Re: EU antitrust is also cool (was: A new practical problem...)
On 2/19/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_Red_Hat_2nd_ANSWER.pdf There is no judgement at all in this document which is resume only the arguments of D. Wallace. This court has dismissed D. Wallace on the basis of similar arguments in the documents I have pointed. The basis for dismissal was the judgement that Wallace didn't allege proper antitrust injury. It has really nothing to do with his arguments on price-fixing, etc. In his later filings, Wallace is just pressing the argument of predatory pricing which is consistent with http://www.rdantitrustlaw.info/shaky.pdf More generally, competitors may never be heard to complain of artificially low prices unless they are predatory, because it is only predatorily low prices that threaten injury to competition.94 94) Id. at 339–40. The Court's discussion was consistent with the Brunswick dictum on predatory pricing. See Brunswick, 429 U.S. at 489 n.14 (where there is true predation (not just uncomfortably aggressive price cutting), a competitor's lost profits do count as antitrust injury, even though the predatory practice temporarily benefits consumers). What I am looking for is an actual judgement; not only arguments that please you. Oh you should really look at the actual judgement. The judge already ruled that Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint States a Claim Upon Which Relief can be Granted and Wallace expands on that finding of vertical agreement in his Alternative Vertical Analysis. All judgements I know have been up to now in favour of the GPL. That previous ENTRY GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT was not quite in favour of the GPL. If you can show me the contrary, please do it, Just read it. I mean bits like The GPL allows free access to software programs, subject to some limitations. This does not mean that the GPL necessarily aids competition as contemplated by the Sherman Act, as FSF contends. regards, alexander.
Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
On 2/16/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 08:13:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: I think that it's safe to say that at the time the DFSG was drafted it was felt if the patch clause wasn't included in the DFSG that some software important to Debian would have been treated as non-free. I think it's also safe to say that we thought that allowing that software into Debian was a better idea than excluding it. According to Branden, it was an attempt to get Qmail into Debian, and that's treated as non-free anyway. I disagree: At the time the DFSG was being drafted, it wasn't clear how qmail would be distributed. -- Raul
Missing documentation for autoconf
Hi I'm bitten by the removal of the autoconf documentation. I wanted to do some bugfixing in a configure.in script. But as I'm currently offline, I don't have access to the needed documentation. Well, then... No more FOSS development for today. Thanx for Debian, anyway! Gruss Simon Disclaimer: I'm a longtime follower of Debian related news, and am well aware of the decission to drop non-free documentation. I'm writing this for the record, to show the impact on users/developers. Don't worry, I won't bother you again if I'll stumble on other missing docs. I'll advice guys I introduced to Debian to also write such a mail once they get into similar situations, though. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Portaudio] Re: portaudio in Debian, license updates?
On Monday 20 February 2006 04:51, Bjorn Roche was like: My app runs on Linux and definately has trouble with PA/ALSA, so I'd like to work on that as well, though, to be honest, I am a bit baffled by ALSA. If PA gets into Debian, I really think that will help, as more people would hear about it, see it, use it, and, presumably, tell the developers what isn't working. Yes. I'm very happy to test any audio stuff, however, being a rather slack late beta-tester I have to wait until packages trickle through into the DeMuDi repositories before I can work with them. My rationale is that studios tend to want stable software, like servers do. I still have vague hopes that Open Music may yet be got to work under Debian. If PA could be made to work with ALSA, I think it would encourage Linux Audio Developers to look at it afresh. ALSA/JACK has become the standard for serious, professional quality Audio in Linux, which is also the category PortAudio should be in. The LAD/LAU community are likely to be supportive of such a move and it would bring PA into the frame (Purely MO). My fear is that anything you can't sync straight up to Ardour, using JACKd could prove an annoying waste of time. PBOWhen you're in the creative flow, this has to all Just Work/PBO. As soon as there is a package that reportbug can recognise, I'm sure you'll get plenty of feedback from Debian. ;) -- cheers, tim hall http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Missing documentation for autoconf
Simon Huerlimann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi I'm bitten by the removal of the autoconf documentation. I wanted to do some bugfixing in a configure.in script. But as I'm currently offline, I don't have access to the needed documentation. Well, then... No more FOSS development for today. Has nobody volunteered to package one of the three autotools doc packages in non-free? Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Missing documentation for autoconf
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simon Huerlimann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi I'm bitten by the removal of the autoconf documentation. I wanted to do some bugfixing in a configure.in script. But as I'm currently offline, I don't have access to the needed documentation. Well, then... No more FOSS development for today. Has nobody volunteered to package one of the three autotools doc packages in non-free? Err, actually autobook and autoconf-doc *are* in non-free. Simon, are you trolling? How do you explain that you would like to continue to use GFDL'ed (or OPL'ed, for that matter) documentation, but refuse to add non-free to you sources list? And how come that you would have been able to use the documentation if it was in main, even when you are offline? Do you have a CD in you pocket with a daily updated mirror of sid only on it? Or did you have it installed, but run a script that automatically removes every installed package that is also removed from the archive? Or are you just trolling? Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 10:33:31AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On 2/16/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 08:13:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: I think that it's safe to say that at the time the DFSG was drafted it was felt if the patch clause wasn't included in the DFSG that some software important to Debian would have been treated as non-free. I think it's also safe to say that we thought that allowing that software into Debian was a better idea than excluding it. According to Branden, it was an attempt to get Qmail into Debian, and that's treated as non-free anyway. I disagree: At the time the DFSG was being drafted, it wasn't clear how qmail would be distributed. That doesn't seem to contradict Branden's post. Feel free to discuss it with him, though; I wasn't around at the time. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Missing documentation for autoconf
Hi Frank On Monday, 20. February 2006 18:08, Frank Küster wrote: Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simon Huerlimann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi I'm bitten by the removal of the autoconf documentation. I wanted to do some bugfixing in a configure.in script. But as I'm currently offline, I don't have access to the needed documentation. Well, then... No more FOSS development for today. Has nobody volunteered to package one of the three autotools doc packages in non-free? Thank you for reacting to my complaint. Err, actually autobook and autoconf-doc *are* in non-free. Good to know. Simon, are you trolling? Not intentionally. How do you explain that you would like to continue to use GFDL'ed (or OPL'ed, for that matter) documentation, but refuse to add non-free to you sources list? Because I don't like packages that are considered non-free by Debian. I generaly support it's decissions on freeness and it's social contract. But I don't regard GFDL and OPL as non-free. (No need to react to this statement, as it's just a personal interpretation. I fully recognize the decission taken by the Debian developers.) And how come that you would have been able to use the documentation if it was in main, even when you are offline? snip/ Probably my bad, as I didn't realize that autoconfs documentation was split into it's own documentation. I first searched automakes docs where I found out that the info probably is in autoconfs documentation. The man page told me: The full documentation for autoconf is maintained as a Texinfo manual. If the info and autoconf programs are properly installed at your site, the command info autoconf should give you access to the complete manual. As we know, it doesn't. It looks like this has been the case since a few package versions: autoconf (2.59a-1) unstable; urgency=low * Removed documentation. Hope this makes everyone happy. Closes: #281671, #281672, #143536. I understand that this was a necessary step to conform to the new policy. I now know that a autoconf-doc package was created in non-free to fill the gap. Or are you just trolling? The question is: why did I send my original email? Well, I know that the new policy wasn't supported unanimously, and I still hope it will be reconsidered one day. As I understand, there was a trade-off between two goals of the social contract: 1. Debian will remain free, and 2. Debians priorities are the users. As I understand, the main argument contra the removal of GFDL documentation was that it will hurt the user. Well, my original mail was inteded for the record. To give evidence that it *does* hurt users and developers. Another reason was the following paragraph from autoconfs README.Debian: No documentation, because the Debian project has decided that the GNU FDL is not an acceptable license for documentation. If you disagree with this decision, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I can't do anything about it by myself, so filing bugs will do you no good. Sorry. I didn't mention it in the original mail, as I didn't want to blame Ben Pfaff, who does a great job in maintaining the autoconf package. That said, let's move on. The thing that should realy change is that autoconfs man-page doesn't mention the doc package. This isn't a problem specific to autoconf, but does show in many packages that use help2man. help2man does add the above mentioned pointer to the info manual. And info manual for GNU tools are often written using a non-free license. I've added support for doc-packages and non-free doc-packages to help2man, to help maintainers giving sensible hints in their generated man-pages. See Bug 353768 in the BTS. Ok, that's it, as far as I'm concerned. Thank you all for providing Debian! Good Night, and Good Luck Simon
Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
On 2/20/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That doesn't seem to contradict Branden's post. Feel free to discuss it with him, though; I wasn't around at the time. Eh... I think I remember that it was thrown in for Knuth's software, thoughI don't remember the specifics of those licenses and packages. I do remember that there were specific pieces of software that we wanted to include at the time which we felt the distribution could not do without which needed the patch clause to be acceptable. The way I remember it, we would not have included the patch clause if we hadn't had a specific need for it. But I'd want to dig up the old licenses to be sure that my memory is correct. -- Raul
Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 07:14:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Eh... I think I remember that it was thrown in for Knuth's software, thoughI don't remember the specifics of those licenses and packages. I still don't understand how either of these (whether Qmail or TeX) could have been considered so critical that it justified sacrificing code reuse, allowing licenses to effectively prohibit it. People say trust me, we thought about this, but I have yet to hear the resulting rationale, if there ever really was any. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Missing documentation for autoconf
Simon Huerlimann wrote: Hi Frank On Monday, 20. February 2006 18:08, Frank Küster wrote: Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simon Huerlimann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi I'm bitten by the removal of the autoconf documentation. I wanted to do some bugfixing in a configure.in script. But as I'm currently offline, I don't have access to the needed documentation. Well, then... No more FOSS development for today. Has nobody volunteered to package one of the three autotools doc packages in non-free? Thank you for reacting to my complaint. Err, actually autobook and autoconf-doc *are* in non-free. Good to know. Simon, are you trolling? Not intentionally. How do you explain that you would like to continue to use GFDL'ed (or OPL'ed, for that matter) documentation, but refuse to add non-free to you sources list? Because I don't like packages that are considered non-free by Debian. I generaly support it's decissions on freeness and it's social contract. But I don't regard GFDL and OPL as non-free. (No need to react to this statement, as it's just a personal interpretation. I fully recognize the decission taken by the Debian developers.) And how come that you would have been able to use the documentation if it was in main, even when you are offline? snip/ Probably my bad, as I didn't realize that autoconfs documentation was split into it's own documentation. I first searched automakes docs where I found out that the info probably is in autoconfs documentation. The man page told me: The full documentation for autoconf is maintained as a Texinfo manual. If the info and autoconf programs are properly installed at your site, the command info autoconf should give you access to the complete manual. As we know, it doesn't. It looks like this has been the case since a few package versions: autoconf (2.59a-1) unstable; urgency=low * Removed documentation. Hope this makes everyone happy. Closes: #281671, #281672, #143536. I understand that this was a necessary step to conform to the new policy. I now know that a autoconf-doc package was created in non-free to fill the gap. Or are you just trolling? The question is: why did I send my original email? Well, I know that the new policy wasn't supported unanimously, and I still hope it will be reconsidered one day. As I understand, there was a trade-off between two goals of the social contract: 1. Debian will remain free, and 2. Debians priorities are the users. As I understand, the main argument contra the removal of GFDL documentation was that it will hurt the user. Well, my original mail was inteded for the record. To give evidence that it *does* hurt users and developers. Another reason was the following paragraph from autoconfs README.Debian: No documentation, because the Debian project has decided that the GNU FDL is not an acceptable license for documentation. If you disagree with this decision, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I can't do anything about it by myself, so filing bugs will do you no good. Sorry. I didn't mention it in the original mail, as I didn't want to blame Ben Pfaff, who does a great job in maintaining the autoconf package. That said, let's move on. The thing that should realy change is that autoconfs man-page doesn't mention the doc package. This isn't a problem specific to autoconf, but does show in many packages that use help2man. help2man does add the above mentioned pointer to the info manual. And info manual for GNU tools are often written using a non-free license. I've added support for doc-packages and non-free doc-packages to help2man, to help maintainers giving sensible hints in their generated man-pages. See Bug 353768 in the BTS. Ok, that's it, as far as I'm concerned. Thank you all for providing Debian! Good Night, and Good Luck Simon The social contract say also We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component. It is reasonable to think that the use of Debian requires the GFDL documentation. If Debian think there are non-free they are breaking the social contract; could someone explain me how this is not a break of the social contract. Olive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Missing documentation for autoconf
Please only quote those portions of the text to which you are replying. I have removed the text that you quoted. On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 09:46 +0400, olive wrote: The social contract say also We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component. It is reasonable to think that the use of Debian requires the GFDL documentation. If Debian think there are non-free they are breaking the social contract; could someone explain me how this is not a break of the social contract. How is this required? Several programs in Debian have little or no documentation. Because people have the source, they can discover how those programs work. Contrast this with a free program depending on a non-free library, where people cannot use the free program without using (or reimplementing) the non-free library. Another difference is that there are many different free examples of input for autoconf, and no free examples of the non-free library. IOW, it may be inconvenient to use the code in question, but it is possible. Documentation is not required to use code which has source. You may have heard the phrase, Use the source, Luke. I also do not believe you because if autoconf-doc were required for using autoconf, then autoconf should have a Depends: (or at least, a Recommends:) on it. This is not the case. If the consensus is that documentation is required for use (I do not agree at all), then that would be cause for removing autoconf from main, not including autoconf-doc. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Missing documentation for autoconf
On 20/02/06, Simon Huerlimann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (...) Simon, are you trolling? Not intentionally. (...) Another reason was the following paragraph from autoconfs README.Debian: No documentation, because the Debian project has decided that the GNU FDL is not an acceptable license for documentation. If you disagree with this decision, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I can't do anything about it by myself, so filing bugs will do you no good. Sorry. (...) That readme seems at least borderline trolling to me. I hope that's not intentional.
