On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 05:09:05PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure, but for some of us, _software_ is a very broad category. For
me, it includes all works which can be encoded as a stream of bits.
wow, what can i say?! everything is software!? an
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Debian is about freedom. There are a set of guidelines which define
freedom as Debian sees it. This is the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Expand the name a little, if you like, to the Debian Free What We Will
Distribute Guidelines.
and that's
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
distributed in the same package. If you look at the Debian History
package, you'll find the statement that `The Debian Project was
officially founded by Ian Murdock on August 16th, 1993.', which
stands in interesting contrast to WHY-FREE's
On 20030428T234517-0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
so no, debian didn't come up with the idea of free software.
Are you trolling?
Anyway, the generally accepted concept of software in the context of
software engineering includes not only the programs themselfs being
produced but also all
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:45:17PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
distributed in the same package. If you look at the Debian History
package, you'll find the statement that `The Debian Project was
officially founded by Ian Murdock on August 16th,
En réponse à Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au:
If they're important for emacs users, why aren't they important for vi
users? If they're important enough to distribute, why are they hidden
away where they're impossible to find?
Anthony, what should we do with those files?
Should we remove
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 11:21:21AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
En r?ponse ? Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au:
If they're important for emacs users, why aren't they important for vi
users? If they're important enough to distribute, why are they hidden
away where they're impossible to
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 12:41:56AM +0200, Klaus Knopper wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 01:37:15PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Klaus Knopper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:30:43AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Technically, I'm not even actively distributing any
Klaus Knopper:
Is nobody gettng tired of this topic? I thought we already cleared
things up. The written offer is present on each CD, which complies
to the GPL. I have an email from Dave Turner from the FSF stating
that Knoppix IS in compliance with the GPL. Is there anything more
to
Hello everyone,
I think it is time for me to unsubscribe from this list, since the
discussion went into personal interpretations/opinions/beliefs about
the right way to interpret the GPL, rather than bringing new
insights.
As a summary, I hope the fact has been made clear that a written
(and,
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
It's easy to misapply the GNU FDL.
The GNU FDL says that only Secondary Sections (a term it defines)
may be marked Invariant, but does not say what should happen if a
section that is not Secondary is listed as an Invariant Section.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 04:34:54PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
why should be distribute WHY-FREE? because it is our raison d'être.
Hmm, I would argue that it's the FSF's raison d'être, but Debian's
purpose does not always coincide with that of the FSF.
with out it debian wouldn't even exist
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 12:31:42PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote=20
Under *some* countries using the *minority* Droit d'Auteur
system, perhaps. =20
Under the system used in the majority of the
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 20030428T234517-0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
so no, debian didn't come up with the idea of free software.
Are you trolling?
no, i am not. i was just merely responding to the statement that the
debian project was founded in august of 1993 while
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 04:34:54PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You have turned the DFSG soundly on its head. In a world of
copyrights, all works are non-free *by default*; it is only if they
meet certain requirements, as detailed in the DFSG, that
I've collected some thoughts on the GFDL, mainly the results in my head
of having read (and participated in) the discussions on the GFDL for
over a year now. I'm sure I've forgotten a bunch of good points to
bring up, but I've been working on this for several days now and I
really need to get
On 20030429T104014-0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
no, i am not. i was just merely responding to the statement that the
debian project was founded in august of 1993 while the WHY-FREE
manifesto dates from 1994, and hence it was claimed that the social
contract preceded the WHY-FREE manifesto. i
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 01:50:33AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
RFC 1884 (December 1995)
RFC 2373 (July 1998)
RFC 3515 (August 2003)
^^^
Uhh, I didn't know that the IETF issued RFCs in the future. Perhaps you
meant April 2003?
--
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
If we decide hey, let's not distribute them in main at all, I take it
you mean.
You don't have to distribute pristine tarballs. The xfree86 upstream
source includes some non-free stuff, which is stripped out of the
.orig.tar.gz before Branden
We're still clearly a ways from consensus on the topic of Debian's
position on GFDL documents which contain invariant sections. We've gotten
a good first volley of statments from folks, and this is an attempt to
shoehorn the majority of opinions into a smaller number of statments than
the
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 20030429T104014-0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
no, i am not. i was just merely responding to the statement that the
debian project was founded in august of 1993 while the WHY-FREE
manifesto dates from 1994, and hence it was claimed that the
On 20030429T133608-0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
Does anyone feel that their opinion does not roughly fall into one of the
following categories? If so, it would be nice to get a short statment of
opinion which stands on it's own rather than rebutting someone else's
statement.
You are completely
Scripsit Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does anyone feel that their opinion does not roughly fall into one of the
following categories?
I think my opinion fits well enough within category c:
c) The GFDL would not be free if applied to software, and is not free when
applied to documents. There
On 20030429T140523-0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
have taken upon yourselves to extend the definition of software, purge
the distribution of what you deem impure, and in general ignore any
opinions that don't agree with yours.
For this insult alone you deserve a *plonk*.
(To say nothing about the
Alex Romosan wrote:
now, this can also be interpreted as anthony saying debian was founded
before the WHY-FREE manifesto so the manifesto couldn't be our raison
d'être. i don't think it was either, since at the very beginning
(and i've been using debian since early in 1995) there was no
Let's try again with a cooler head...
On 20030429T140523-0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
here it is what anthony towns said on tue, 29 apr 2003 15:47:51 +1000
No, it's not. Our raison d'etre is documented in the Debian
Manifesto, distributed in the doc-debian package. Or it's the Debian
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On 20030429T133608-0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
Does anyone feel that their opinion does not roughly fall into one of the
following categories? If so, it would be nice to get a short statment of
opinion which stands on it's own rather than
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Alex Romosan wrote:
* Debian is about freedom. There are a set of guidelines which define
freedom as Debian sees it. This is the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Expand the name a little, if you like, to the Debian Free What We Will
Distribute Guidelines.
and
28 matches
Mail list logo
