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?
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 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 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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
