Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is a document, and what is a program? How can Debian even begin
to distinguish what makes free documentation different from free
software when we can't distinguish whether a particular piece of
data is software or documentation in the first place?
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:32:16PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
I'm not certain I agree. Point one of the social contract is Debian Will
Remain 100% Free Software. The obvious reading of this is that anything
that is not free software cannot be in Debian.
This includes non-free software AND
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:32:16PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
I'm not certain I agree. Point one of the social contract is Debian Will
Remain 100% Free Software. The obvious reading of this is that anything
that is not free software cannot be in Debian.
I tend to doubt that *either* was
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:52:21AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:32:16PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
I'm not certain I agree. Point one of the social contract is Debian Will
Remain 100% Free Software. The obvious reading of this is that anything
that is not free
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 04:34:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
The issue is that the Debian Social Contract doesn't say All software
in Debian will remain 100% free, it says Debian will remain 100% Free
Software.
Interesting. I had always read it as Debian will remain (100% Free)
Software,
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 20:53, Branden Robinson wrote:
Why should the DFSG have to worry about such philosophical questions?
Why isn't it enough to worry about the license?
Because software isn't documentation?
Think of it this way: national security would be so much easier to
maintain if we
Replies to -legal if you must make them. This list is for development
issues, not boring license pedantry.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:12:41AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 20:53, Branden Robinson wrote:
Why should the DFSG have to worry about such philosophical questions?
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 01:08, Anthony Towns wrote:
Replies to -legal if you must make them. This list is for development
issues, not boring license pedantry.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:12:41AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 20:53, Branden Robinson wrote:
Why should the
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:36:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
These are all good arguments. If they hold, I would humbly suggest then
that we rename the Debian Free Software Guidelines to the Debian Free
Content Guidelines. This, it would seem, would be more direct.
That would be a massive
On Tuesday, April 9, 2002, at 02:36 , Jeff Licquia wrote:
Except that most of the crypto technology you used to find on Italian
and Dutch FTP servers was either code from the USA or (rather poorly)
algorithms from the USA.
Yes, that's because it was perfectly legal to print it out and
mail it,
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:12:41AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 20:53, Branden Robinson wrote:
Why should the DFSG have to worry about such philosophical questions?
Why isn't it enough to worry about the license?
Because software isn't documentation?
Think of it this
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 08:45, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:12:41AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Similarly, it would be a lot easier to just define documentation to be
software for the purposes of the DFSG. But does it make sense?
The alternative is that documentation will
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:08:18AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
I think there's a consensus that the DFSG and Social Contract are poorly
phrased; [...]
Uh, no, there's not. That you don't understand the terms, or misinterpret
them, doesn't mean they absolutely need to be changed.
Cheers,
aj
--
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 10:27, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:08:18AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
I think there's a consensus that the DFSG and Social Contract are poorly
phrased; [...]
Uh, no, there's not. That you don't understand the terms, or misinterpret
them, doesn't
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:36:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
It's more useful, I think, to look at it this way: there is a sense that
the freedom we insist upon for executable code may not necessarily be
appropriate for other kinds of information that may be found in a Debian
package.
I
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:45:03AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:12:41AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 20:53, Branden Robinson wrote:
Why should the DFSG have to worry about such philosophical questions?
Why isn't it enough to worry about the
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:45:56PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
The alternative is that documentation will be treated as something we
are enjoined by the Social Contract from distributing at all. Debian
Will Remain 100% Free Software. This may have been poor phrasing on
the part of the
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:45:56PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
You know, I keep hearing this. Does this mean we should ditch the entirety
of GCC's manuals, even old ones which weren't under the FDL, since the FSF
has *clearly* indicated that *they* do not consider them to by software,
since they
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:20:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:45:56PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
You know, I keep hearing this. Does this mean we should ditch the entirety
of GCC's manuals, even old ones which weren't under the FDL, since the FSF
has *clearly*
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:27:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I think there's a consensus that the DFSG and Social Contract are poorly
phrased; [...]
Uh, no, there's not. That you don't understand the terms, or misinterpret
them, doesn't mean they absolutely need to be changed.
I
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
What the FSF considers software vs. documentation is not relevant to the
DFSG.
What matters is whether Debian applies the DFSG to a work, irrespective
of whether the work is categorized by its author, the FSF, or Debian as
software, documentation,
How about: /usr/bin/latex is a program - my_neat_little_phdthesis.tex is
a file?
Actually, /usr/bin/latex is an interpreter.
my_neat_little_phdthesis.tex *is* program code, even though the vast
proportion of the content will be literal text for output. See Andrew
Greene's BASiX (BASIC
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:22:53PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:29:27PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
if I'm only
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:24:44PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
The FDL is not DFSG-compliant, but that doesn't make it non-free.
By the definitions we have given non-free, it is exactly that.
If it was software, it was non-free. Our definitions are only about
software. The GNU FDL is
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 04:34:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Software. Therefore, for something to be part of Debian, it must be
Free Software, even if it's documentation. Now, this may be an
It must be free software, even if it's documentation?
So any documentation, if included in
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:39:31AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 04:34:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Software. Therefore, for something to be part of Debian, it must be
Free Software, even if it's documentation. Now, this may be an
It must be free software, even if
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
Orphaned because it's now considered non-free.
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
Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 10:01, Ben Pfaff ha scritto:
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
Orphaned because it's now considered non-free.
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Package: gnu-standards
Version: 2002.01.12-1
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.1.2
The GNU
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software
Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for
content generation and counting variables. Is
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:12:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software
Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:12:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software
Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS
Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 19:12, Joe Wreschnig ha scritto:
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software
Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 11:56:59AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:12:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 14:29, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for
content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not
sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be
included as documentation (and
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 16:08, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
documentation != document. XSLT is cleary a program and s stylesheet
should go under a code license. but a manual about programming in XSLT
is definitely documentation and should be treated in a different way.
What about inline
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 04:34:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 11:56:59AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
The DFSG is an excellent place to start, but trying to apply it to things
which *are not software* is silly, and results in the sort of sillyness
which we're seeing
Il lun, 2002-04-08 alle 00:15, Joe Wreschnig ha scritto:
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 14:29, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for
content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not
sure, but it's definitely not just a
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:15:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
In fact, XML and HTML (and I would imagine therefore CSS and XSLT) are
explicitly listed as transparent formats. I'm not going to argue that.
The problems, although they're transparent, they're programs as well
as documents.
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:15:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 14:29, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
It's possible to draw a line. The GNU FDL clearly describes what a
Transparant copy is for example.
Whether or not it describes what a transparent copy is is irrelevant. In
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:29:27PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
if I'm only using packages from main.
The FDL is not DFSG-compliant, but that
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:22:51AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:15:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
In fact, XML and HTML (and I would imagine therefore CSS and XSLT) are
explicitly listed as transparent formats. I'm not going to argue that.
The problems, although
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:12:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software
Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 20:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whatcha mean becoming? Lispers have been blurring the line between
data and code for the last half-century.
Speaking as a budding LISPer (working my way through On Lisp while my
classes ruin my brain with Java), I'm well aware of this. But
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:39:12PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 20:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whatcha mean becoming? Lispers have been blurring the line between
data and code for the last half-century.
Speaking as a budding LISPer (working my way through On Lisp
44 matches
Mail list logo
