Re: Question for Sam Hocevar "Gay Nigger Association of America"
On Sunday, 29 April 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Sam Hocevar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I DID NOT CREATE THIS WEBSITE AND I AM NOT A MEMBER OF THIS > > ORGANISATION. > > While I appreciate that "member" is almost certainly something without > any especially well defined meaning, you seem to have had a @gnaa.us > email address and there's evidence of you having been an operator on > #gnaa at some point. What distinction do you make between membership and > association? Would you care to show us this evidence before muttering further accusations? -- Isaac Clerencia at Warp Networks, http://www.warp.es Work: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Debian: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpyxEk9n4Bye.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Call for votes for "GR: : Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel"
On Sunday, 8 October 2006 02:20, Stephen Gran wrote: > This one time, at band camp, Debian Project Secretary said: > > The details of the general resolution can be found at: > > http://www.debian.org/vote/vote_007 http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007 -- Isaac Clerencia at Warp Networks, http://www.warp.es Work: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Debian: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgp5O7BmtBoNu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
I second the proposal below. > The application of DFSG#2 to firmware and other data > > > The Debian Project recognizes that access to source code for a work of > software is very important for software freedom, but at the same time > "source" is often not a well-defined concept for works other than those > traditionally considered "programs". The most commonly cited definition is > that found in version 2 of the GNU GPL, "the preferred form of the work for > making modifications to it," but for non-program works, it is not always > clear that requiring this "source" as a precondition of inclusion in main > is in the best interest of our users or advances the cause of Free > Software: > > - The author's preferred form for modification may require non-free tools > in order to be converted into its final "binary" form; e.g., some > device firmware, videos, and graphics. > - The preferred form for modification may be orders of magnitude larger > than the final "binary" form, resulting in prohibitive mirror space > requirements out of proportion to the benefits of making this source > universally available; e.g., some videos. > - The "binary" and "source" forms of a work may be interconvertible with > no data loss, and each may be the preferred form for modification by > different users with different tools at their disposal; e.g., some fonts. > > While the Debian Free Software Guidelines assert that source code is a > paramount requirement for programs, they do not state that this is the case > for non-program works, which permits us to consider whether one of the > above points justifies a pragmatic concession to the larger context within > which Free Software operates. > > THE DEBIAN PROJECT therefore, > > 1. reaffirms its dedication to providing a 100% free system to our > users according to our Social Contract and the DFSG; and > > 2. encourages authors of all works to make those works available > not only under licenses that permit modification, but also in forms that > make such modifications practical; and > > 3. supports the decision of the Release Team to require works such > as images, video, and fonts to be licensed in compliance with the DFSG > without requiring source code for these works under DFSG #2; and > > 4. determines that for the purposes of DFSG #2, device firmware > shall also not be considered a program. > > === >=== > > Cheers, pgpuCvG7r8WYJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
I second the Amendment fully quoted below.
On Thursday 09 February 2006 06:26, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After my amendment to the GFDL GR was accepted, there was a bit of
> discussion about the majority requirement that should be put on it. In
> a nutshell, this is what happened:
>
> - in what may have been a bad decision but seemed appropriate at the
> time, I wrote the amendment from a "Position Statement" point of
> view, and concentrated on what we'd be doing, and overlooked being
> particularly clear on the internals of such actions.
>
> - the Secretary's best judgment was that the wording implied a
> modification of the Social Contract ("an exception is being made
> for some non-free works"), and thus in fulfillment of his duties
> put a 3:1 majority requirement on the amendment.
>
> - several people expressed the view that they interpreted the wording
> differently, as in "it states that some GFDL-licensed works meet
> the DFSG, and thus are suitable for main", for which a 1:1
> majority would be enough.
>
> - the Secretary expressed his willingness to adjust the majority
> requirement if the wording of the amendment was corrected to
> remove the ambiguity; this is where we are now.
>
> So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has
> ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from
> my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one.
>
> Apart from clarifying the wording of paragraph 2, I've dropped the
> "Problems of the GFDL" section, which results in a much more brief and
> straightforward statement. All the relevant information about the
> invariant sections problem is in the first paragraph anyway, and I
> don't see much point in carrying details about the other two issues,
> when they don't affect us at all. (This has been discussed elsewhere,
> but if somebody does still have concerns over the DRM clause, or the
> Transparent Copies one, I guess we can go over them again.)
>
> Thanks.
>
> ---8<---
>
> Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> =
>
> This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation
> License as published by the Free Software Foundation:
>
> 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2
> conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it
> allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in
> documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as
> "invariant sections", and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL.
>
> As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free
> Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and
> we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such
> unmodifiable content.
>
> 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the
> GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections
> do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software
> Guidelines.
>
> This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections,
> Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but
> permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for
> the main component of our distribution.
>
> 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of
> trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example,
> it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which
> means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs.
>
> For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license
> their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the
> same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional
> free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license.
>
> --->8---
pgpwjCndyQ0Gz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Monday 23 January 2006 14:37, Xavier Roche wrote: > 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] > > GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom, > > it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines > > I second Anton Zinoviev's amendement. AFAIK you must completely quote the amendment to second it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
