Branden seems to believe that anything that Debian packages is
software, for the purposes of the DFSG. A number of people would argue
that small,
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 23:54, David Starner wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Also consider that pulling gcc from main would fracture the project; it
would become literally impossible to build a completely free OS, given
that the whole ball of wax would
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 00:05, David Starner wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:54:40PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
I don't know. Call me an optimist, but I seem to be hearing a rough
consensus.
Where? Branden seems to believe that anything that Debian packages is
software, for the purposes
Le Lundi 8 Avril 2002 05:08, David Starner a écrit :
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be
not?
No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
considered free by our
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:08:53PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to
be not?
No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
considered free
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 04:01:55PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
you're not allowed to change the license or the author's name of a
GPL-licensed program so, by your strictly literal reading of the DFSG
that makes the GPL non-free.
True. But by long tradition and, as you say, common sense, that's
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:05:45AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:54:40PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
I don't know. Call me an optimist, but I seem to be hearing a rough
consensus.
[...] And you, and another group of people, see to think that Debian
should
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Given that gcc, binutils, and KDE are in main, it would seem that the
status quo and the DFSG are in conflict, or the status quo and someone's
interpretation of the DFSG are in conflict at least.
As far as I can see neither the gcc
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:08:05AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
The point is that pulling everything out that's GFDL isn't really a good
option; it damages the project for zero gain. This is especially true
in the long term, as projects follow the FSF's lead and start releasing
GFDL docs.
On
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:05:31AM +0200, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Given that gcc, binutils, and KDE are in main, it would seem that the
status quo and the DFSG are in conflict, or the status quo and someone's
interpretation of
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 00:43, David Starner wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
DFSG stand for Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Yes, and since Debian is 100% Free Software, that applies to everything
in Debian.
Documentation isn't software. Neither are
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 01:42, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
DFSG stand for Debian Free Software Guidelines. IMHO we ave to create a
DFDG, Debian Free Documentation Guidelines.
Why? What freedoms are important for software that aren't
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 09:01, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:08:05AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
The point is that pulling everything out that's GFDL isn't really a good
option; it damages the project for zero gain. This is especially true
in the long term, as projects
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:30:18AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On the other hand, by taking action we might be able to stop those projects
from taking such a misguided course of action. I think the FSF is making
a big mistake with the GFDL.
I'm curious about your reasoning. Have you
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:22:00AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 00:05, David Starner wrote:
Where? Branden seems to believe that anything that Debian packages is
software, for the purposes of the DFSG.
[...]
In that thread in debian-legal, he seemed to accept the
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:50:43PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
I think that the point being made is that, if the GNU FDL is not a free
license, then we will need to redefine free or watch our project
splinter into uselessness.
The GNU FDL is a license, period. It can applied in a manner
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 12:25, Branden Robinson wrote:
Jeff, you might want to read:
Noted.
People who want to opine about licensing issues really, really should
subscribe to -legal.
And I have (though only recently).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 12:32, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:22:00AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
In that thread in debian-legal, he seemed to accept the possibility that
some things packaged for Debian might not be software. His problem
seemed to be with corner cases, and
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:28:19PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:04:12PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
In case this is true, nearly all KDE packages have to be moved to
non-free as they use the GNU FDL for the documentation.
As far as I can see neither the gcc nor the binutils documentation has
invariant sections. I don't know about KDE.
Gcc 3 docs do: gcc-3.0/gcc/doc/gcc.texi has (1) the GPL itself [which
we already need some way of dealing with, the text of the GPL isn't
DFSG but we include it...] (2) the three
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:30:18AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 09:01, Richard Braakman wrote:
On the other hand, by taking action we might be able to stop those projects
from taking such a misguided course of action. I think the FSF is making
a big mistake with the
Le Dimanche 7 Avril 2002 09:57, Ben Pfaff a écrit :
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Package: gnu-standards
Version: 2002.01.12-1
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.1.2
The GNU standards are licensed under two seperate licenses, neither
one of which meets the DFSG.
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 11:05:03AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Le Dimanche 7 Avril 2002 09:57, Ben Pfaff a ?crit :
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Package: gnu-standards
Version: 2002.01.12-1
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.1.2
The GNU standards are licensed
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Le Dimanche 7 Avril 2002 09:57, Ben Pfaff a écrit :
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Package: gnu-standards
Version: 2002.01.12-1
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.1.2
The GNU standards are licensed under two seperate licenses, neither
Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 21:34, Martin Schulze ha scritto:
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Le Dimanche 7 Avril 2002 09:57, Ben Pfaff a écrit :
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Package: gnu-standards
Version: 2002.01.12-1
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.1.2
The
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 11:14:08PM +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 21:34, Martin Schulze ha scritto:
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
I thought that it hasn't been finally resolved if the GNU FDL meets
the DFSG or not. However, there
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:04:12PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
In case this is true, nearly all KDE packages have to be moved to
non-free as they use the GNU FDL for the documentation. For example :
open KHelpcenter and click on Introduction to KDE.
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:34:45PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
I thought that it hasn't been finally resolved if the GNU FDL meets
the DFSG or not. However, there seemed to be consensus on documents
released under the GFDL with large sections marked invariant are
probably not DFSG-compliant,
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 19:28, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:04:12PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
In case this is true, nearly all KDE packages have to be moved to
non-free as they use the GNU FDL for the documentation. For example :
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 20:28, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:04:12PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
In case this is true, nearly all KDE packages have to be moved to
non-free as they use the GNU FDL for the documentation. For example :
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?
No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
considered free by our community are using this license. Thus, the onus
is on you to
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 22:08, David Starner wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?
No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs which are widely
considered free by our community
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:50:43PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
The GNU FDL violates the DFSG ?
In case this is true, nearly all KDE packages have to be moved to
non-free as they use the GNU FDL for the documentation. For example :
open KHelpcenter and click on Introduction to
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:26:48PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
We should also move binutils and gcc to non-free because the manpages
are under the GNU FDL.
So the FDL is a free license because it's inconvenient for it to be not?
No, they're saying that a vast majority of programs
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Given that gcc, binutils, and KDE are in main, it would seem that the
status quo and the DFSG are in conflict, or the status quo and someone's
interpretation of the DFSG are in conflict at least.
Also consider that pulling gcc
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 22:40, Joseph Carter wrote:
This should have been dealt with sooner. But the past three times the FDL
has been discussed on this list, no concensus was reached. The only thing
we can be certain of is that there are enough problems with it to prevent
any consensus.
48 matches
Mail list logo
