Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 05:43:38PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > Move choice 7 to 8 and put it seven. > > [ ] Choice 7: Rejecting and denouncing a witch-hunt against RMS. > > (maybe Craig has a better idea) Thanks, looks goodexcept for two problems: 1. you've used the wrong article "a" instead of "the". It's gramatically incorrect, this isn't one of multiple witch-hunts, there's only one, singular. So "the" is the correct article. 2. the witch-hunt is against the FSF board as well as RMS - that's kind of what makes it a witch-hunt, rather than just persecution of an individual. [ ] Choice 7: Rejecting and denouncing the witch-hunt against RMS & the FSF. craig
Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 02:12:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > This has been discussed before. It did not reset the minimum discussion > time. oh wow, a discussion. and a discussion has the power to change debian's constitution? in any case: it will be wonderful to see Debian commit Libel against Richard Stallman, The FSF, and the individual board members of the FSF. Like, has anyone actually read that open letter on github.io? There are numerous actionable libels against all of those parties. I hope the supporters of this GR are willing to be personally liable, since they're the ones pushing for it. craig -- craig sanders
Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 01:56:32PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > A vote has been called. Nope, can't have been. The last amendment (before mine) was accepted on March 30th, which means the earliest a vote can be called with a shortened 1 week discussion period is April 7th. Any CFV before then is invalid. craig -- craig sanders
Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 09:14:53AM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > > TEXT OF OPTION 5 > > > > Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against > > Richard > > Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the > > Free Software Foundation. > > > > I'd sponsor this if this were actually neutrally worded like "Debian refuses > to participate in the discussion of Richard Stallman, the Free Software > Foundation, and the members of the board of the Free Software Foundation." "discussion"? What's happening to stallman and the FSF is **NOT** a "discussion". craig -- craig sanders
Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 11:25:13AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Craig, if you make this a new separate GR I will be glad to sponsor it. why not do that yourself? craig
Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 09:33:48AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > > Short and simple: > > > > TEXT OF OPTION 5 > > > > > > Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against > > Richard > > Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the > > Free Software Foundation. > > > > > > The discussion period is over, no new options will be added. Since when is it over? The DPL changing the *minimum* discussion period is a minimum only, it does not set a maximum. ps: are you so desperate to supress all signs of dissent that you'll try to block an option that has approximately fuck-all chance of actually winning? or even getting more than a few votes? craig -- craig sanders
Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5
On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 10:36:39PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote: > My assumption would be that it was an allusion to McCarthyism, and the > associated anti-communist moral panic in the 1950s that Arthur Miller > dramatised in The Crucible. yes. It's also a tried and tested political tool used to achieve things that can not be achieved through ordinary, rational, civil means (including things like taking over or even destroying an organisation like the FSF). Stir up an angry mob and point them at your target, that makes it possible to expel and disenfranchise them. > The term's been given a recent retread as a thing that strong-man leaders > use as a weapon against investigative journalists who are doing their jobs, > but I doubt Craig meant that. Absolutely not. Fascists and others on the right have a long history of accusing others of what they, themselves, are doing. Lying is what they do. If the right accuse anyone of something, it's pretty much guaranteed that that's what they're doing themselves. AFAICT, it's not just deflection, it's that they can't imagine that anyone wouldn't do what they're doing. > Is that really what we're seeing? yes. Stallman's a witch - burn him. The FSF board re-elected him, they're witches too, burn them. Along with anyone else who supports them or points out the fact that the accusations are false or suggests that reason should prevail. > I hope that people are not being attacked in private -- indulging in such > behaviours would definitely be a Code of Conduct violation, but I think > even that would fail to qualify as a witch-hunt, because the intimidation > needs to be made obvious to the wider group for something to qualify as a > witch-hunt. The witch hunt is not within debian, debian's just being dragged into the angry mob. craig -- craig sanders
REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5
Short and simple: TEXT OF OPTION 5 Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against Richard Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the Free Software Foundation. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5
On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 08:43:15PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > There is a common pitfall that uploads signed with a key that is expired in > the keyring are silently dropped at some point during processing. Thanks, i'll look into that. I'm pretty sure I signed it with my newest (2015-ish) key, but it's possible I used an ancient one. craig
Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5
On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 09:07:15PM +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > Yes, lets use that I am not native English speaker and drown the > conversation with some pointless pedantic approaches now and bunch of words. Oh, FFS! I was giving you a face-saving excuse for your ignorance, not using it against you. > While I am not English native, I am Serbian native and we have a saying for > this: > > Претакање из шупљег у празно. > > Which would mean something like "you say a lot but actually nothing". we have a saying in English, "You can't teach someone who refuses to learn". Which means exactly what it says. craig -- craig sanders
Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5
On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 06:18:51PM +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote: > [...] still not good enough to throw tantrums > around with "witch-hunt". Women in past were burnt alive on stakes, so stop > with extreme rhetoric when some expresses that they had it enough with > sexist behavior. Witch-hunt is a reference to McCarthyism. and, of course, Arthur Miller's play, The Crucible. I'll assume you're both very young and not a native speaker of English, but "witch-hunt" has been a common idiomatic term for what is happening to Stallman and the FSF board since at least the 1950s, and probably a lot longer for reasons that should be obvious. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, it was 1919: https://www.etymonline.com/word/witch%20hunt 1853 in the literal sense (witch-hunting is from 1630s), from witch (n.) + hunt (n.). The extended sense is attested from 1919, American English, later re-popularized in reaction to Cold War anti-Communism. Senator [Lee S.] Overman. What do you mean by witch hunt? Mr. [Raymond] Robins. I mean this, Senator. You are familiar with the old witch-hunt attitude, that when people get frightened at things and see bogies, then they get out witch proclamations, and mob action and all kinds of hysteria takes place. ["Bolshevik Propaganda," U.S. Senate subcommittee hearings, 1919] In short, it's a purge of political or other "undesirables". usually with a rampaging mob hyped-up and eager for a taste of blood(*). (*) just to be clear, not necessarily literal blood. that's also an idiomatic phrase. most of the time. craig
Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5
On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 10:56:42AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > debian-keyring (1998.09.27) unstable; urgency=low > > * Mon Sep 7 14:13:23 EDT 1998: [PGP/IG] Updated the key of Dima Barsky > * Thu Sep 10 18:10:03 EDT 1998: [PGP/IG] Added the key of Craig Sanders > > So, to summarize: when you became a Debian Developer, Craig had already > been a Debian Developer for about 18 years. My first package for debian was in late 1995 or early 96. There wasn't really any formal process for being a DD back then, just volunteer on the lists and do the work. Different times. 1998 is probably when we started signing package uploads. i'm down to one package these days, dlocate, which i work on when i'm able. i uploaded a new version of it a few months ago - the upload completed OK, but the new version never went into unstable. I have no idea why it just vanished, probably some change to the upload procedure that I haven't had the energy to explore yet. craig
Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5
On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 05:07:59AM +0100, Phil Morrell wrote: > On Fri, 2 Apr 2021, Craig Sanders wrote: > > Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against > > Richard Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the > > board of the Free Software Foundation. > > Hi, please can you explain how this is significantly different from Proposal > A "will not issue a public statement" and Proposal E "ambush mob"? Thanks. It's very clearly and unambiguously stating a position against the witch-hunt rather than just ducking for cover until the shitstorm has blown over. It's also generic in that it doesn't require anyone to agree with any particular reason or reasons to be opposed to the witch-hunt. It does not require anyone to support Stallman, just be against this persecution of him and the FSF. If you think it's a witch-hunt or vigilante mob and want Debian to take a stance against it, then it doesn't matter WHY you think that, only that you do. Even if you're unable to clearly articulate what it is about the situation that bothers you. tl;dr: skip the following. it's not neccesary for understanding my proposed amendment, only my motivations for posting it. My main reasons (which I do NOT expect anyone else to share 100% or even at all) are: 1. Most importantly - what happens if the witch-hunt is successful and rms and the entire FSF board are sacked/forced to resign? Who replaces them? Who gains control over the FSF and the text of the GPL? Unfortunately, the most likely - as in, almost certain - result is that it will be the same corporate apparatchiks who have taken over pretty nearly all other free software/open source organisations. Don't be surprised if that happens and a "GPL v4" comes out in a year or so that is watered down to be like the LGPL or, worse, a BSD-like license. And remember that this won't affect just future projects using GPLv4, it will also affect existing projects that kept the "or any later version" clause. The GPL needs a stubborn, uncompromising idealist like Stallman to champion it - someone who can't be bribed or coerced or corrupted or conned. Even if he is unlikable and repulsive. It's too important to allow corporations to get control of it. Whatever his faults, Stallman can be trusted not to fuck this up, or to fuck over the free software community. Do you want Microsoft, or Google, or Apple, or IBM/Redhat or any other corporation to gain control of the GPL? I certainly don't. IMO, the whole issue is an opportunistic hostile takeover. It failed the first time around, but now Stallman has given them another opportunity by re-joining the board of his foundation. 2. Stallman's words about the Epstein/Minksy incident were grotesquely twisted and misrepresented - he did not say anything like what vice.com and others claimed he said. Everything about the incident has been misrepresented - even to the point where some claim that Minsky had sex with Epstein's victim, when the victim herself did not claim that AND at least one witness, Greg Benford, said Minsky declined. The criminals in the situation were Epstein and his enablers - not Minsky for being propositioned and declining, and not Stallman for defending his dead friend Minsky. 3. None of what Stallman has said or done is bad enough to justify kicking him out of the organisation he founded. Even if you believe the misrepresentations, they're nowhere near bad enough for that. 4. Stallman has several personal habits that are repulsive, and he's not very likeable. I know this from my own (very limited) personal interactions with him. That is also not a good enough reason to kick him out of the organisation he founded. He's socially clueless, not predatory or malevolent. Discrimination against and bullying of neuro-diverse people with repulsive personal habits is still discrimination and bullying. 5. Re-electing Stallman back on to the FSF board is not sufficient reason to sack the entire board, or even just those who voted in favour of it. 6. People who find Stallman too repulsive to tolerate are at liberty to create their own Stallman-Free Free Software Foundation (SFFSF). They don't need to kick him and the other board members out of the FSF and gain control over the text of the GNU GPL (unless, you know, gaining control is the actual point, which it is). 7. Vigilante mobs and witch hunts disgust, horrify, and terrify me. Mobs are easily manipulated and have no reasoning - they are what causes paediatricians to be attacked in their homes and at work because their job title sounds somewhat similar to paedophile, because mobs are too fucking stupid to understand the common Greek roots of some English words. If a mob wants to do something, or is being manipulated into doing something, then everyon
Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5
TEXT OF OPTION 5 Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against Richard Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the Free Software Foundation. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5
Short and simple: TEXT OF OPTION 5 Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against Richard Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the Free Software Foundation.
Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > I'm really glad you think there is no work to be done between now and > release. try being at least minimally honest in your argument. i didn't say that no work at all was necessary for the release. i was responding to the claim that this GR isn't necessary because debian is already compliant with it. dishonest "debating" like this (i.e. petty ego-wankers like you point-scoring by malicious twisting of words and selective misquoting), is why i haven't bothered for years. i should have remembered that i have better things to do with my time. craig -- craig sanders -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141017235245.gi4...@taz.net.au
Re: [RFC] Alternative proposal: reaffirm upstream and maintainers technical competence over the software they maintain
the problem with this proposal is that if your strip out all the feelgood propaganda fluff misusing the word "freedom", what it's actually saying is that package maintainers don't have to even attempt to maintain compatibility with non-systemd init systems, and making it acceptable to perform stealth or forced conversions to systemd by dependency. craig -- craig sanders -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141017211735.gn4...@taz.net.au
Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
Holger Levsen wrote: > and for what exactly? Gnome right now is installable with systemd-shim + > sysvinit, why can't this GR wait until after release when the dust has > settled? because right now when NO work needs to be done is the perfect time to get this clarified. if we wait until there is a huge amount of work to be done then it will be impossible (or, at least, declared impossible). it's generally best to avoid causing damage in the first place than to cause it and then have to undo it. and, btw, it's not just about gnome. many other packages, including xfce, have or are gaining dependencies that could trigger an unwanted conversion to systemd if the user is not extremely careful - which is part of the point of this GR...if software like gnome and xfce depend on systemd then any claims that systemd in jessie is "only the default, the user can choose something else" are worthless hot air. > If you don't like upstreams choices, *you* should write patches. Not GRs > telling other people to do so. in other words: I couldn't be bothered making my packages compliant with debian policy. my packages are such special unique snowflakes that policy is irrelevant. if you think that's a bug, then you have to supply the patches to fix it and not tell other people to do so. craig -- craig sanders -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141017210418.gh4...@taz.net.au
second
I second Ian Jackson's proposal 'preserve freedom of choice of init systems' craig signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question for Sam Hocevar "xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxx"
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 08:42:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 12:04:25PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > > On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 06:06:18PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 10:24:16AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > > > > if he wants to move on and grow up and put it behind him, let him. it's > > > > not like a stupid parody organisation actually harms anyone or anything. > > > > I beg to differ. The GNAA have a long history of mounting campaigns of > > > *disruption* against on-line communities. > > > ooh. disruption. they must be terrorists. shoot them all. > > Haha, you got me. I see that I have been trolled by the Craig Sanders > Association of Australia, sister organization to the GNAA. no, just responding with appropriate sarcasm to your unneccesarily drama-queenish highlighting of the word "disruption". please accept my sincere apologies. i forgot that you were an american and therefore need to have sarcasm pointed out to you. next time i'll put "NOT!" on the end. then you'll have a reasonable chance of detecting it. > Ah well, fool me once... can a fool actually be fooled? or is that redundant? craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> BOFH excuse #112: The monitor is plugged into the serial port -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question for Sam Hocevar "xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxx"
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 06:06:18PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 10:24:16AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > > if he wants to move on and grow up and put it behind him, let him. it's > > not like a stupid parody organisation actually harms anyone or anything. > > I beg to differ. The GNAA have a long history of mounting campaigns of > *disruption* against on-line communities. ooh. disruption. they must be terrorists. shoot them all. > That is not the work of a "parody organization". yes, it is. disruption and causing a big fuss has long been the purpose of parody groups. it's also why stupid troll groups exist. the more annoyance they cause, the bigger the fuss, the more successful they think they are. by treating them seriously, you're just feeding them. craig ps: i didn't vote for the guy, i am unlikely to ever vote for him. but what's done is done. let him get on with it and judge him on what he does now rather than on stupid juvenile shit he did (or probably did - i don't know for sure and i don't care) years ago. it's not as if it matters much - the DPL never does anything important (the cabal makes sure of that), no matter what grand promises they make in their election platforms. people go along with them if they like their plans and ignore them if they don't. same as ever. -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Could somebody drag the Irix team kicking and screaming into the 1980's, please? I realize it might be quite painful for them, but maybe you could buy them a disco tape, so they'd feel a little bit more at home. -- Linus "Stayin' alive, stayin' alive" Torvalds -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question for Sam Hocevar "xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxx"
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 05:24:16PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I have an E-Mail in the domain now I am the hidden > > "President of France" or my E-Mail from the "Ministry of Defense" > > where I am "Commander en Chef" or what? > > No, but it seems like a reasonably safe bet that you've worked for them > at some point. in the end, though, who cares? in his younger days, he may or may not have been a member of a juvenile parody organisation whose purpose was to shock and annoy people with over-the-top and deliberately offensive crudity. big deal. the major part of the reason for them doing it is to hear the outraged squawks of those who are offended by it - the more attention and fuss it gets, the bigger the joke. the best thing to do is to just ignore it. or dismiss it contemptuously. taking it seriously is the worst thing you could do, it's what they want and it just inspires them to even lower depths. anyway, lots of people do shit like that when they're young and stupid teenagers. they think it's funny. or rebellious. or something. most of them grow out of it when they eventually realise it doesn't make them look "cool", it makes them look like anxious little boys trying to act cool. which is what they are. if he wants to move on and grow up and put it behind him, let him. it's not like a stupid parody organisation actually harms anyone or anything. craig PS: some people deserve to be offended. those who get outraged by moronic parody crap are amongst them. -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 1911] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question for Ted Walther.
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 12:27:03PM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote: > Respectfully, dig out the information and present it, or stop claiming > that these things are going on, you are doing nothing but harming not > only your own reputation, but that of others of your religion, myself > included. so - what, exactly, is he claiming as discrimination? is it merely the fact that some people hold and occasionally express opinions about his (or other) religions that he does not approve of? well, tough - you have a right to your own religion, but you DO NOT have a right to demand that everyone feels the same respect for it that you do. for example, i don't expect walther to have any respect for my opinion that all religions are a form of insanity (to varying degrees depending on the nature and fervour of belief), and i'm damned if i'm going to perjure myself and express any respect for his religion when i honestly believe it is dangerously insane (in his case, particularly so - at the far end of the loony scale, combining extremist right-wing fundamentalism, misogyny, and anti-semitism). discrimination is quite specific - it is not simply expressing an opinion. it is the misuse of power over another person because of some arbitrary & irrelevant factor, like their religion, height, weight, gender, sexual preference, appearance, political views, etc. it's hard to see how this can possibly be a factor in debian since we're all volunteers and nobody has any power over anyone else. but you've got to feel sorry for walther - after all, he's a member of that most oppressed of minorities: white male middle-class christians. apart from 90+% of the world's wealth and power and opportunities, they've got nothing, nothing at all. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
questions for candidate Johnathan aka "Ted" Walther
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 09:17:30AM -0800, Ted Walther wrote: > I nominate myself for DPL in this 2006 election. given that you're a misogynist nutcase, what is your plan for forcing the women in debian to accept their 'proper' place of servile irrelevance? what novel methods will you use in future for humiliating and/or patronising them? which biblical quotes will you use to justify your position regarding the superiority of willy-possessing individuals over willy-challenged (to use the PC term) individuals, and the inherent right of the former to rule over and dominate the latter? as a neo-nazi propagandist, how quickly will you add nazi logos and propaganda to the debian.org web site if you are elected as DPL? how do you reconcile your overt anti-semitism with the fact that, as a christian, you worship a jew? craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Curious Case Of The Mountainous Molehill (was Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?)
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:07:48PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote: > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:38:57 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >>> the GFDL has a similar provision. you can provide a link to an > >>> internet address containing the full document. > >> > >> Please show me where the GFDL has such a provision. The passage that > > > i've shown it before. i have no interest in playing your time-wasting > > game. go read the archives. > > You made the assertion that it was sufficient to just include a link to > the full document (including invariant sections) or to just the > invariant sections here: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00244.html yes, and it was an appropriate comment for the context in which it was made. > [ blah blah blah] > > pointed out that the portion of the GFDL that you quoted is only an > exemption from having to provide a transparent copy along with the > text. It cannot be used as an exemption from having to include the > invariant sections. you're either getting confused or deliberately trying to confuse the issue. i've never said that having to include invariant sections is a problem that can be worked around - in fact, i've explicitly stated on numerous occasions that it is not even a problem at all. at least, not a problem with any freedom implications - it is a mere convenience issue, not a freedom issue. inconvenience might be annoying, it might be a complete pain in the arse, but that is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether something is free or not. having to include the invariant sections with whatever other portions of a GFDL document you want to use may be inconvenient, but it does not make it non-free. similarly, not being able to delete the implicit invariant sections from source code (e.g. copyright notices and history) may be very inconvenient to software plagiarists, but that does not make it non-free either. so, why does being required to have the invariant sections somewhere in the package (say, somewhere under /usr/share/doc) qualify as non-free, while being forced to have the copyright notice or whatever somewhere in the package (also say, under /usr/share/doc) qualify as free? because one is software and the other is documentation? congratulations, you've achieved the bizarre state of simultaneously believing that documentation is software and is not software at the same time. convenient, that. there's no actual difference in the requirements. which doesn't make any sense until you realise that you zealots have an agenda - to use the GFDL to make debian take a moronic stand so you can try to exert power over the FSF and force them to do your bidding. > I do not see any reply to either my or Thomas' posts, and I am not > aware of any other post on this issue that quotes from the GFDL. So > as it stands, as I see it, there has been no proof presented from the > GFDL that allows you to remove the invariant sections from a document > and just include a link to the originals. sorry, it's you loonies who have to prove that the GFDL is non-free. you're the freaks making the claim, so you're the freaks who have to prove that your claim is true. that's the way assertions and claims and arguments work: make a claim -> back it up with proof. given that you're disputing the FSF who are acknowledged experts in the field of Free Software (certainly far more expert than a bunch of nutcase zealots intent on derailing debian), your claim qualifies as extraordinary - and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. in this context, "extraordinary" means unambiguous, clear, and obvious beyond any dispute. the best you lot have managed so far is some lame posturing and a lot of noise trying to fool people that convenience is a freedom issue. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Curious Case Of The Mountainous Molehill
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:55:35PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > Craig Sanders wrote: > > > the DFSG also allows that the modification may be by patch only. > > No, it does not. yes it does. > Quoting DFSG 4, with emphasis added: > > The license may restrict source-code from being distributed > > in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution > > of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying > > the program at build time. THE LICENSE MUST EXPLICITLY PERMIT > > DISTRIBUTION OF SOFTWARE BUILT FROM MODIFIED SOURCE CODE. > > I have looked, and I can find no provisions in the GFDL explicitly > permitting distribution of software built from modified source code. the GFDL is applied to documentation, not software. by your loony literalist interpretation, no documentation can possibly be free because you can't distribute software built from it. it's a convenient form of literalism you have there, too. strictly literal and fundamentalist when it comes to any argument that "proves" GFDL is non-free, yet superbly fluid and flexible when it comes to mental contortions such as redefining non-software such as documentation to be software. difficult trick that, to simultaneously believe that something is and is not at the same time. the DFSG is *Guidelines*, not *Rules*. Loony Literal Fundamentalists need to remember that and take a reality check before commenting. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Curious Case Of The Mountainous Molehill (was Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?)
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:52:28PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 01:42:44PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote: > >> 3a only says that a binary has to be *accompanied* with the source > >> code. Hence it can be on a separate medium. So you can distribute > >> your 1KB chip, stapled to a CD-ROM that contains the source, and > >> still comply with the terms of the GPL. > > > you can do the same with GFDL documents. e.g. the stupid coffee cup > > example so popular with you zealots - if you can't fit the invariant > > sections on the cup itself, then print it on paper and include it in > > the box. "problem" solved. > > I was not discussing any problem with the GFDL. I was showing you that > your reading of the GPL was incorrect. The GPL does not require you to > stick the full source onto the same 1KB chip as the binary, as you > claimed that it did. neither does the GFDL, as you and your ilk repeatedly claim that it does. to spell out the bleeding obvious: that was the point of my using the GPL like that. to show that just as it's false for the GPL, it is also false for the GFDL. i'm sorry that such "subtlety" was too difficult for your literal/fundamentalist mind. i'll try to stick to words of very few syllables in future. > > the GFDL has a similar provision. you can provide a link to an > > internet address containing the full document. > > Please show me where the GFDL has such a provision. The passage that i've shown it before. i have no interest in playing your time-wasting game. go read the archives. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:33:01PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > bullshit. "freedom", as used by Debian, is explicitly defined in the > > DFSG. the DFSG has a number of clauses detailing what we consider > > free and what we don't consider free. convenience is NOT one of those > > clauses, and never was. in fact, convenience is implicitly discarded as > > a criteria by the existence of the patch clause, which explicitly states > > that the major inconvenience of modification-by-patch-only is free. > > Modifiability *is* one of those clauses, and a rule that says "you > cannot modify this essay" is in violation of that clause. once again: you *can* modify an invariant section by "patching" it. the GFDL does not say "you can not modify at all", it says "you can not delete or change these small secondary sections, but you can add your own comments to them". no, you can not steal credit for someone else's work, or gag someone by removing their words, nor can you put your own words in their mouth. you do have the freedom to add your own words commenting on theirs. i.e. modification-by-patch is allowed. for a document, that is more than adequate. hell, it's good enough for actual software according to the DFSG. oh, and once again (because i *KNOW* you'll try to obfuscate the crucial fact about invariant sections, you do it every time the argument gets to this point) - AN INVARIANT SECTION CAN *ONLY* BE A SECONDARY SECTION. i.e. specifically *not* the primary topic of the document, either unrelated to the primary topic or only tangentially-related. e.g. credit and copyright notices, discussions of the author(s) relationship to the topic, political rant about the topic, etc. > But let there be no mistake. My view (and, I think, Manoj's view), is manoj's view is part of the problem here. as project secretary, he's supposed to be impartial. he is obviously failing in that duty. > Use of the word "bullshit" constitutes a violation of the policy for > this mailing list. your offensive presence is a violation of policy, but hey - i'll let that slide. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Curious Case Of The Mountainous Molehill
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:52:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > you can do the same with GFDL documents. e.g. the stupid coffee cup > > example so popular with you zealots - if you can't fit the invariant > > sections on the cup itself, then print it on paper and include it in the > > box. "problem" solved. > > Of course you can distribute it. What you cannot do is *modify* it in > a particular way (or rather, any way at all). The DFSG requires the > right to *modify*. the DFSG also allows that the modification may be by patch only. around and around the circle we go. the same stupid arguments, the same old lies coming out of your keyboard. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:34:32AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: > Nothing in the SC or DFSG requires Debian to accept any software that > comes along and adheres to the letter of the DFSG. true. the convention so far, though, has been "if it's free and someone can be bothered packaging it, then it can go in the archive". this has been argued numerous times, usually over packages like purity or the bible or other non-technical documents. whenever it has come up, it has always ended in "if it's free, it will be accepted", a result consistent with maximal freedom. > As a hypothetical, if the software required Debian's FTP servers to > keep the source available for 10 years, unconditionally, we'd probably > refuse to ship that software on the grounds that that would be a PITA. > Likewise, I think that "FDL-licensed content may be DFSG-free, but > considering the practical problems it causes us, we'd rather not ship > any of it" is a consistent and reasonable position to take. perhaps so(*), but that is an ENTIRELY different issue to the question of whether the GFDL is free or not. the zealots have claimed (repeatedly) that the GFDL is non-free. so far, they have yet to come up with any proof of their claim. ordinarily, in any sane environment, a bogus claim without any proof would just wither away and die. unfortunately, there are a number of extremely loud zealots who keep on pushing the issue, aided and abetted by the fact that one of their number is the debian project secretary who consistently interprets reality in terms of loony zealot dogma. so this stupid issue never dies. craig (*) i don't have any particular problem with that line of argument. i don't agree with or support it in any way, but at least it's not dishonest. if debian wants to exclude stuff for convenience reasons, then fair enough - but lying to pretend that the reason is that it's non-free when it's really just inconvenient is inexcusable. -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Curious Case Of The Mountainous Molehill (was Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?)
you people love to recycle the same lies over and over and over again. i'm becoming convinced that it is a deliberate strategy - repeat the same lies and eventually everyone will just give up out of exhaustion. On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 01:42:44PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote: > 3a only says that a binary has to be *accompanied* with the source code. > Hence it can be on a separate medium. So you can distribute your 1KB > chip, stapled to a CD-ROM that contains the source, and still comply > with the terms of the GPL. you can do the same with GFDL documents. e.g. the stupid coffee cup example so popular with you zealots - if you can't fit the invariant sections on the cup itself, then print it on paper and include it in the box. "problem" solved. for some reason, though, you zealots ignore that inconvenience, or treat it as free for the GPL and other licenses, but consider it beyond the pale and non-free for the GFDL. > But it gets even better. You don't even have to accompany the binary > with the source itself. If you want, you can instead: the GFDL has a similar provision. you can provide a link to an internet address containing the full document. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:01:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > why are you obsessing with a convenience issue and pretending that > > it has ANY BEARING AT ALL on freedom issues? it doesn't. > > Err, because I do not see this as a matter of mere > convenience. If I spend a significant time on the road with my > device, and I need the manual when I am away from my laptop, this is > not just a geek "hah hah. look at what I got on my phone" thing. you're still talking about convenience, not freedom. > Why is being able to distribute this this amy more of "mere > convenience" than, say, wmbattery? anyone can just cat > /proc/acpi/BAT0/state, no? At a more extreme end: why do we need gcc? > or any other compiler? Is it not just a convenience as opposed to > writing in machine language to the bare metal, like real programmers > do? stop trying to muddy the waters with irrelevant distractions that aren't even vaguely similar analogies, let alone close. > Any matter of freedom, unless it is related to food, shelter, and > basic survival, can be couched as a matter of cenvenience; so I am > very vary of such arguments. bullshit. "freedom", as used by Debian, is explicitly defined in the DFSG. the DFSG has a number of clauses detailing what we consider free and what we don't consider free. convenience is NOT one of those clauses, and never was. in fact, convenience is implicitly discarded as a criteria by the existence of the patch clause, which explicitly states that the major inconvenience of modification-by-patch-only is free. > > the answer to your disingenuous question is obvious. he gives them > > the entire document, and the recipient does whatever they want/need > > to get it onto their PDA. if they physically can't do what they want > > with it (e.g. because of limitations in the device/medium they're > > trying to import it to), then that is just an unfortunate reality in > > a world governed by physical laws rather than wishes and magic. > > But if it were not for the GFDL, we would not have to make our > users face an impossibility, or figure out how to strip things from > binary packages in order to get them to install. As a user, seems > like a significant obstacle to distribution and use, from my > perspective. every free license has some hoops and hurdles that have to be jumped. that doesn't make them non-free. you're holding the GFDL up to a standard of "perfection" far beyond that which is required of any other license - and why? for some stupidly pedantic political/religious point. to force the FSF to do your bidding and to prove that you and your loathsome friends are Holier Than Stallman, True Defenders of the Free Software Flame or some other self-justifying dreck. it's all about manipulation and power - you zealot scum are trying to manipulate Debian into forcing the FSF to do your will, an on-going effort for the last few years. it isn't going to work - even if you succeed in forcing Debian to take a moronic stand, the FSF has enough sense and enough backbone to dismiss it as lunatic frothings at the mouth. all you will succeed in doing is to discredit Debian and make Debian irrelevant. > > if there is a particular process which can shoehorn the document > > into the limited device, then it's perfectly OK to distribute the > > document along with with instructions (whether human-executable > > instructions or a script/program) for doing so. i.e. this meets the > > requirements of the "patch clause" in the DFSG. > > But I can no longer distribute the modified copy; I can tell > people how to modify their copy, and then build the package, so they > can then do the same. > > In other words, I cannot distribute the modified version , I > can only tell people how to modify it for themselves. DOes not quite > meet the freedom requirement, in my view. that qualifies as free according to the DFSG. patch clause. your "view" is very selective. as is your reading of the DFSG. like any zealot quoting scripture, you use only the bits that support your current claim and ignore anything that doesn't. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:32:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Craig Sanders: > > > there's nothing in the GFDL that prevents you from doing that. the > > capabilities of your medium are beyond the ability of the GFDL (or any > > license) to control. > > Uhm, the existence of the anti-DRM clause disproves this claim. you people never give up, do you? as soon as one bogus claim against the GFDL is disproved, you recycle another one that was demolished months, weeks, or only days ago. repeat ad nauseum. we've been over the bullshit anti-DRM clause numerous times. go read the archives. i really couldn't be bothered doing it again. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 10:44:51PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > What if he wants to further distribute the stuff to other > people who are using a device like his? I mean, sharing stuff useful > to me is one of the prime reasons I like free software -- if stuff is > useful, I can share. why are you obsessing with a convenience issue and pretending that it has ANY BEARING AT ALL on freedom issues? it doesn't. the answer to your disingenuous question is obvious. he gives them the entire document, and the recipient does whatever they want/need to get it onto their PDA. if they physically can't do what they want with it (e.g. because of limitations in the device/medium they're trying to import it to), then that is just an unfortunate reality in a world governed by physical laws rather than wishes and magic. if there is a particular process which can shoehorn the document into the limited device, then it's perfectly OK to distribute the document along with with instructions (whether human-executable instructions or a script/program) for doing so. i.e. this meets the requirements of the "patch clause" in the DFSG. > Of course, in this case, GFDL would prohibit sharing information. And > people call that free? no, the GFDL does not prohibit sharing information. the GFDL, same as any other license, simply is not capable of granting the power to do the physically impossible. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 06:28:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > there's nothing in the GFDL that prevents you from doing that. the > > capabilities of your medium are beyond the ability of the GFDL (or any > > license) to control. > > This is hardly true. The GFDL says you must transmit the original > Japanese text in the case in question, and so if you cannot do so in a > given medium, then you cannot use that medium to transmit the text. the GPL says you must include the full machine-readable/editable source code, so if you can't do that in a given medium (say, a chip with 1KB capacity) then GPL software is not free in any medium. try again. if you keep coming up with these absurd claims, the laws of chance says that you must get it right one day. OTOH, you've got a better chance of winning a big lottery. > > no, it's lying arseholes like you who aren't listening. like every > > other argument against the GFDL and every other alleged "proof" > > that the GFDL is non-free, this is a mere CONVENIENCE ISSUE, not > > a FREEDOM ISSUE. the DFSG does not require convenience, it only > > requires freedom. > > Ah, once Craig insisted to me that he would never ever read my email > messages. Either that was a lie, or heeys'changed his mind. up to your usual tricks again, i see. truth just isn't that important to you, is it? you make up any old shit that suits your purposes at the moment and hope you can pass it off without comment. when did i ever say that, you lying scumbag? i didn't say that and never have said that. what i actually do (as you well know because you've received numerous returned copies of your mail) is reject any message sent direct from you to me (i.e. from you, with any of my addresses in either the To: or CC: headers). craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 05:19:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > don't be an idiot. you only have to keep the invariant sections if you > > are DISTRIBUTING a copy. you can do whatever you want with your own > > copy. > > Right, so you can't *distribute* a copy on an ASCII-only medium, even > of the English translation of a Japanese manual, if the Japanese > version... there's nothing in the GFDL that prevents you from doing that. the capabilities of your medium are beyond the ability of the GFDL (or any license) to control. > Oh, never mind. Craig is not listening, he's just vomiting words out > his mouth. Sorry. no, it's lying arseholes like you who aren't listening. like every other argument against the GFDL and every other alleged "proof" that the GFDL is non-free, this is a mere CONVENIENCE ISSUE, not a FREEDOM ISSUE. the DFSG does not require convenience, it only requires freedom. stop trying to pretend that convenience is a freedom issue. it isn't. i know that completely destroys all your arguments against the GFDL but you'll just have to live with that - it being the truth and all. being a lunatic bigoted zealot, you wont comprehend this but normal people place a high value on truth. it may be horribly inconvenient to not be able to usably install a foreign language document on an english-only device, but that is UTTERLY IRRELEVENT TO WHETHER THE DOCUMENT IS FREE OR NOT. similarly, you can not legally install free software without permission on a computer that does not belong to you - but that does not make the software non-free. nor can i run an i386 binary of a GNU program on a PPC CPU. that does not make the GNU program non-free. in case this simple point is beyond your meager powers of reasoning, the point is that some things are entirely outside the bounds of what a free license is capable of achieving - e.g. it can't legally grant you permission to install the software on someone else's machine and it can't make your english-only machine magically capable of understanding japanese. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 07:31:20PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > Now, I'd like to download this (translated) manual and place it on a > portable device I own, so I can easily read it without killing a bunch > of trees. I think this is clearly a useful modification, and I think > that I should be able to do this for a DFSG-free work. > > But, there is a problem: My portable device understands only ASCII, or > maybe ISO-8859-1 if I'm lucky (at least in the US, this is pretty > common). It doesn't understand UTF-8, Shift-JIS, etc. It is not > technically possible to keep the Japanese invariant section. > > I believe this gives a notable, practicle reason why invariant sections > are not free. you zealot freaks have no qualms about lying, do you? don't be an idiot. you only have to keep the invariant sections if you are DISTRIBUTING a copy. you can do whatever you want with your own copy. there are no jack-booted FSF storm-troopers ready to kick down your door because you didn't copy an invariant section to your own PDA. nor even any trained attack-lawyers. the GFDL does not restrict personal use as you are trying to imply that it does. craig ps: according to your bogus argument, that also means any non US-ASCII/iso-8859-1 document is non-free simply because you can't use it on some common PDAs in the US. what an asinine assertion. or, similarly, that because YOU can't read Japanase (or some other non-english language) that foreign language documents are non-free. -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anton's amendment
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 07:06:50PM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote: > Alright cas, I've tried to be nice and polite. no, you've tried to be stupid and disingenuous. and succeeded spectacularly at the former. too bad you're not smart enough to lie convincingly. > You've been throwing insults. only where appropriate. and far less than your idiocy deserves. > So get this through your fucking skull, I don't care if it's made of > pure neutronium or of bogons, or even some mixture. so fucking what? you say that as if it's relevant - GFDL is free, so it's NOT RELEVANT. > The Debian Project has declared that we will be 100% free. Period. End > of declaration. apart from declaring your mastery of the bleeding obvious, what exactly is your "point"? > It DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER if it is the entire program, a itty bitty > secondary section, a .c file, or a text file that the license says you > must distribute with the binaries but which contains a statement and > which nothing else even references. then toss out all GPL programs, and pretty nearly everything except public domain and BSD-licensed works - because they ALL have restrictions on modifications which are similar to those in the GFDL. > Get it through your head and actually think about it for five minutes. > > Hell, for 5 seconds. unlike you, i actually HAVE thought about it. my conclusion is based on evidence, reasoning and logic. yours appears to be based on moronic dogma. > Read what the Debian project has ALREADY DECIDED on the matter, then > give us a reason why a 'secondary section' is somehow special and should > be exempt from the DFSG. 1. frankly, i don't give a fuck what a vote says - my thoughts are not determined by what the majority says, i make up my own mind. if i didn't, i'd have used Microsoft crap like all the rest of the sheep. similarly, voting doesn't change reality. a billion people could vote that the earth is flat but it wouldn't make it so. 2. even aside from that, debian has not yet decided whether the GFDL is non-free or not. that's what this whole stupid fucking argument is all about. or did you somehow forget what you were supposed to be arguing about? face it, you're a moron and shouldn't be wasting the time of your betters with your facile attempts at debate. your arguments are lame, your examples are cretinous, and your "analogies" are just fucking absurd. go find something more suited to your "talents". crayons, perhaps. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anton's amendment
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 03:17:03PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > no, code in a program could never be a secondary section. it is > > inherently the "primary topic" of the work - which automatically > > excludes it from being secondary. > > It seems to me that this cannot quite be right, at least, not in the > way craig intends it. you are wrong, and your tortured attempt at a tautology is bogus. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anton's amendment
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 10:40:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > This is not a proper example. Non-modifiability of secondary.c may > > obstruct further improvements of the program. This is not the case > > with the invariant sections, which do not prevent the manual to be > > enhanced. > > Sometimes an enhancement requires removing invariant sections. For > example, if you want to turn the manual into a reference card. so make your reference card and include a link to the FSF's site for the full documentation. one link hardly even qualifies as inconvenient. even if you couldn't include a link and had to include the entire invariant section, you're still only talking about a convenience issue NOT A FREEDOM ISSUE. > Sometimes an enhancement requires rewriting invariant sections. For > example, to correct factual mistakes or express more correct opinions. no, you do not put words in other people's mouths. you add your "corrections" and make it clear that they are YOURS and not the original author's. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anton's amendment
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 09:14:12PM -0600, Richard Darst wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:31:38AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > > [the topic is invariant sections] > > > i challenge any of you zealots to come up with a REAL WORLD, PRACTICAL > > proof that the GFDL is non-free (and i mean actually non-free, not > > merely inconvenient. the DFSG does not require convenience, only > > freedom). > > 1) > > A while back, someone quoted Richard Stallman (not that it's happened > just once). If that was in anything GFDLed with large invariant > sections, as philosophical things tend to be, the quote wouldn't have > been used, since it would make the message too long. Also, the kind > of quotes relevant to this discussion would be in invariant sections, > only making things more complicated. bullshit. fair use allows quoting for purposes of review or comment. a significantly larger work would simply have to include the invariant section(s). that might be inconvenient, but freedom does not require convenience. > 2) > > If someone wanted to create a work discussing this GFDL-debate, and > everyone's work was GFDLed with invariant sections, could they? > Undoubtedly a lot of what is relevant would be in invariant sections. > Would you want to try to write something under those conditions? > Invariant stuff places an unworkable restriction beyond the author > exercising due care to cite everything properly. yes, of course they could. they'd just have to include all of the invariant sections. that might be a complete pain in the arse, but that's a convenience issue, not a freedom issue. > > proof that the GFDL is non-free (and i mean actually non-free, not > > merely inconvenient. the DFSG does not require convenience, only > > freedom). > > "Everything is free, if you give up enough freedoms". convenience is not required by freedom. in fact, freedom is often inconvenient. score so far: 1 bullshit argument, 2 confusings of convenience for freedom. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anton's amendment
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 04:37:20PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote: > "Zephaniah E. Hull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So, I write a program, nice, big, with a license that says that you can > > do anything you want with it as long as you keep the copyright > > statements attached and don't make any changes at all to main.c, none, > > not for bug fixing, not for feature changes, none at all. > > s/main.c/secondary.c/, but that doesn't change the argument, only the > name, actually. Which is part of GFDL's problem. no, code in a program could never be a secondary section. it is inherently the "primary topic" of the work - which automatically excludes it from being secondary. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anton's amendment
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 09:49:51AM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:31:38AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > > i challenge any of you zealots to come up with a REAL WORLD, PRACTICAL > > proof that the GFDL is non-free (and i mean actually non-free, not > > merely inconvenient. the DFSG does not require convenience, only > > freedom). > > Alright, I'm going to give another example here, hopefully this one will > get through to you. it was even lamer than the lastand wasn't even about the GFDL, it was about some stupid hypothetical non-free license you made up yourself. > Now, remember, we have _already had_ the GR that states that as far as > the DFSG goes we don't give a damn if it's documentation or software. > > So, I write a program, nice, big, with a license that says that you can > do anything you want with it as long as you keep the copyright > statements attached and don't make any changes at all to main.c, none, > not for bug fixing, not for feature changes, none at all. > > Oh, and you are not allowed to delete it or keep it from being linked in > either. this is not the GFDL. it's not even close to the GFDL. we're talking about the GFDL, not your hypothetical non-free license. > Would you consider this license free? If so, you're an idiot because > it's not even close. of course it's not free. it specifically says you can't modify (part of) the code...in GFDL terms, primary topic of the work. > And we have ALREADY decided that we don't give a damn if it's software > or documentation, the fact that it's a 'secondary' section makes not > one damn bit of difference, it's still non-free. your bogus license says you can't change main.c - that is NOT a secondary section. even if it was a relatively unimportant bit of the code, it WOULD NOT AND COULD NOT be a secondary section. 1. if you're going to try for an analogy, at least make it match. 2. read what the GFDL actually says and stop trying to pretend that a secondary section can be any part of the document - the definition is very precise, and very restrictive: A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the ~~ relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and contains ~~~ nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject. ~ (For example, if the Document is in part a textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them. > > > At that point, it is the entirety of the document, it is more then > > > one or two lines of text, it is _not_ a copyright statement or > > > license which is covered by law instead of the license. > > > > neither of these things are actually covered by law - there is no > > specific law that states "you may not delete or alter copyright > > notices or licenses". these things are just implicit convention. > > I'm pretty sure that if you asked a lawyer what would happen were you > to make drastic changes to the license file on a project that wasn't > yours and removed the copyright notices that he'd tell you that it > was likely to get you in a whole lot of trouble when they sue you for > doing so. that's because copyright law prohibits you from making ANY changes at all. it is only the license in a free software license that allows that. there's still no specific law that prevents changing license text or copyright notices, so stop pretending there is. so, when a free license grants the right to modify, unless it explicitly prohibits modifying the license itself or the copyright notices, then it is only politeness and convention that prevent anyone from doing that. which is why most of them DO, in fact, prohibit changing the license or taking credit for the original authors' work. > > > Now, it is still under the GNU FDL, there is still content here, > > > the content, which is now the _entirety_ of the document, is > > > something that by the license I can not remove and can not change. > > > > yes, what's left are the invariant sections. by definition, > > unchangeable. you
Re: Anton's amendment
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 05:55:54PM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 09:34:19AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > > so, your complaint is that if you delete the contents of the document, > > then you can no longer change it? > > > > are you for real? do you seriously take this as credible proof that GFDL > > is non-free? > > Are you just missing the point, or are you trying to miss the point? i'm trying to make you see the point. you seem highly resistant to clue installation. > > did you notice that the reason you can only add to the document but > > can't change it is because you deleted the contents? that there's > > NOTHING there to change? how can you change something that doesn't exist > > any more? you can't, regardless of license. > > Incorrect. no, absolutely correct. there's nothing there to change BECAUSE you deleted everything that could be changed. you can still add whatever you like AND you still have the same freedoms that you had before you deleted the content. > I have removed everything, except for the overly large political > statement. > > According to the license, I can not change it, and I can not remove it. Q. doctor, it hurts when i bash my head with a hammer. A. don't do that, then. in other words, if you do stupid things, you've got to expect stupid results. and whatever you think your point is, it's still an extreme & absurd scenario - if that's all you can come up with to "prove" that GFDL is non-free, if you have to come up with some contrived and ridiculous scenario, then you can't honestly say that it is non-free. i challenge any of you zealots to come up with a REAL WORLD, PRACTICAL proof that the GFDL is non-free (and i mean actually non-free, not merely inconvenient. the DFSG does not require convenience, only freedom). > At that point, it is the entirety of the document, it is more then one > or two lines of text, it is _not_ a copyright statement or license > which is covered by law instead of the license. neither of these things are actually covered by law - there is no specific law that states "you may not delete or alter copyright notices or licenses". these things are just implicit convention. > Now, it is still under the GNU FDL, there is still content here, the > content, which is now the _entirety_ of the document, is something > that by the license I can not remove and can not change. yes, what's left are the invariant sections. by definition, unchangeable. you have such mastery of the obvious. unfortunately, you're sadly lacking in understanding. the document is, in essence, no different to what it was before you deleted all the content. you are still free to add whatever you like to the content, and to change that as you please. you have, in fact, exercised your freedom already BY deleting the original content. more importantly, you are making the mistake of assuming that because you deleted the contents, the *real* primary topic of the document, that the secondary sections are automatically promoted to the status of primary topic. that is a false assumption. by definition, an invariant section can only be a secondary section, AND a secondary section CAN NOT BE the primary topic of a document. so that means either: 1. (in the unlikely case that your auto-promotion theory is true) since they're not secondary sections, they can't be invariant: no invariant sections, no problem. 2. (otherwise) since there's no primary topic to hang them on to, the invariant sections go too, so you have no document at all: no document, no license, no problem. in either case, the outcome is ridiculous because the scenario conditions are ridiculous. what you actually have is an empty document. i.e. nothing. not worth worrying about. it doesn't matter in the slightest. > > to reuse your line of argument with a different license: if i delete > > all the lines of source code in a GPL program (leaving only the > > license and copyright notice) then i can no longer change it. i can > > add to it, but i can't change it. therefore the GPL is non-free. > > BT, sorry, in those cases you no longer have a document, in the > case of the GFDL you may still have a great deal of document under a > license which is, at that point, unquestionably non-free. you have exactly as much document with GPL (or other license) as with the GFDL - you have the invariant sections (copyright notice(s), license text, etc). it may not DO anything, but that's besides the point - if you do something stupid, you've got to expect stupid results. and just as with the GFDL you still have the same freedoms you had before - you can add code, change it, or delete it. > Please, use some sense here, a large
Re: Anton's amendment
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 08:47:54AM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote: > I am unconvinced that the DFSG means 'all modifications', I think that > it really does mean all reasonable modifications. > > But the GFDL fails this, _entirely_. > > Even by the bounds of 'reasonable modifications' the GFDL with _any_ > invariant sections is completely non-free, and how should be fairly > obvious, but I'll give an extreme example: > > I'll take a large GNU manual, for reasons that could be anything from > because I'm feeling strange today to because I'm fond of the build > system they use for producing other formats of the document, I want to > cut it down. > > So I chop it down until there is nothing _except_ the copyright > statement and the invariant sections. > > I can no longer make any modifications, I can't change the copyright > statement because, well, the law where I live forbids me from doing > that. > > And I can't change _anything_ in the document itself, I can add to it, > but I can't change it. so, your complaint is that if you delete the contents of the document, then you can no longer change it? are you for real? do you seriously take this as credible proof that GFDL is non-free? i see it as proof that it IS free - otherwise you wouldn't have to grasp at straws to find such absurd "proofs". did you notice that the reason you can only add to the document but can't change it is because you deleted the contents? that there's NOTHING there to change? how can you change something that doesn't exist any more? you can't, regardless of license. to reuse your line of argument with a different license: if i delete all the lines of source code in a GPL program (leaving only the license and copyright notice) then i can no longer change it. i can add to it, but i can't change it. therefore the GPL is non-free. and the same for EVERY other software license, too. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:42:41PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > alternatively, print a single link to either the full documentation > > (containing the invariant sections) or to just the invariant sections. > > This might be a reasonable thing, but it is not what the GFDL requires. actually, it is. the GFDL explicitly says that you can provide a link to an internet site - and, contrary to loony zealot propaganda, it does not say that you must operate or maintain that site yourself. If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy, or state in or with ~~~ each Opaque copy a publicly-accessible computer-network location containing a complete Transparent copy of the Document, free of ~~~ added material, which the general network-using public has access ~ to download anonymously at no charge using public-standard network ~~ protocols. If you use the latter option, you must take reasonably ~~ prudent steps, when you begin distribution of Opaque copies in quantity, to ensure that this Transparent copy will remain thus accessible at the stated location until at least one year after the last time you distribute an Opaque copy (directly or through your agents or retailers) of that edition to the public. linking to the FSF's own site would be a reasonable step to ensuring that the transparent copy will remain accessible for at least a year. this is for Opaque copies, such as printed on paper or even the apocryphal and much-whinged-about coffee cup. for Transparent copies, it doesn't matter - even the most pedantic whinger is going to find it hard to credibly claim that having to include some extra files in the document or in an appropriate directory is a huge inconvenience. it's not. quit yer whining and find something useful to do. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 12:24:27AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:24:23PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:52:41PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote: > > > An other example is a reference sheet to be printed on the front- and > > > backside of a sheet of paper (autogenerated to always match the current > > > version) that contains the most important commands, functions or > > > whatever of the software that the manual documents. For example a cheat > > > sheet for GNU Emacs. > > > > It is not difficult to print two sheets - the invariant sections go on > > the second sheet and FSF wins more popularity. :-) alternatively, print a single link to either the full documentation (containing the invariant sections) or to just the invariant sections. for FSF documentation, linking to the relevant URL on the FSF's own site should do - that's not going to vanish any time soon (if ever). and that will probably account for almost all GFDL documentation since hardly anyone else is likely to use it. and, amazingly, that works for even the stupid coffee-cup example that you loonies seem so obsessed with as if it somehow proves your ridiculous "point". > That doubles the amount of text you have to print. If you want to print > 10.000 copies, this is a serious burden. > > Also, I doubt that two sheets will be enough, as the GFDL is fairly > large and will, in most cases, not fit easily on one piece of paper. > > And what will you do with front-cover and back-cover texts in such a > case? so what? these are convenience issues, not freedom issues. on the one hand: fair enough, you've got a right to whinge about inconvenience. on the other hand: bullshit! you don't have a right to falsely claim that convenience issues are freedom issues. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:25:40AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 05:22:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > > > That's exactly why it's not similar to the things allowed by the > > > patch clause. FDL is more a licence that requires later programmers > > > to add a function that adds to or clarifies or subverts the original > > > function, but the original must be called regardless and its output > > > used somehow: it cannot be patched out of any compilation. > > > > "absurd analogy" method. score 2.5 > > > > it's not at all like that. > > > > documentation is not software. it is non-functional and passive. [...] > > "contradicting the licence you're trying to defend" error. Score 0. > > >From the FDL: > > "0. PREAMBLE" [yes, this is in the preamble, it's so obvious] > > "The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or > other functional and useful document [...]" > ^^ > Meanwhile, craig is waffling about how it's non-functional. get a grip, you loser. if you don't understand basic english, then go and learn it before attempting to argue in the language. you're just making a fool of yourself and wasting everyone's time, otherwise. it should have been obvious to anyone but the most brain-damaged cretin that when i used the word "functional" above, i was talking about code that executes, that actually DOES something. i.e. NOT A PASSIVE DOCUMENT THAT DOES NOTHING. The GFDL is using the word "functional" in that context to mean that the document describes the function of something, such as a program. it does not mean that the document is in any way active itself. in other words, different uses of the word "functional", and thus NO CONTRADICTION, you moron! you're so lame. don't you have any better criticism of what i wrote than stupid pedantic mindless shit like that? try arguing about something worthwhile instead of low-life scumbag pedantry based on deliberate mis-understanings of plain english. that's what i hate the most about this stupid GFDL argument - all you pathetic losers who think it's a good idea to pick and poke at the tiniest, most trivial, most pointless crapand you do it as if you're making some earth-shattering, or at least RELEVANT, point. > > the only people who would have any kind of problem with that are > > plagiarists and thieves who want to steal (or hide) credit for other > > people's work; and lying scumbags who want to misrepresent and twist > > someone else's words or just put their own words in other people's > > mouths. i can see why you zealots have a big problem with the latter - > > it's one of your favourite tactics. > > Please read "It's not about misrepresentation" by Nathaneal Nerode. > http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html read it. it's lame, self-serving garbage with all the usual panic-merchant absurdly contrived examples and deliberately stupid misinterpretations. > I'm irritated by mass debaters who are too intolerant to read the > licence and key articles and understand the objections, far more than > the foul language. morons like you deserve "foul" language. there's a tiny chance that it might shock you out of writing such moronic garbage. craig ps: "moronic misunderstanding" method. score: -5.0 (extremely lame). -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: {SPAM} Re: Anton's amendment
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:21:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > So, the DFSG are what they say they are -- > guidelines. However, some licenses were deemed by the project to be > de-facto free, even if they do contravene some of the guidelines, > hence explicitly naming the GPL and the bsd licenses. The naming > them specifically removes the requirement that they meet all the > guidelines. > > But this does not automatically mean that the dispensation > offered to the GPL automatically extends to any other license -- we > would need to list any licenses like that explicitly, or modify the > guidelines to not conflict. what an amazingly absurd rewriting of history. the GPL was *NEVER* considered to be any kind of exemption to what debian considered free. rather, it was considered to be the "Gold Standard" example of what a free license should allow. the GPL was, and still is, the defining license of the Free Software movement. and probably always will be. even before we had the SC and DFSG, new licenses were compared against the GPL to see if they met (or nearly met) that standardand that comparison against the GPL is still done today, either directly or via the DFSG which was very strongly influenced by it. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anton's amendment
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 12:05:49PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > there's no law that specifically states you can't remove a credit or > > copyright notice, either - it's just convention AND the fact that > > you don't have any right to edit & redistribute except that which is > > granted by the license. > > Sorry, you are wrong. The Finnish copyright law states that when a > full or partial copy is made publicly available the author must be > identified in a reasonable manner. that's not exactly the same as prohibiting the removal of a credit notice, is it? it just says that the author must be identified in a reasonable manner - which means you CAN remove any existing credit notice as long as you still identify the author in some reasonable manner of your own choosing. but really - don't you have anything better to do than waste time on trivial pedantry? no wonder this stupid argument has gone on for so long, it just bogs down in trivia and other distractions. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anton's amendment
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:57:35PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> In this case, I should be able to have the orig.tar.gz contain the > >> invariant, the diff.gz contain stuff to remove the invariant, and > >> the .deb not contain it. > >> > >> That seems not permitted. > > > of course not, any more than it is permitted to remove the license > > text or the copyright notice(*). > > Copyright law covers removal of copyright notices; there is no > law that prevents removal or modification of sections the author > decries invariant. there's no law that specifically states you can't remove a credit or copyright notice, either - it's just convention AND the fact that you don't have any right to edit & redistribute except that which is granted by the license. so, invariant sections have as much "force of law" as credit or copyright notices. > However, not being able to remove things not prohibited by > copyright law does seem an additional restriction to me. you're looking at it from the opposite direction. removing anything prior to copying and redistribution is automatically prohibited by copyright law. any exception to that blanket prohibition is spelt out in the license or agreement. > > as has been said SEVERAL times before, the "patch" to an invariant > > section does NOT change or remove it. it just adds another > > invariant section in response to it. you may not claim credit for > > the work of others OR put your words in their mouths. these are > > both reasonable and entirely unremarkable restrictions which do not > > in any way impinge on freedom. > > In which case, this is sufficiently different from the patch > clause permitted in the DFSG for me to think it is not coverred. We > are at liberty to extend the DFSG to also cover the GFDL licensed > documents with invariant clauses, but I think it does require us to > modify or clarify the DFSG. no, it's not sufficiently different. with software, it is necessary to actually change or remove the code you want to patch because code is functional - if you don't change it, the patch wont work. documentation, however, is non-functional. you can amend it by simply adding stuff to it. and, in any case, we're only talking about SECONDARY sections here, not about the primary topic(s) of the work - ancillary comments, copyright and credit notices, political rants, and so on. whether you agree with what the invariant section is saying or not, you don't have the right to put other words in the author's mouths. if you disagree with them and feel strongly enough about it, then leave their words alone and add your own. > > (*) yes, i know the loony nutcases like to pretend that they're > > entirely different magically special cases which can be ignored for > > the purposes of the DFSG (mostly because even they realise they > > can't completely ignore their existence without losing what few > > shreds of credibility they have), but they're seriously > > reality-challenged. > > This paragraph does your argument no credit. why? because i tell it like it is? and don't let unreasonable zealots hide behind a flimsy facade of being rational human beings? craig ps: do i think GFDL Invariant Sections are a good thing? no, i don't. it's just that i don't think they're a particularly bad thing. certainly not bad enough to make GFDL non-free, or even bad enough to get upset about. very mildly irked, perhaps...but no more. -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anton's amendment
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 09:31:07AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > restricting modifications to original + patch only is explicitly > > permitted. > > But one is supposed to be able to distribute the patched > derived work. yes, and you can. maybe not in the most convenient form that you would prefer, but that's irrelevent - DFSG requires freedom, not convenience. > In this case, I should be able to have the orig.tar.gz contain the > invariant, the diff.gz contain stuff to remove the invariant, and the > .deb not contain it. > > That seems not permitted. of course not, any more than it is permitted to remove the license text or the copyright notice(*). as has been said SEVERAL times before, the "patch" to an invariant section does NOT change or remove it. it just adds another invariant section in response to it. you may not claim credit for the work of others OR put your words in their mouths. these are both reasonable and entirely unremarkable restrictions which do not in any way impinge on freedom. (*) yes, i know the loony nutcases like to pretend that they're entirely different magically special cases which can be ignored for the purposes of the DFSG (mostly because even they realise they can't completely ignore their existence without losing what few shreds of credibility they have), but they're seriously reality-challenged. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anton's amendment
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:22:02AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Could some one tell me why including the invariant sections of > a GFDL licensed work in main would not require us to modify the DFSG > or the social contract? because the GFDL is not a non-free license. GFDL invariant sections do not make a document non-free. see DFSG patch clause. > Specifically, I am looking at the SC: > >> 1. Debian will remain 100% free > > And the DFSG: > >> The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must > >> allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license > >> of the original software. > > We would need to change the must allow modifications bit, as I > see it -- since a license attached to a work must allow modifications > to the work, as it is currently stated. (I do not consider the > license to be part of the work). no, it's not necessary to change anything. DFSG patch clause. read it. explains all. restricting modifications to original + patch only is explicitly permitted. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 05:22:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] > > the "patch" to the opinions/rants/whatever in an invariant section > > does not change that invariant section (it can't change, it's > > *INVARIANT*). It adds a NEW invariant section which makes whatever > > point the 'patcher' wants to make. the new section may add to or > > clarify the original inv. sec. or it may discredit it or subvert it > > or argue against it. [...] > > That's exactly why it's not similar to the things allowed by the > patch clause. FDL is more a licence that requires later programmers > to add a function that adds to or clarifies or subverts the original > function, but the original must be called regardless and its output > used somehow: it cannot be patched out of any compilation. "absurd analogy" method. score 2.5 it's not at all like that. documentation is not software. it is non-functional and passive. people read the bits of it that they want/need to read - nobody is forced to read an invariant section if they don't want to. all that the GFDL requires is that it BE THERE, available to be read. the only people who would have any kind of problem with that are plagiarists and thieves who want to steal (or hide) credit for other people's work; and lying scumbags who want to misrepresent and twist someone else's words or just put their own words in other people's mouths. i can see why you zealots have a big problem with the latter - it's one of your favourite tactics. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 02:17:07PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote: > >> > the DFSG does not require convenience. it requires freedom. lack of > >> > convenience DOES NOT equate to non-free. > >> > >> True; however, Frank said "it would be more than inconvenient", which > >> does not say he thinks that the main problem is lack of convenience > >> here. > > > > i guess english is not your native language. "more than inconvenient" is > > a colloquialism for "extremely bloody inconvenient" or worse. i.e. "more > > than" is another way of saying "very". > > It's also not my native language, and indeed with "more than" I meant > "not only extremely bloody, but even something else" (i.e. non-free). well, then, if you're going to make such a claim then back it up with reasoning, logic, and evidence. you might think that makes it non-free but you've provided no reason for anyone to accept your opinion. an unsupported assertion is worthless. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 11:19:34AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > craig > > the DFSG does not require convenience. it requires freedom. lack of > > convenience DOES NOT equate to non-free. > > > > case in point - it is inconvenient (for both the distributor and the > > user) to distribute modified software in the form of original work + > > patch file. very inconvenient. in fact, a complete PITA, especially > > for the user. yet that is explicitly defined as being free in the > > DFSG. > > Even in that case, the used copy of the work usually has the > patched-out part missing. I don't think the patch permission is > relevant to the FDL, because most Invariant Section advertisers would > be unhappy if their advert is not visible in an opaque copy. Not least > FSF: would an invisible GNU manifesto satisfy their goal? now you're using the "wilfully stupid misinterpretation" method of lying. that's pretty lame, so your score today is only 1.5 out of 10. the "patch" to the opinions/rants/whatever in an invariant section does not change that invariant section (it can't change, it's *INVARIANT*). It adds a NEW invariant section which makes whatever point the 'patcher' wants to make. the new section may add to or clarify the original inv. sec. or it may discredit it or subvert it or argue against it. or it may be about something else entirely. it could even be an argument based on a wilfully stupid misinterpretation of the original. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 09:50:46AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > > It is not inconvenient to distribute auctex_11.html together > > > > with the invariant sections. > > > > > > Of course it is - imagine that my documentation contains parts > > > from 10 documents, all under GFDL, all using lots of invariant > > > sections - that would be more than inconvenient. > > > > the DFSG does not require convenience. it requires freedom. lack of > > convenience DOES NOT equate to non-free. > > True; however, Frank said "it would be more than inconvenient", which > does not say he thinks that the main problem is lack of convenience > here. i guess english is not your native language. "more than inconvenient" is a colloquialism for "extremely bloody inconvenient" or worse. i.e. "more than" is another way of saying "very". it doesnt imply that there's a more serious problem beyond the inconvenience, just that the inconvenience is not at all trivial and very annoying. if that's not what frank meant (and it looks exactly like he did from the context) then he'll have to back up his statement with reasoning and evidence before i'll take it seriously. bald assertions without anything to back them up arent worth very much. > > case in point - it is inconvenient (for both the distributor and the > > user) to distribute modified software in the form of original work + > > patch file. very inconvenient. in fact, a complete PITA, especially > > for the user. yet that is explicitly defined as being free in the > > DFSG. > > > > feel free to ignore this fact - it's based in reality and doesn't > > conform to your loony zealot prejudices. > > No, I won't, because it's actually a very good argument as to why > invariant sections could be seen as less of a problem: if we allow if this isnt just your version of sophistry then maybe you arent as close-minded as the rest. perhaps there's still hope for you. > unmodifiable-but-patcheable programs, it is not unreasonable to say > that we should allow documents that are (in part) unmodifiable, but > to whose contents you can add protest or whatnot. If you would've > remained calm and have given reasonable arguments such as this one, > rather than throwing mud around as you seem to like to do, maybe we > could've had a conversation. i've made the same argument several times since this whole stupid "GFDL is evil!" argument started however long ago. before i figured out that they were religious zealots and thus immune to reason, i wasted a lot of time trying to use reason against the inherently unreasonable - doomed to failure...with the zealots, it's ALL about faith and dogma, received "wisdom", not about reasoning. or logic. or evidence. > The only problem I see with this argument is the fact that the GFDL > defines an invariant section as a "secondary section", which it in > turn defines as "a named appendix that or a front-matter section of > the Document (...) contains nothing that could fall directly within > [the document's] overall subject". Hence, if you keep adding invariant > sections, eventually any reasonable definition of "the document's > overall subject" would be whatever all those invariant sections talk > about. > > How do you think this should be looked at? by not leaping to such absurd conclusions. what makes you think that adding an invariant section (by definition "secondary" and not the primary topic matter) can in any way change the primary topic of a document? it just doesnt make any sense. is it just that one of the zealot drone units told you? well, that's "received wisdom" for you. dogma has to be resisted with reason - in your own mind, at least. you'll never convince a true zealot but at least you can see the holes in their faith for yourself...and point them out to others to help them resist being brainwashed by it. a book about emacs with one or two invariant sections is a book about emacs. the same book (or a different book, doesnt matter) with 10 or 100 or 1000 invariant sections is STILL a book about emacs. invariant sections are commentary or copyright/credit notices or opinion or rants or other stuff irrelevant (or, at best, only tangentially relevant) to the topic of the document. they are not and never can be the primary topic of a GFDL document. absurdity like that is a common pattern with the zealots' dogma. they'll make some absurd interpretation of or conclusion about something, based on ridiculous conjecture, and then BECAUSE THEY THINK IT SUPPORTS THEIR VISION, they treat it as The Truth (with capital "T"s), rather than acknowledge it for the ridiculous opinion that it really is. they will then proceed to defend their "Truth" against all infidels (i.e. those daring to use reason). craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 09:54:40AM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote: > Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Let the sheet instead be a coffee cup; in Germany Lehmann's sell > >> cups with Emacs or vi commands on them. You can't add a second cup > >> for the invariant sections, even if they fit on it, since people > >> usually buy or donate (and use) only one cup at a time. > > > > The same trick works here - one cup and one sheet of paper. Not > > everybody will like that solution but it works. > > Excuse me, you are telling me that a sheet of paper is a "front matter" > or "appendix" of a cup? How do you ensure that the "front matter" is > still readable after a couple of rounds of pouring coffee, spilling > coffee, and dishwasher use? thank you for this shining example. if anyone was wondering what i meant by saying that the loony zealots go off on irrelevant pedantic tangents, then here is a perfect example. coffee cups - you people really aren't even close to sane, are you? and yet you take yourself so seriously. how strange. > Or are you trying to write a satire? pot. kettle. black. > >> Imagine that AUCTeX's manual was under GFDL, and I want to distribute > >> only file:///usr/share/doc/auctex/HTML/auctex/auctex_11.html (which > >> deals with language support) in a documentation bundle about "Optimizing > >> TeX workflow for i18n and l10n". > > > > It is not inconvenient to distribute auctex_11.html together with the > > invariant sections. > > Of course it is - imagine that my documentation contains parts from 10 > documents, all under GFDL, all using lots of invariant sections - that > would be more than inconvenient. the DFSG does not require convenience. it requires freedom. lack of convenience DOES NOT equate to non-free. case in point - it is inconvenient (for both the distributor and the user) to distribute modified software in the form of original work + patch file. very inconvenient. in fact, a complete PITA, especially for the user. yet that is explicitly defined as being free in the DFSG. feel free to ignore this fact - it's based in reality and doesn't conform to your loony zealot prejudices. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 06:13:14PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > no, the truth is, you're blinkered and inflexible and determined to > twist [...] oh look, it's yet another wind up doll - how cute. how long did it take to train you? can you do other tricks? there does seem to be a lot of these windup dolls in here...maybe you're all under the misapprehension that it's in some way "clever" to quote someone's words back at them. or maybe you're all irony-challenged americans and think that that constitutes irony. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 04:12:09PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:34:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:08:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > I'm willing to debate whatever you want to debate about the GFDL, but > > > not with insults and shouting. > > > > no, the truth is, you're not. you're blinkered and inflexible and > > determined to twist every little thing until anyone reasonable just > > gives up. > > That's simply not true. > > You may have discussed this with other people in the past, but not with > me. You have sent me all of two mails that were full of insult, none of > which contained anything which could pursuade me into buying your > argument. you'll have to excuse me if i see all you faceless drones who parrot the exact same mindless lies as interchangeable Zealot Propaganda Units. with one of you, as with all, there's no point in engaging in debate or any kind of civilised discourse. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 03:09:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > > the same old bullshit and lies over and over and over again. > > Nice of you to admit you're just reheating year-old crap. > Here, I'll save the trouble of one post/debunk cycle: > "you CAN modify an invariant section - but you can only do so > by adding a new section that subverts or refutes or simply adds > to the invariant section." (Craig Sanders, January 2005) > vs > "If it is modified, it does not do its job." (RMS, May 2003) > > and so on and so forth. Even RMS's comments disagree with > some pro-FDL Craig Sanders ones. Why should people believe > Craig Sanders saying "this is free software" when even > RMS doesn't do that AFAICT? ah, of course. this time you're using the "lie by juxtaposing two unrelated things out of context and pretend as if they are directly relayed to each other" method. nice choice, one of your better methods - reasonably subtle and very effective if the reader isn't paying close attention. score: 6.5 out of 10. 1. what i said was an analogy to the DFSG clause that allows a license to require that modification be done only by patch. adding a new invariant section is to documentation what a patch is to software. 2. wihout any context, i don't know what the hell RMS was commenting on, but it certainly wasn't anything i said. it was nearly two years prior to my words. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 10:24:17AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Craig Sanders wrote: > > as has been pointed out hundreds of times before, there are several > > other situations where neither the DFSG nor the debian project require > > modifiability - license texts and copyright notices, for example. > > As has been pointed out hundreds more times, those limitations are > imposed by copyright law more than by licences. Even the licences > which can be modified (such as the GPL), can't be modified if you > wish downstream recipients to exercise the permissions. you lot just never give it a rest, do you? the same old bullshit and lies over and over and over again. > You and your ilk may choose to ignore this as a minor detail and pretend > that it's irrelevent, but that's because you're extremist nutcases > highly skilled at ignoring reality when it contradicts your lunatic view. oh, how cute. just like a talking doll. pull the string and it repeats your words back at you. and without too much dribbling! you must be very proud of your intellectual capacity, there were several words with more than two syllables in that lot. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:08:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 09:24:15AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > > GIVE. IT. A. FUCKING. REST! > > Craig, > > I'm willing to debate whatever you want to debate about the GFDL, but > not with insults and shouting. no, the truth is, you're not. you're blinkered and inflexible and determined to twist every little thing until anyone reasonable just gives up. it's really not worth the bother of "debating" with extremist nutcases, you just go around and around in circles over the same ground. and you can't win. no matter what points you make, you jerks will just ignore them and THEN CONTINUE WITH THE SAME OLD LIES, NO MATTER HOW OFTEN OR HOW RECENTLY THEY HAVE BEEN DISCREDITED. and when that isn't working, or perhaps just for variety, you lot throw in all sorts of stupid non-sequitirs and tangents to distract and side-track any argument so that it gets bogged down in irrelevancies. for months. or years. and again and again and again. i've been suckered into playing that game before. i have no interest in doing so again. the only sane response is to just try to ignore you creeps as much and for as long as possibleand mostly i succeed. i don't even bother reading the debian lists more than once every two or three months these days - and whenever i do, the same damn arguments are raging. how long have you zealots dragged this GFDL one out for? one year? two years? or is it three? and it's EXACTLY the same fucking argument. after all this time. nothing ever changes. and before that it was trying to get rid of the non-free section of the archive, making such a huge fuss about the dreadful non-free programs in there. nobody even bothered evaluating all the software to figure out what kind of non-free software it was - until I didi went through every single package in non-free and made notes on their licenses, and IIRC there were less than a dozen (out of about 200 or so) that didn't have source or didn't allow modification or redistribution. almost all of the licensing problems were trivial or only prohibited commercial exploitation. not exactly free, but nothing to get rabidly upset about, either (in fact, IIRC some of the authors were subsequently contacted and agreed to change the license terms so that they were truly free - that's the RIGHT way to fix problems). even being presented with facts like that didn't stop the argument, BECAUSE YOU ARSEWIPES AREN'T INTERESTED IN FACTS OR REALITY, you're only interested in your bullshit uber-zealot point of view. anything not matching your loony extemist prejudices is ignored - it simply does not exist for you lot. that's why arguing with people like you is a complete waste of time. and as for the insults - frankly, people like you who have ruined the debian organisation deserve a lot worse than i've ever given you. BTW, here's a real world fact for you: repeating something false, no matter how loudly or how often you do it, DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE. even writing a FAQ document doesn't turn a falsehood into truth. really. i know you'll find that hard to believe, but that's the way the *REAL WORLD* works. i'm not sure what world you live in, but you obviously believe it works very differently to the real world. it must be very nice for you. > Respectfully, i have no respect for nutcases and vandals. debian was a great organisation before your ilk came along and ruined it. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 02:37:05AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > ma, 2006-01-30 kello 09:24 +1100, Craig Sanders kirjoitti: > > only indirectly. the real point, which you missed, was to be an accurate > > description of reality - something that, as an extremist nutcase, you > > are challenged by. > > [ further insults deleted ] > > Craig, could you please behave in a polite manner? Regardless of whether > you're right or wrong about your claims about the GFDL, your manner is > inappropriate on Debian mailing lists. i'll behave as i please. if you don't like my words, then don't read them - kill file me if you feel it's necessary. ruining an organisation like debian is a FAR greater crime than mere impoliteness - and when i see extremist nutcases ruining what used to be a great organisation, then i'll express my anger and sadness in whatever manner i see fit. debian used to be great. now it's infested by psycho loonies with an, at best, tenuous grasp on reality - all determined to prove that they're Holier Than Stallman by being as unreasonable and pedantic about trivial crap as they possibly can. fortunately, the debian operating system is still good, even if the org. is screwed - at least until the loonies really get their way and toss out all the documentation for whatever trumped-up frivolous excuse is currently fashionable amongst them. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 05:13:26PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:09:55AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:29:38AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote: > > > > (2) The Invariant Sections - Main Objection Against GFDL > > > [...] > > > > > > This argument has been brought up a number of times already, but it does > > > not hold. > > > > no, it holds perfectly well. the trouble is that nutcases aren't in the > > least bit swayed by reason or logic - they have their own bizarre and > > psychotic mis-interpretation of reality and nothing, NOTHING, is ever > > going to sway them from it. > > Ah, ad hominem attacks. only indirectly. the real point, which you missed, was to be an accurate description of reality - something that, as an extremist nutcase, you are challenged by. > Of course the argument doesn't hold. Invariant sections cannot be > modified, and DFSG3 requires modifiability. EOT. bullshit. as has been pointed out hundreds of times before, there are several other situations where neither the DFSG nor the debian project require modifiability - license texts and copyright notices, for example. you and your ilk may choose to ignore this as a minor detail and pretend that it's irrelevent and no kind of precedent, but that's because you're extremist nutcases highly skilled at ignoring reality when it contradicts your lunatic viewpoint. it doesn't actually change the reality. wishing it weren't so don't make it so. > > > It says that you *must* either include a Transparent copy along > > > with each opaque copy (thus, if you print a book, you must include > > > a CD-ROM), or maintain a website (or something similar) for no > > > less than one year after distributing the opaque copy. As written, > > > it is not enough to point the recipient to an available copy that > > > they can take if they want to; you must either include it, or > > > maintain a website. > > > > bullshit! it says nothing of the kind. > > > > as usual, you extremist nutcases have no hesitation about lying if > > it will further your moronic agenda. > > I'm not lying. I have an opinion that is different from yours. no, you're lying. you are stating something which is not true, and that you know is not true. the GFDL does not say what you are claiming it does, it does not even imply what you are claiming, yet you claim it anyway because it's a useful shock tactic to demonize the GFDL and support your argument. > > it says that, along with an opaque copy, you must include EITHER a > > transparent copy or state the publicly accessible computer network > > location where the user can obtain a transparent copy. it says > > NOTHING AT ALL that could even remotely be interpreted as saying you > > must operate or maintain that site yourself. all it says is that you > > have to refer users to it. > > True. > > However, if you point users to a site that is not under your own > control, you basically risk being sued if the person that _does_ > control the site decides to take it down. In a literal interpretation > of that text, you're right; however, for all practical and legal > purposes, you're not. and if a meteorite falls on your head, you can no longer give away copies of GPL source code for binaries you have distributed. since this could happen at any time, you're constantly at risk of being in violation of the GPL. GIVE. IT. A. FUCKING. REST! really! who the hell are you trying to fool? yourself? nobody else is going to be taken in by such a lame "risk". craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
ce with harsh reality will ever change it. i really don't know why i even bothered responding this time. i've wasted more than enough of my time on others like you in the past with nothing to show for it but an increasing disillusionment and disgust with the debian organisation and the extremist vermin who infest it. it's why i do little or nothing for debian any more, and am unlikely to do so unless and until debian gets some sanity back. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote: > Hereby I am proposing an amendment to the GR about GFDL opened by > Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000] > > I wish to thank everybody who will support this amendment, especially > I wish to thank those who second it. > > I wish to thank also the members of the Debian mailing list at > lists.uni-sofia.bg, who assisted me with the text. > > Anton Zinoviev > > --- > > GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom, > it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines > ~~ [...remained deleted for brevity...] i second this amendment. it makes perfect sense. this whole stupid mess about the GFDL allegedly being a problem was cooked up by a bunch of extremist nutcases who want to force the Free Software Foundation to do their bidding, no matter how idiotic. these nutcases have been misusing the debian organisation in this and similarly moronic ways for years. it's time to tell them where to go and to stop turning debian into a bad joke. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG#10
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 12:52:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 12:56:06PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 05:19:40PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> > > For Debian to be "100% Free Software", it first must be "100% Software",
> > > right?
> >
> > wrong.
> >
> > it means that the SOFTWARE in debian is ALL (i.e. 100%) free software as
> > defined by the DFSG. it says nothing about the non-software in debian.
^
>
> Right...
>
> The Social Contract does not say: Debian Will Remain 100% Free
> Software and Some Other Things That Aren't Software But Which Are Also
> Free But Meet a Different Definition Of Free Than That Which Applies
> to Software, Plus Some Other Stuff That Isn't Free By Any Stretch Of
> The Imagination But Which We Thought Would Be Nice To Have.[1]
you seem to have trouble reading, so you make up stuff that was never said.
"it says nothing about the non-software in debian."
to help you understand that statement, here's what the dictionary has to
say about "nothing".
$ dict nothing
5 definitions found
>From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
Nothing \Noth"ing\, n. [From no, a. + thing.]
1. Not anything; no thing (in the widest sense of the word
thing); -- opposed to {anything} and {something}.
[1913 Webster]
Yet had his aspect nothing of severe. --Dryden.
[1913 Webster]
2. Nonexistence; nonentity; absence of being; nihility;
nothingness. --Shak.
[1913 Webster]
3. A thing of no account, value, or note; something
irrelevant and impertinent; something of comparative
unimportance; utter insignificance; a trifle.
[1913 Webster]
Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought.
--Is. xli. 24.
[1913 Webster]
'T is nothing, says the fool; but, says the friend,
This nothing, sir, will bring you to your end.
--Dryden.
[1913 Webster]
4. (Arith.) A cipher; naught.
[1913 Webster]
{Nothing but}, only; no more than. --Chaucer.
{To make nothing of}.
(a) To make no difficulty of; to consider as trifling or
important. "We are industrious to preserve our bodies
from slavery, but we make nothing of suffering our
souls to be slaves to our lusts." --Ray.
(b) Not to understand; as, I could make nothing of what he
said.
[1913 Webster]
>From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
Nothing \Noth"ing\, adv.
In no degree; not at all; in no wise.
[1913 Webster]
Adam, with such counsel nothing swayed. --Milton.
[1913 Webster]
The influence of reason in producing our passions is
nothing near so extensive as is commonly believed.
--Burke.
[1913 Webster]
{Nothing off} (Naut.), an order to the steersman to keep the
vessel close to the wind.
[1913 Webster]
>From WordNet (r) 2.0 (August 2003) [wn]:
nothing
n 1: a quantity of no importance; "it looked like nothing I had
ever seen before"; "reduced to nil all the work we had
done"; "we racked up a pathetic goose egg"; "it was all
for naught"; "I didn't hear zilch about it" [syn: {nil},
{nix}, {nada}, {null}, {aught}, {cipher}, {cypher},
{goose egg}, {naught}, {zero}, {zilch}, {zip}]
2: a nonexistent thing [syn: {nonentity}]
adv : in no way; to no degree; "he looks nothing like his father"
>From English-Latin Freedict dictionary [fd-eng-lat]:
nothing [nʌθiŋ]
nihil
>From Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0 [moby-thesaurus]:
86 Moby Thesaurus words for "nothing":
a little thing, a nobody, a nothing, aught, bagatelle, blank,
cipher, clean slate, common man, dud, dummy, empty space,
figurehead, good-for-nothing, goose egg, hardly anything,
hollow man, inanity, inessential, insignificancy, jackstraw,
lay figure, lightweight, little fellow, little guy, man of straw,
marginal matter, matter of indifference, mediocrity, mere nothing,
minor matter, nada, naught, nebbish, nichts, nihil, nihility, nil,
nix, no great matter, no such thing, no-account, no-good, nobody,
nobody one knows, nonentity, nothing at all, nothing in particular,
nothing on earth, nothing to signify, no
Re: DFSG#10
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 05:19:40PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: > This is what I don't follow. I've been trying very hard to understand > how it was logically possible to interpret the old social contract like > that, with no luck. > > To be able to make the distinction, one would also have to forget about > the mathematical fact that "100%" refer to the whole thing, alternatively > concede that we have always violated the social contract by distributing > "copyrighted works distributable in digital form" (which are not > "software"). > > The social contract never read "Debian Will Remain 80% Free Software and > 20% Copyrighted Works Distributable In Digital Form (Which Are Not > Software)", nor "100% Of The Software In Debian Will Remain Free". As I > read the old SC, and I can see no other way, it would have had to instead > read something like one of my above examples for Mr. Towns' interpretation > to be logically possible. > > For Debian to be "100% Free Software", it first must be "100% Software", > right? wrong. it means that the SOFTWARE in debian is ALL (i.e. 100%) free software as defined by the DFSG. it says nothing about the non-software in debian. > I'm entirely willing to be educated where I'm wrong. that would be nice. i suspect, though, that it'll be far easier to pretend that you can't understand a simple and obvious concept than it is to acknowledge another point of view. > I always assumed that there were no ambiguity, and that the Sarge RC > policy deliberately violated the social contract on a few select issues, nope. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ready to vote on 2004-003?
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 06:44:26AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > leave the guy alone. he's told you what he's willing and not willing to > > do, > > Yes... eventually. But it took a lot of asking. no, he said right from day 1 that he had delegated the decision to the tech ctte. you (and some others) just refused to listen. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Effect of GR 2004_003
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 07:54:54PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > and Choice 4 (revert to old wording), will have no effect on release policy. > The Release Manager erroneously concluded that nonfree material could be > included in a release [1]. actually, he didn't. he was perfectly correct that "software" did not include documentation, fonts, device firmware or other *DATA*. if he was mistaken, then why was there any need to change the SC? certainly those who voted for changing the SC must have agreed with him, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered. the same can be said for those who voted against the SC changes, they could anticipate the consequences of the change and voted against it. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ready to vote on 2004-003?
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:46:27AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Hypocrisy would be if I professed one set of values and then acted on > another, and I don't do that. That is *EXACTLY* what you are doing. you are saying that non-dfsg docs/fonts/firmware/etc must not be permitted in debian, while at the same time insisting on an exception for mere convenience. that is the very definition of hypocrisy. but neither honesty or ethics are your strong point, so i shouldn't be surprised that you find that difficult to grasp. if only you people would admit that you made a seriously stupid mistake when you changed the SC without considering the consequences, then this problem would be easily solved. but saving face is more important than fixing the problem, and hypocrisy is much easier than admitting you were wrong (especially if you do enough hand-waving to insist that it isn't hypocrisy). craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ready to vote on 2004-003?
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 05:07:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > If a general resolution is needed, everyone else's vote counts > > exactly the same as mine does. > > You are forcing everyone else's votes to be based on imperfect > information. welcome to the real world. leave the guy alone. he's told you what he's willing and not willing to do, and, whether you like it or not, he's not going to change his mind. there's no point in harassing him. oh...sorry...i forgot. this is debian-vote. pointless harassment and bickering is the purpose of this list. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ready to vote on 2004-003?
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 12:11:08PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > What I'm proposing, instead, is that we explicitly override the social > contract [temporarily, within some limits, based on what we've been doing for > years] and just be done with it. this is hypocrisy. having a principle which is so hard to live up to that it requires a special exemption for the sake of convenience is pointless. either the principle is valid or it is not. there is no ethical middle ground which says the principle is valid but we should just ignore it because it's inconvenient right now. either the current wording of the SC is right, in which case we should follow it; or it is wrong, in which case it should be reverted to the old wording which wasn't so impractical and incovenient. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:41:50AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: > Hmm I had no intention to change Craig's original. What he wrote was an > incomplete sentence referencing Steve's proposal. These words slipped in > from Steve's when I tried to make a full proposal out of them. I think your > interpretation of "deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal" makes > sense too. I merely thought Craig was killing clause 2. > > I will second it either way. (But I do not want to have 2 ways.) > > Craig, please speak up which way you meant. And let's move on. i originally meant "delete everything but clause 1", but it really doesn't matter. the opening paragraph is just filler & fluff and it doesn't bother me whether it is there or not. i.e. i'm happy with the amendment either way. the important thing is that the proposed action is clear and unambigous - rescind GR 2004-003. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home" signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:41:50AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: > Hmm I had no intention to change Craig's original. What he wrote was an > incomplete sentence referencing Steve's proposal. These words slipped in > from Steve's when I tried to make a full proposal out of them. I think your > interpretation of "deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal" makes > sense too. I merely thought Craig was killing clause 2. > > I will second it either way. (But I do not want to have 2 ways.) > > Craig, please speak up which way you meant. And let's move on. i originally meant "delete everything but clause 1", but it really doesn't matter. the opening paragraph is just filler & fluff and it doesn't bother me whether it is there or not. i.e. i'm happy with the amendment either way. the important thing is that the proposed action is clear and unambigous - rescind GR 2004-003. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home" signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: > * Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second >this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]? i am happy with this version of my amendment and the rationale for it. > * Those whose name appear but not seconding resolution, please approve >the use of your name in this context. (Anthony Towns and Ian Jackson) >If not OK, I will appreciate suggestion for the acceptable alternative. > > -------- > > Craig Sanders proposed the following resolution [1] (reformatted): > > The Debian Project, > > affirming its commitment to principles of freeness for all works it > distributes, > > but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave > consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not > serve our goals or the interests of our users, > > hereby resolves: > >that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract" >(2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. > > > Here is the list of rationale raised for this proposal: > * People can make mistake and should be allowed to correct it. > * This deserves to be an option on the ballet. > * Full impact assessment by Anthony Towns [3] revealed the hidden issues. > * We need to get the sarge out the door ASAP. [4] > * All other proposed GRs to get the sarge out are better than the >situation created by GR (2004-003). But they still seem to put heavy >limitations on the post-sarge releases. This proposal solves them >for good. [8] > * Title of GR (2004-003) was, at least, "misleading" although it may not >have been intentionally deceptive. > * Change of SC by GR (2004-003) was not clarification but a radical >change which subverts the original intent of the old SC. > * GR (2004-003) may have been incomplete. > * Rescinding GR (2004-003) will enable useful data, font, documentation, >and firmware [5] to be included in main. This will make Debian >useful distribution. > * Rescinding GR (2004-003) will clarify and affirm that the correct >interpretation of the word "software" in old SC does not include >things such as data, font, documentation, and firmware. > * Historical document [5] has its own value and even good willed >"editorial change" [6] may not be even desirable. (Some of us will also >support other proposals for the GR if they address our concern.) > * Obscure arrangement for distribution required by the GR (2004-003) may >marginalize Debian only for "Holier Than Stallman", i.e., the fringe >fanatics. We do not want to be seen chasing the _cause_ without >thinking its _consequence_ by doing this [7]. > * No apologetic statement in SC. > * We had enough discussion on this subject and some of us are sick of >it. > > - > References and their links: > [1]http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00307.html (Craig Sanders) > > [2] As I see as of Thu, 06 May 2004 23:35:31 +0200: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00322.html (Raphael Hertzog) > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00329.html (Xavier Roche) > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00339.html (Wouter Verhelst) > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00393.html (Osamu Aoki) > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00421.html (Marco d'Itri, > need to be signed) > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00422.html (Davide G. M. > Salvetti) > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00423.html (Raul Miller) > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00427.html (Hamish Moffatt) > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/05/msg00089.html (Andreas Barth) > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/05/msg00075.html (Theodore > Ts'o, sig?) > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/05/msg00097.html (David N. Welton, > DD?) > > [3]Anthony Towns: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00074.html > > [4]The current situation over Debian in general is summarized by >Ian Jackson: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/05/msg00060.html > > [5]Although the fact that data, font, and documentation were not >restricted to be DSFG is obvious
Re: Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:06:00AM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: > * Can Craig and people who seconded original proposal [2] to second >this as the formal rationale for Craig's proposal [1]? i am happy with this version of my amendment and the rationale for it. > * Those whose name appear but not seconding resolution, please approve >the use of your name in this context. (Anthony Towns and Ian Jackson) >If not OK, I will appreciate suggestion for the acceptable alternative. > > -------- > > Craig Sanders proposed the following resolution [1] (reformatted): > > The Debian Project, > > affirming its commitment to principles of freeness for all works it > distributes, > > but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave > consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not > serve our goals or the interests of our users, > > hereby resolves: > >that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract" >(2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. > > > Here is the list of rationale raised for this proposal: > * People can make mistake and should be allowed to correct it. > * This deserves to be an option on the ballet. > * Full impact assessment by Anthony Towns [3] revealed the hidden issues. > * We need to get the sarge out the door ASAP. [4] > * All other proposed GRs to get the sarge out are better than the >situation created by GR (2004-003). But they still seem to put heavy >limitations on the post-sarge releases. This proposal solves them >for good. [8] > * Title of GR (2004-003) was, at least, "misleading" although it may not >have been intentionally deceptive. > * Change of SC by GR (2004-003) was not clarification but a radical >change which subverts the original intent of the old SC. > * GR (2004-003) may have been incomplete. > * Rescinding GR (2004-003) will enable useful data, font, documentation, >and firmware [5] to be included in main. This will make Debian >useful distribution. > * Rescinding GR (2004-003) will clarify and affirm that the correct >interpretation of the word "software" in old SC does not include >things such as data, font, documentation, and firmware. > * Historical document [5] has its own value and even good willed >"editorial change" [6] may not be even desirable. (Some of us will also >support other proposals for the GR if they address our concern.) > * Obscure arrangement for distribution required by the GR (2004-003) may >marginalize Debian only for "Holier Than Stallman", i.e., the fringe >fanatics. We do not want to be seen chasing the _cause_ without >thinking its _consequence_ by doing this [7]. > * No apologetic statement in SC. > * We had enough discussion on this subject and some of us are sick of >it. > > - > References and their links: > [1]http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00307.html (Craig Sanders) > > [2] As I see as of Thu, 06 May 2004 23:35:31 +0200: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00322.html (Raphael Hertzog) > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00329.html (Xavier Roche) > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00339.html (Wouter Verhelst) > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00393.html (Osamu Aoki) > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00421.html (Marco d'Itri, need to be > signed) > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00422.html (Davide G. M. Salvetti) > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00423.html (Raul Miller) > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00427.html (Hamish Moffatt) > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/05/msg00089.html (Andreas Barth) > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/05/msg00075.html (Theodore > Ts'o, sig?) > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/05/msg00097.html (David N. Welton, DD?) > > [3]Anthony Towns: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00074.html > > [4]The current situation over Debian in general is summarized by >Ian Jackson: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/05/msg00060.html > > [5]Although the fact that data, font, and documentation were not >restricted to be DSFG is obvious in the old SC since
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 04:43:45PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > [crap deleted] the rest of your message is not worth responding to, but this little gem takes the cake: > PS to the listmaster: Please let me know if you don't want to receive > anything more from me; I'm only sending to you because Craig decided > to start doing so. that is complete bullshit. it was Anthony Towns in Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> that first involved [EMAIL PROTECTED] - but you wouldn't want to let an irrelevant little thing like truth get in the way of your lies and accusations, would you? with anyone else i'd be inclined to ascribe this to a simple mistake or just laziness, but your lying malice has been proven repeatedly. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home"
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 03:47:05PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:58:50AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > I don't believe my posts have been discourteous to Craig, but if > > > > you lying piece of shit. > > I said you were a cad; but I think that's borne out given that you're > calling me a "lying piece of shit". no, telling the truth does not make someone a cad. you ARE a lying piece of shit, and you ARE a worthless low-life bag of pus. > As I've pointed out, the surest proof that I'm accurate is every > single message you've sent. You prove you character each time; I > don't need to do it for you. Please, keep posting. It only makes you > look worse and worse. your display of mock-innocence is very boring. you're not even very good at it. > > you know full well that you were the one who started throwing insults. > > Hrm; I said not that "you did it first", but simply that I haven't done it at > all. then you are lying again. but that is nothing new. > But, as it happens, it was when you labelled a proposal as > "unprincipled and unethical" that I first posted, commenting that I > thought you were unprincipled, and in no position to make such > criticisms. obviously you can not see the difference between labelling a THING as unprincipled and slandering a person as unprincipled. > So if that was an "insult", then well, your message was too. But I > don't think it's necessary to have some weird debate about who > insulted who. Your messages show your character, and your denials > simply demonstrate the point all the more. so it's somehow wrong to state things plainly and unambigiously, yet it's virtuous to make insults while pretending innocence? of course, a liar would hold that belief. honesty is not your strong point. > The really weird thing is your protestations that you don't read > anything I write, again you lie. i have never said that. i have said that i do not want you contacting me, and also that i will not give silent assent to your lies. > combined with your hateful language against me, maybe if you weren't so hateful, nay despicable, i wouldn't be compelled to refer to you so honestly. > and your insistence that I shouldn't answer your attacks. look at *every* single instance where we have argued. it is self-evident that it is you smarmily attacking me, and then pretending to be outraged when i respond. sometimes you don't bother to throw the first insult yourself, you leap at the opportunity presented when i respond to someone else's insulting or moronic behaviour, with the same pretended outrage and mock-innocence - the pattern is essentially the same. in short, you look eagerly for opportunities to have a go at me, whereas i would much prefer to just ignore you. this is because you are an arsewipe. finally, to understate things somewhat: it is obvious that i don't like you and you don't like me. why don't you just ignore me? then you won't have to expend the effort required to lie and i wont have to respond to your lying crap. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home"
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:46:32PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Your ability to spread FUD as an excuse for giving up ideals of free software > is well known, cutting off your nose to spite your face is NOT, contrary to your opinion, one of the "ideals of free software". that's just insane zealotry - extremist ideology overriding rational behaviour. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home"
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 04:43:45PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > [crap deleted] the rest of your message is not worth responding to, but this little gem takes the cake: > PS to the listmaster: Please let me know if you don't want to receive > anything more from me; I'm only sending to you because Craig decided > to start doing so. that is complete bullshit. it was Anthony Towns in Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> that first involved [EMAIL PROTECTED] - but you wouldn't want to let an irrelevant little thing like truth get in the way of your lies and accusations, would you? with anyone else i'd be inclined to ascribe this to a simple mistake or just laziness, but your lying malice has been proven repeatedly. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:58:50AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > I don't believe my posts have been discourteous to Craig, but if you lying piece of shit. you know full well that you were the one who started throwing insults. now you're trying to stand back and innocently say "who, me? couldn't be me, butter wouldn't melt in my mouth". craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home"
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 03:47:05PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:58:50AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > I don't believe my posts have been discourteous to Craig, but if > > > > you lying piece of shit. > > I said you were a cad; but I think that's borne out given that you're > calling me a "lying piece of shit". no, telling the truth does not make someone a cad. you ARE a lying piece of shit, and you ARE a worthless low-life bag of pus. > As I've pointed out, the surest proof that I'm accurate is every > single message you've sent. You prove you character each time; I > don't need to do it for you. Please, keep posting. It only makes you > look worse and worse. your display of mock-innocence is very boring. you're not even very good at it. > > you know full well that you were the one who started throwing insults. > > Hrm; I said not that "you did it first", but simply that I haven't done it at > all. then you are lying again. but that is nothing new. > But, as it happens, it was when you labelled a proposal as > "unprincipled and unethical" that I first posted, commenting that I > thought you were unprincipled, and in no position to make such > criticisms. obviously you can not see the difference between labelling a THING as unprincipled and slandering a person as unprincipled. > So if that was an "insult", then well, your message was too. But I > don't think it's necessary to have some weird debate about who > insulted who. Your messages show your character, and your denials > simply demonstrate the point all the more. so it's somehow wrong to state things plainly and unambigiously, yet it's virtuous to make insults while pretending innocence? of course, a liar would hold that belief. honesty is not your strong point. > The really weird thing is your protestations that you don't read > anything I write, again you lie. i have never said that. i have said that i do not want you contacting me, and also that i will not give silent assent to your lies. > combined with your hateful language against me, maybe if you weren't so hateful, nay despicable, i wouldn't be compelled to refer to you so honestly. > and your insistence that I shouldn't answer your attacks. look at *every* single instance where we have argued. it is self-evident that it is you smarmily attacking me, and then pretending to be outraged when i respond. sometimes you don't bother to throw the first insult yourself, you leap at the opportunity presented when i respond to someone else's insulting or moronic behaviour, with the same pretended outrage and mock-innocence - the pattern is essentially the same. in short, you look eagerly for opportunities to have a go at me, whereas i would much prefer to just ignore you. this is because you are an arsewipe. finally, to understate things somewhat: it is obvious that i don't like you and you don't like me. why don't you just ignore me? then you won't have to expend the effort required to lie and i wont have to respond to your lying crap. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:46:32PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Your ability to spread FUD as an excuse for giving up ideals of free software > is well known, cutting off your nose to spite your face is NOT, contrary to your opinion, one of the "ideals of free software". that's just insane zealotry - extremist ideology overriding rational behaviour. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:58:50AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > I don't believe my posts have been discourteous to Craig, but if you lying piece of shit. you know full well that you were the one who started throwing insults. now you're trying to stand back and innocently say "who, me? couldn't be me, butter wouldn't melt in my mouth". craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:01:27AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > Craig Sanders wrote: > > you obviously can't understand simple instructions. i'll give them to you > > once > > more just in case some faint glimmer of understanding manages to seep in: > > > > DO NOT CONTACT ME AGAIN. I DO NOT WISH TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU. > > Then maybe you should stop communicating with him instead of asking > him to stop? Why should he listen to your wish if you don't listen > to it anyway? because he persists in uttering further lies. i do not wish my silence to be taken for assent. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home"
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 12:15:43AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > no, it demonstrates that if you presume to insult me then i will > > give at least as good as i get. > > [...] > > > do not attempt to communicate with me again. i have no interest whatsoever > > in > > corresponding with an arsewipe like you. you obviously can't understand simple instructions. i'll give them to you once more just in case some faint glimmer of understanding manages to seep in: DO NOT CONTACT ME AGAIN. I DO NOT WISH TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU. > It's delightful to see one's point made over and over again. > > Further demonstration that Craig can't take it. A recap: > > In the previous GR, Craig loudly insisted that if his side won, it would be > totally unacceptable for anyone to continue the discussion. once again you are lying. i did no such thing. the thread you are grossly misrepresenting here was me stating (too late) that there should have been a "None of the Above" option on the ballot, which would effectively be a "Shut The Fuck Up" about it option to balance the "More Discussion" option. but facts are very flexible and the truth too inconvenient for a lying sack of shit like you, aren't they? > In the current one, Craig didn't get his way, and so he declares that his > opponents are immoral and unprincipled. you have demonstrated that you personally are morally bankrupt, unethical, and unprincipled time and time again. it is seemingly impossible for you to say anything without lying and/or grossly distorting the truth. > And, delightfully, he does so in messages that demonstrate his own inability > to behave like a decent human being. here's news for you from the real world: using words like "shit" and "arsewipe" do not indicate one's human status. if you can't deal with this harsh truth, then fuck off back to the kindergarten. more to the point, if you can't stand the heat then don't leap into the fire (even the most stupid of children usually learn this by the age of 5 or so. you must be significantly slower on the uptake than that). if you think i'm going to just sit back and let you get away with it when you insult and slander me then you are fucking wrong. > Once again Craig, thank you for your excellent proof of my points. you have no points. all you have are lies. generally very tiresome ones. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home"
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:44:36PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 08:58:02PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > Since you have shown yourself to be an unprincipled cad, the notion of > > > you lecturing decent people about ethics is ironic in the extreme. > > > > eat shit and die, you worthless low-life verminous bag of pus > > I suppose that demonstrates the "unprincipled cad" part quite well. no, it demonstrates that if you presume to insult me then i will give at least as good as i get. > Thank you. fuck off. do not attempt to communicate with me again. i have no interest whatsoever in corresponding with an arsewipe like you. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home"
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:01:27AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > Craig Sanders wrote: > > you obviously can't understand simple instructions. i'll give them to you once > > more just in case some faint glimmer of understanding manages to seep in: > > > > DO NOT CONTACT ME AGAIN. I DO NOT WISH TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU. > > Then maybe you should stop communicating with him instead of asking > him to stop? Why should he listen to your wish if you don't listen > to it anyway? because he persists in uttering further lies. i do not wish my silence to be taken for assent. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 12:15:43AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > no, it demonstrates that if you presume to insult me then i will > > give at least as good as i get. > > [...] > > > do not attempt to communicate with me again. i have no interest whatsoever in > > corresponding with an arsewipe like you. you obviously can't understand simple instructions. i'll give them to you once more just in case some faint glimmer of understanding manages to seep in: DO NOT CONTACT ME AGAIN. I DO NOT WISH TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU. > It's delightful to see one's point made over and over again. > > Further demonstration that Craig can't take it. A recap: > > In the previous GR, Craig loudly insisted that if his side won, it would be > totally unacceptable for anyone to continue the discussion. once again you are lying. i did no such thing. the thread you are grossly misrepresenting here was me stating (too late) that there should have been a "None of the Above" option on the ballot, which would effectively be a "Shut The Fuck Up" about it option to balance the "More Discussion" option. but facts are very flexible and the truth too inconvenient for a lying sack of shit like you, aren't they? > In the current one, Craig didn't get his way, and so he declares that his > opponents are immoral and unprincipled. you have demonstrated that you personally are morally bankrupt, unethical, and unprincipled time and time again. it is seemingly impossible for you to say anything without lying and/or grossly distorting the truth. > And, delightfully, he does so in messages that demonstrate his own inability > to behave like a decent human being. here's news for you from the real world: using words like "shit" and "arsewipe" do not indicate one's human status. if you can't deal with this harsh truth, then fuck off back to the kindergarten. more to the point, if you can't stand the heat then don't leap into the fire (even the most stupid of children usually learn this by the age of 5 or so. you must be significantly slower on the uptake than that). if you think i'm going to just sit back and let you get away with it when you insult and slander me then you are fucking wrong. > Once again Craig, thank you for your excellent proof of my points. you have no points. all you have are lies. generally very tiresome ones. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 08:58:02PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Since you have shown yourself to be an unprincipled cad, the notion of > you lecturing decent people about ethics is ironic in the extreme. eat shit and die, you worthless low-life verminous bag of pus craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home"
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:44:36PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 08:58:02PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > Since you have shown yourself to be an unprincipled cad, the notion of > > > you lecturing decent people about ethics is ironic in the extreme. > > > > eat shit and die, you worthless low-life verminous bag of pus > > I suppose that demonstrates the "unprincipled cad" part quite well. no, it demonstrates that if you presume to insult me then i will give at least as good as i get. > Thank you. fuck off. do not attempt to communicate with me again. i have no interest whatsoever in corresponding with an arsewipe like you. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:09:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:45:18AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > The Debian Project, > > > > affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it > > > distributes, > > > > but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave > > > consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not > > > serve our goals or the interests of our users, > > > > hereby resolves: > > > > 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the > > >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract" > > >(2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded; > > > 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the Debian > > >Project, will be reinstated effective as of September 1, 2004 without > > >further cause for deliberation. > > > i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this > > proposal, > > so that the entire proposal now reads: > > >that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the > >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract" > >(2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. > > I do, of course, reject this amendment. :) the problem with your (unamended) proposal is that it is unprincipled and unethical. my amendment fixes that. either the recently changed wording of the SC is good & correct, in which case the principled thing to do is to follow it without exception, or it is not correct, in which case it should be discarded. keeping it yet overriding it, however temporarily, for mere convenience is a decidedly unprincipled action. the only principled choices are to either follow the current SC as is (with ALL of the consequences, desirable AND undesirable) or to reject it outright. in other words, either we have principles or we don't. having "principles" that we can ignore at our convenience is morally bankrupt. while the Knights Lunar like to pretend that they are Holier Than Stallman, they have little understanding of ethics or principles, and have no regard for the consequences of their ill-considered jihad. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home"
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 08:58:02PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Since you have shown yourself to be an unprincipled cad, the notion of > you lecturing decent people about ethics is ironic in the extreme. eat shit and die, you worthless low-life verminous bag of pus craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 05:19:08PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this > > proposal, > > so that the entire proposal now reads: > > > >that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the > >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract" > >(2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. > > I think that once a GR has passed, people should shut up about > opposing it, and not continue to fight about it long after. in this particular case, the GR was proposed with a misleading title (it was NOT a simple "editorial" change, it was a radical change to the meaning of the Social Contract which will ultimately result in the death by irrelevance of debian) and effectively got through by stealth. very few actually voted, roughly half the number that normally votes. of those who did vote for it, several have already commented that they wouldn't have done so if they had realised the effect it would have. in any case, it has already been established that the GR had serious problems - there is an existing proposal concerning it. i am just suggesting an alternative option to that proposal. if you're not whining about Steve's proposal, then why are you whining about my amendment? is there some reason why Steve is allowed to make proposals but I am not? craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home"
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:09:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:45:18AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > The Debian Project, > > > > affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it > > > distributes, > > > > but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave > > > consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not > > > serve our goals or the interests of our users, > > > > hereby resolves: > > > > 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the > > >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract" > > >(2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded; > > > 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the Debian > > >Project, will be reinstated effective as of September 1, 2004 without > > >further cause for deliberation. > > > i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal, > > so that the entire proposal now reads: > > >that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the > >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract" > >(2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. > > I do, of course, reject this amendment. :) the problem with your (unamended) proposal is that it is unprincipled and unethical. my amendment fixes that. either the recently changed wording of the SC is good & correct, in which case the principled thing to do is to follow it without exception, or it is not correct, in which case it should be discarded. keeping it yet overriding it, however temporarily, for mere convenience is a decidedly unprincipled action. the only principled choices are to either follow the current SC as is (with ALL of the consequences, desirable AND undesirable) or to reject it outright. in other words, either we have principles or we don't. having "principles" that we can ignore at our convenience is morally bankrupt. while the Knights Lunar like to pretend that they are Holier Than Stallman, they have little understanding of ethics or principles, and have no regard for the consequences of their ill-considered jihad. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 05:19:08PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal, > > so that the entire proposal now reads: > > > >that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the > >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract" > >(2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. > > I think that once a GR has passed, people should shut up about > opposing it, and not continue to fight about it long after. in this particular case, the GR was proposed with a misleading title (it was NOT a simple "editorial" change, it was a radical change to the meaning of the Social Contract which will ultimately result in the death by irrelevance of debian) and effectively got through by stealth. very few actually voted, roughly half the number that normally votes. of those who did vote for it, several have already commented that they wouldn't have done so if they had realised the effect it would have. in any case, it has already been established that the GR had serious problems - there is an existing proposal concerning it. i am just suggesting an alternative option to that proposal. if you're not whining about Steve's proposal, then why are you whining about my amendment? is there some reason why Steve is allowed to make proposals but I am not? craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > The Debian Project, > > affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it > distributes, > > but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave > consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not > serve our goals or the interests of our users, > > hereby resolves: > > 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract" >(2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded; > 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the Debian >Project, will be reinstated effective as of September 1, 2004 without >further cause for deliberation. i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal, so that the entire proposal now reads: that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract" (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home" signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 05:51:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:56:43 +0100, Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:09:06PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > >> I don't believe that the GR had a misleading title. It were > >> editorial changes after all. We've been argued a lot of times > >> before that the SC/DFSG does not only handle pure software but all > >> kinds of data. We > > > The controversy surrounding the result really does suggest that for > > many this has been more than a simple textual clarification. > > And none of these people paid any attention to the GR? For I > sure did not see any hue and cry raised before the voting was > finished. that would be because a quite radical and controversial change was disguised as a minor "editorial change", so most developers assumed it wasn't very important and ignored it. i know that i almost did. i completely ignored the thread until after the second call for votes...and even after that, i just read the proposal and didn't bother reading much of the discussion. craig -- craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home"
