Re: [Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:44:58PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 01/28/2014 03:39 AM, Guillem Jover wrote: > > Option D > > > > * Switch to sysvinit + OpenRC wherever available. > > - architectures where OpenRC is not currently available will switch > > whenever OpenRC has been ported, retaining their current default > > in the meantime. > > - a reimplementation of OpenRC, providing the same interfaces to > > the wider system, would satisfy the criteria above. > > For Hurd itself, it needs some fixes to be uploaded in sysvinit. It's > not well known, but Hurd doesn't support *any* init system at all right > now, it's only in the process of doing so. I wonder why it's taking so > long to have the patches applied by the way (it's been waiting in the > BTS since early September 2013). >From my side, lack of any time in late 2013 and suffering from bad RSI for the last month. I'll not be doing much for the forseeable future due to the latter until things improve. Thankfully, this has been picked up and dealt with in the last week. Thanks to all involved for their efforts here. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' schroot and sbuild http://alioth.debian.org/projects/buildd-tools `-GPG Public Key F33D 281D 470A B443 6756 147C 07B3 C8BC 4083 E800 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140202193942.gd11...@codelibre.net
Re: De-nomination
Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I hereby de-nominate myself as a candidate for DPL 2006. > > I have realized this week that there are aspects and parts of the > project that I can't emotionally deal with. Especially abusive behavior > on mailing lists, the vocal support for it, and the persistent > resistance to any attempts to fix it. I thought I had grown a skin thick > enough to deal with it, this past year, but I was wrong. I now find that > I need to be able to ignore parts of the project or be unhappy. This > makes me unsuitable to be the leader. I am really sorry to hear this. > Major Goal: Make Debian discussion channels drastically less hostile > > > This is, I think, perhaps the biggest problem in Debian as of today. [...] > A "code of conduct" has been suggested. We have a vague, really old > one, that is pretty much never enforced. I think we should write a > new one, and make sure the listmasters have the power to enforce it. I fully agree with this, and I would have voted for you for tackling this difficult problem. (I also believe Steve McIntyre is going to tackle this issue, but I've not read his platform yet. Either way, it's a problem which would make me rate any candidate highly for taking on.) I also thought very highly of the remainder of your platform, and I think you would have been a very strong DPL candidate. If you do reconsider, you have my support. Regards, Roger -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. pgphj0Cby23X1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DFSG4 and combined works
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:34AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > If GDB were under BSD, you could: >> > >> >1. Add docstrings to the sources of GDB in a way permissible by >> > GFDL. In particular the invariant sections should be present in >> > all opaque copies of the produced documentation. GFDL does not >> > place restrictions on how the invariant sections are present in >> > the transparent form, so it is enough if they exist in separate >> > files. >> > >> >2. Add the text of the BSD license in a new invariant section. >> > >> >3. Use the following license for the new GDB sources: >> > >> > Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify THE NAME >> > under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version >> > 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software >> > Foundation; with with the Invariant Sections being LIST THEIR >> > TITLES, with the Front-Cover Texts being LIST, and with the >> > Back-Cover Texts being LIST. >> > >> > Additionally, you have permission to use the non-commented parts >> > of the sources of THE NAME under the following license: >> > >> > INCLUDE THE BSD LICENSE HERE >> >> And the result would be a *non-free program*. > > This is strange. :-) The program is covered under BSD license and you > say it is non-free. Anton, please consider what you are writing before posting. What you wrote is content free and completely uninformative (as was the post you are replying to). There is no explanation at all, so we are non the wiser than had you not posted at all. This is not at all helpful. Thanks for your consideration, Roger -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. pgpw4NuJs1nWo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL GR, vote please!
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 01:41:42PM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote: >> >> > >> >> > I think the following is an useful test. If the license forbids some >> >> > modification that is necessary in order to adapt the document to some >> >> > need, then the document is non-free. Otherwise, that is if the >> >> > license does not forbid any necessary modification, the document may >> >> > be free. >> >> >> >> This is no good. Where is it defined what is "necessary", and who >> >> deems what is "necessary"? What /I/ consider to be necessary may be >> >> considered "unnecessary" (and hence, not allowed) by the copyright >> >> holders. >> > >> > I don't think we disagree what "necessary" means. >> >> Please answer the question I asked: Where is it defined what is >> "necessary", and who deems what is "necessary"? > > OK. The modification is necessary in order to adapt the document to > some need if there is no way to adapt the document to serve the > purpose in question without this modification. Please could you still answer my question: *Who* defines what is "necessary"? Your partial answer above also appears to be nothing more than your personal opinion. Can you properly justify your reasoning with a detailed rationale? I think we need something rather more concrete than the personal opinion of a single developer for something which has important ramifications. It's all still rather too vague and handwavy to be of any practical use. Regards, Roger -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. pgpFdHvnAo8VM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL GR, vote please!
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:33:05PM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote: >> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > >> > I think the following is an useful test. If the license forbids some >> > modification that is necessary in order to adapt the document to some >> > need, then the document is non-free. Otherwise, that is if the >> > license does not forbid any necessary modification, the document may >> > be free. >> >> This is no good. Where is it defined what is "necessary", and who >> deems what is "necessary"? What /I/ consider to be necessary may be >> considered "unnecessary" (and hence, not allowed) by the copyright >> holders. > > I don't think we disagree what "necessary" means. Please answer the question I asked: Where is it defined what is "necessary", and who deems what is "necessary"? >> As an example, the FSF do not appear to consider the ability to remove >> invariant sections necessary in the current version of the GFDL for >> example, whereas I (and others) do. The reference cards were just an >> example of this need; aggregate works were another, > > The reference cards do not require the removal of the invariant > sections. You can print the invariant sections on separate sheet(s) > of paper. This is not a workable solution. I consider this a case where removal is necessary. When does this become so impractical as to be non-free? When there are 5 pages of invariant sections? 50? 500? [Don't bother answering this one; the debate has repeated the same arguments rather too many times already.] > If necessary I can try to explain better. You have had ample opportunity to explain properly in the deluge of posts you have sent over the last few weeks. -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. pgpURMwZ6G6Nk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL GR, vote please!
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:06:03AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: >> >> > The interpretation that I hold is the following: >> >> >The license must give us permissions to modify the work in >> > order to adapt it to various needs or to improve it, with no >> > substantive limits on the nature of these changes, but there >> > can be superficial requirements on how they are packaged. >> >> > However this interpretation is not part of my proposal. My proposal >> > invalidates some possible interpretations of DFSG but it doesn't state >> > which interpretation is the correct one. >> >> Which is for me a big problem, given that mine is one of those >> interpretations that's invalidated -- and, according to my reading, so is >> *yours*, since being unable to remove multiple pages of essays when >> borrowing a few paragraphs of text is a "substantive limit". > > I think the following is an useful test. If the license forbids some > modification that is necessary in order to adapt the document to some > need, then the document is non-free. Otherwise, that is if the > license does not forbid any necessary modification, the document may > be free. This is no good. Where is it defined what is "necessary", and who deems what is "necessary"? What /I/ consider to be necessary may be considered "unnecessary" (and hence, not allowed) by the copyright holders. As an example, the FSF do not appear to consider the ability to remove invariant sections necessary in the current version of the GFDL for example, whereas I (and others) do. The reference cards were just an example of this need; aggregate works were another, and there were several other real-world cases where a need was demonstrated. Applying your test, in my eyes, still leaves the GFDL a non-free licence. Could we draw this debate to some sort of conclusion? I continue to remain unconvinced by the majority of your arguments, many of which are still poorly explained. Regards, Roger -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. pgpLAJneSEHGu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: > >> On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Has anyone come forward and said "I was deceived by GR 2004-03"? I > >> Yes, multiple people did. HTH. > > Who? I can't recall any. Can you provide pointers? There was a rather heated debate at the time, I recall. > What did they say in response to questions like "did you read the > changes?" As someone who carefully read and then voted for the changes, I was rather taken aback by the (unforeseen, by myself and many others) implications of the changes. I wouldn't go so far as to call it "deception", however; the text of the changes was quite clear. After considering it carefully, I would still have voted the same way, and hence I voted to keep the changes in the second vote. Several folks seem to wish to re-ignite the debate of whether or not the changes were "editorial" or not. Whether it was or was not, it's now over and done with. This GR is a separate, albeit related, issue. I'm still not entirely convinced that all documentation needs the same set of freedoms as programs. But the intersection of the freedoms we require of "documentation", and the freedoms we require of "programs" gives us a very large common set of freedoms, with just one or two considerations which might be specific to one or the other. Given the huge problems of defining what is and is not "documentation" or "programs", I'm still of the opinion that we should require and uphold the same set of freedoms of both, which obviously includes the ability to modify without restrictions on what is modifiable. Regards, Roger -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. pgpt0PDGnb2Cj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DFSG4 and combined works
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:54:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> >> It does prohibit some modifications which are useful. >> >> Geez, reference cards. Useful! > > You can make reference cards but if you make more than 100 copies you > have to accompany the reference cards with additional sheet(s) of > paper. The other licenses have the same limitation - you may not > distribute the reference cards alone. Depending on the license you > may be required to accompany each reference card with the full text of > the license, with history who and when has edited the document, with > the sources in machine readable format, various copyright notices, etc. You neglected to mention what happens about reference cards for documentation with invariant sections. Reference cards for Emacs and GCC would be most useful, but AFAICT both of these manuals have invariant sections. >> Docstrings. Useful! Not prohibited by other free licenses! Wow! > > I don't understand what you mean by "docstrings". Did you try google? They are documentation inlined in the source code. Some languages (e.g. Python (DocStrings), Perl (POD), Common Lisp) have native support for it; other languages (C, ObjC, C++, Java) have special tools to extract the documentation (gtk-doc, doc++, doxygen, javadoc). If you want an example of it, grab a copy of https://alioth.debian.org/download.php/1437/schroot-0.2.2.tar.bz2, and look at the comments in schroot/*.h, then look at doc/schroot/html/index.html. Consider what happens if the documentation is extracted and incorporated into a manual with a GFDL licence, and the source is GPL. In other situations, we might want to incorporate parts of the manual into the source (for tooltips, help texts, usage examples, etc..). We certainly couldn't do that with a GFDL manual and GPL source. Regards, Roger -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. pgpYcyAFqaIq2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Anton's amendment
Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At Fri, 03 Feb 2006 16:46:47 -0300, > Daniel Ruoso wrote: >> >> Em Qui, 2006-02-02 às 02:11 +0200, Yavor Doganov escreveu: >> > | Everything must be modifiable >> >> I'm still not convinced GPL prevents that. You're still allowed to >> rephrase the copyright,no-warrant,where-is-the-license notices and to >> present it in a way that fits to your needs. It doesn't force you to use >> in the same way and with the same text the original author did. > > Well, it is not said explicitly, so this is an interpretation. I'm > quite certain that rephrasing is not allowed. Sure it is. The GPL simply gives a requirement. How that requirement is satisfied is entirely up to you. If you don't like the way the original author satisfied it, you are at complete liberty to rip it out and implement it however you please. > I really don't like dissections of licenses, but if I write a GUI > program that shows that notice moving on the status bar (or as a > background, ala "Star Wars" movie), I guess your fork must include > the same. Such notices may contain stuff like "Thanks to my wife > for the patience" or "This is the power of Objective-C. Try > GNUstep, step into the freedom!". No. The requirement doesn't limit the changes one can make; it just requires that you implement a certain behaviour. > In the case of GNU Emacs, the authors considered natural, even > necessary, to include the GNU Manifesto in the manual. People that > don't like it or aren't interested may skip it; it doesn't prevent > the manual to be improved (which in fact happens extremely often). > Since GNU Emacs, the first component of the GNU operating system, is > considered by many as a bastion of freedom, I am really amazed that > there are people who think that the GNU Emacs Manual is non-free -- > I think those people do not have a proper sense of software freedom. I don't regard the /manual/ as a "bastion of freedom". I'm not at liberty to take a docstring from Emacs (the program) and put it into the manual (or vice versa) because of the incompatible licences. That's a different issue, however, and one I consider worse in many ways than the invariant section. If I had the liberty to remove the section (but not necessarily alter it), the manual would be a whole lot more free for me. Being able to remove an invariant section in its entirely would IMO be an acceptable compromise between retaining them indefinitely without any means of change, and not being able to remove what has become lengthy and/or inaccurate or inappropriate baggage. Regards, Roger -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. pgpIZYepG47yy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Anton's amendment
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:12:51PM +0100, Frank Kuster wrote: >> >> Excuse me, what exactly is your interpretation? And I don't mean "The >> GFDL is free", but a general statement which modifications DFSG 3 >> requires to be allowed. > > Look at my message entitled "A clarification for my interpretation of > DFSG". Anton, You are not obliged to follow up every single post. It's extremely difficult to follow the conversation when the same point is made repeatedly in reply to multiple people without any new points being made. This doesn't really further the discussion: we have already read the point you were trying to make, so it doesn't need repeating ad nauseam. Regards, Roger -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. pgpDURGiDn7Ih.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Anton's amendment
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:11:25PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote: >> >> Ok, but by being invariant they are turning the documentation into >> non-free documentation. As you say, people won't be able to change it, >> therefore, it's a non-free text. > > The modifications that are permited by GFDL are enough to make useful > modifications, that is to adapt the document and to improve it. Yes, > you can not do whatever you whish but this is not necessarily the > right interpretation of DFSG. Subject to minor licence considerations, I'm free to modify any piece of software in Debian to satisfy my needs. However, this does not apply to many GFDL works. "Append only" modification isn't really freedom in my book; even if it is considered free, it's a long-term maintenance nightmare. >> As it has been discussed here, having the Manifesto attached as >> invariant is not only non-free, but also quite problematic when you >> are trying to produce a derivative work that is either a) a >> compilation of many documents > > With the currently existing documents this is not a problem. Why? > Moreover, Debian already accepts some licenses that forbid > compilations. Would you care to provide examples? They would probably be non-free. >> b) a reduced version of the document (as in a cheat-sheet or >> similar) > > This is allowed. When you distribute such documents you have to > accompany them with the invariant sections but thats all. "That's all"?! That's a serious restriction. Have you fully considered the implications? >> c) printed on some non-paper medium (for example, a cup) > > Also allowed. When you distribute such cup you can accompany it with > the invariant sections printed on paper medium and thats all. And you think that's acceptable!! Even when the invariant sections total fifty pages of irrelevant paper-wasting garbage? >> d) you want to give out copies to students and want to minimize >> cost. > > I doubt someone can make a formal rule that the free works have to > minimize the distribution cost and I hardly see how such a rule fits > in the context of DFSG. You aren't free to remove parts you don't want. We wouldn't accept that in source code, and I fail to see why documentation should be any different in this particular respect. Regards, Roger -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. pgpVH4tFpuRq2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 02:37:18PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: >> >> We are not talking about software licenses here, but documentation. >> Since Debian has decided to treat both types equally, but the FSF has >> not, you shouldn't mix things up when claiming to present the FSF's >> view. >> >> So do you claim that the GNU project thinks that the basic four freedoms >> should apply to documentation? If so, please provide some evidence, >> since I have read a couple of quotes from RMS saying the opposite. > > As formulated at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html, the four > software freedoms can not be applied directly to works that are not > programs and in particular they can not be applied directly to > documentation. "Run the program" and "study how the program works" > are certainly not activities that can be applied to documentation. Sure they can. Consider that most GNU GFDL'd documentation is written in Texinfo format. This format is program code designed to run through the TeX or makeinfo interpreters. The same applies to troff documentation which is a program run through the groff interpreter. The line between "code" and "documentation" is not a clear one, since they are often one and the same thing, and this has been discussed quite a lot during past discussion. Regards, Roger -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. pgpkTzNWQh0sZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Minimum standard of decency, was: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Roger Leigh >> I think that this behaviour, as well as that on other lists in the >> recent past, is making it increasingly necessary that we introduce >> some way of enforcing a minimum standard of decency on our lists. [...] > > You pillory[1] a man over his -private beliefs about death[2] > to the point where he recoils from the project[3], Not at all. His beliefs are nothing to do with it, and never have been. I'm not sure where you got that from. > don't answer off-list mail about it and then have the nerve to > lecture about "a minimum standard of decency"? Breathtaking. You sent me a mail during a rather long flamewar. While I was grateful to receive it, I haven't yet replied to it, nor to any other public or private mail on that subject, for the past two weeks. I thought it would be better to let the flamewar die down. Everything that people wanted to say has already been said many times over, so I didn't think there anything more constructive to be gained from perpetuating it. > Nevertheless, Craig Sanders's colourful rants break the lists code > of conduct far more clearly than posting satire to -devel-announce. > Where are the winged angels of vengence? But then, the d-d-a ban > didn't look like it was about enforcing the list codes anyway. It was about enforcing the list codes. I'll ask the listmasters to look at this as well. -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. pgpsCnhvFsutw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> 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. > > Craig has already made it abundantly clear that he thinks the standards of > decent behavior do not apply to him. > > The Project has made it abundantly clear that this is Just Fine. > > I do not rejoice in these facts; both of them make me quite sad, but > such they are. I think that this behaviour, as well as that on other lists in the recent past, is making it increasingly necessary that we introduce some way of enforcing a minimum standard of decency on our lists. We can't continue like this for long. This sort of thing would result in immediate action on most (if not all) of the upstream lists I participate upon. You would have liked the vitriolic diatribe Craig mailed to me privately off-list, in response to my request for politeness, even less... Regards, Roger - -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/> iD8DBQFD3oyTVcFcaSW/uEgRAiAuAKDD+Qy6GR/7WVbERAfeGWkMTKkjCQCfe9Bo LVkLA86rEKjocxx9Z7BDV9U= =+wrJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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. Craig, None of your commentary above is constructive. If you have a point to make, please do so without the personal abuse. This sort of vitriol only serves to detract from your claims, be they valid or not. Regards, Roger - -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/> iD8DBQFD3fghVcFcaSW/uEgRAhBLAJ9PaMCS/HO5zz8aGAcxoGKeaDeDSACgp329 HkpgXm6jwkY+ecOIMzQSEpY= =9rhL -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: invariant-less in main (Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060112 15:09]: >> (Or in other words: perhaps it's only me, okay, but I can't help, at >> all, feel that ripping out of main documentation that their authors >> intended to be free, and made their best-effort to achieve that, like >> a form of betrayal. > > It is a form of betrayal. And this betrayal is on out side. But the > betrayal is not that we exclude things out of main someone failed to > make free software (we make this with programs most of the time, too), > but the betrayal is that we did not inform them before so they could > avoid that pitfalls. > We (in the form of Debian) knew those problems since short after the GFDL > came first up, we did nothing to inform people early due to false hope to > get it solved in quiscence easier than confronting. We did do something about it. About a year before the release of Sarge, I discussed the GFDL issues with all my upstreams using GFDL manuals including Manoj's draft Position Statement, and I was hardly the only one doing this. The problems have been brought to public attention several times since the GFDL came into being, so people using the licence are likely to be at least peripherally aware of the issues. While it's true that we have tried to get it solved quietly, it's not true to say that we collectively did nothing. Regards, Roger - -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/> iD8DBQFDxomgVcFcaSW/uEgRAiasAKC+GqAmZLlt0uEg9coPMw6ITNJ3dQCg3VtG 3rYgVVUU9uAgDT5QSDac4OI= =STVn -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement
l as copies distributed; it rules out distributing copies > on DRM-protected media, even if done in such a way as to give users > full access to a transparent copy of the work; and, as written, it also > potentially disallows encrypting the documentation, or even storing > it on a system that provides user restrictions or file permissions for > the documentation. > > Why does documentation need to be Free Software? > > > The question of "Why does software need free documentation?" has been > addressed in the past by the Free Software Foundation in the essay > _Free Software and Free Manuals_ [0]. > > [0] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html > > There are a number of obvious differences between programs and > documentation that often inspire people to ask "why not simply have > different standards for the two?" For example, books are often written > by individuals, while programs are written by teams, so proper credit > for a book might be more important than proper credit for a program. > > On the other hand, free software is often written by a single person, > and free software documentation is often written by a larger group of > contributors. Even the line between what is documentation and what is > a program is not always so clear, as content from one is often needed > in the other (to provide online help, or to provide screenshots or > interactive tutorials, or to provide a more detailed explanation by > quoting some of the source code). Similarly, while not all programs > demonstrate creativity or could be considered "works of art", some can, > and trying to determine which is the case for all the software in Debian > would be a distraction from our goals. > > In practice, then, particularly for Debian's purposes, documentation > simply isn't different enough to warrant different standards in the > freedoms we expect for our users: we still wish to provide source code > in the same manner as for programs, we still wish to be able to modify > and update documentation, we still wish to be able to reuse portions of > documentation elsewhere as conveniently as possible, and we still wish > to be able to provide our users with exactly the documentation they want, > without extraneous materials. > > How can this be fixed? > -- > > What, then, can documentation authors and others do about this? > > An easy first step documentation authors can take toward resolving > the problems above is to not include any invariant sections in your > documentation, since they are not required by the license, but are simply > an option open to authors. > > Unfortunately this alone is not enough, as other clauses of the GFDL > render all GFDL documentation unsuitable for Debian. As a consequence, > other licenses should be investigated; generally it is probably simplest > to use the same license for the documentation as for the software it > documents, or for documentation that doesn't come with a particular > piece of software, to choose either the GNU General Public License > (for a copyleft license) or one of the BSD or MIT licenses (for a > non-copyleft license). > > As most GFDL documentation is made available under "the terms of the GNU > Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published > by the Free Software Foundation", the Free Software Foundation is able > to remedy these problems for a great many works by issuing a new version > of the license. The problems discussed above require relatively minor > changes to the GFDL -- allowing invariant sections to be removed, allowing > transparent copies to be made available concurrently, and moderating the > restrictions on technical measures. Unfortunately, while members of the > Debian Project have been in contact with the FSF about these concerns > since 2001, these negotiations have not come to any conclusion to date. > = > > Cheers, > aj > - -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/> iD8DBQFDxihzVcFcaSW/uEgRAtdkAJ9w7bmTs19cG/e3VxYMkchau0S6YQCgm66P eRRaVNZoBE5saFVwsBWvW7c= =Nqce -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I'm confused. Where does it say that we have to go through the GR >> process to issue a position statement for something the project has >> already decided on? > > How do we know the project has decided on it? http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003 http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004 > Not a flippant question. That's felt like it's been missing from these > discussions, and certainly RMS has, in the past, questioned whether the > project has really decided on it. debian-legal is not a decision-making > body. I agree with your take on the consensus, but I know other people > certainly have not. The implication of those two votes is that the Project intends that the 100% of the Debian system must comply with the DFSG. Since it has been proven that the GFDL is not a DFSG-free licence, the consequences are clear. If we do hold a GR over this decision, I won't be voting any differently than I did in either of the above votes; my principles haven't changed since last time I voted. Regards, Roger - -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/> iD8DBQFDuE75VcFcaSW/uEgRAifmAKDpfALDCjuoXuOrG4ooL40UrHQ39ACg0598 sUF8CwibbgqYW1Wpdu8UogU= =4k8S -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Vote for the Debian Project Leader Election 2005
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David N. Welton) writes: > Steve Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 09:12:51PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote: >> >> > I'm amazed at how little people seem to have done to inform themselves >> > about all the candidates, myself. > >> Just because people vote in a way that you might not does not mean >> they are uninformed. > > I'm not convinced. Happily, the OP still has a chance to change his mind ;-) - -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/> iD8DBQFCQ1KiVcFcaSW/uEgRAgO3AKDbUXAKx/VJoHEMtpqm6jPUmZESEwCgpc6v 4gTEQsOTnyKrMFXw/0IUxuw= =5+aN -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Final call for votes for the debian project leader election 2004
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > [ 2 ] Choice 1: Gergely Nagy > [ 2 ] Choice 2: Branden Robinson > [ 1 ] Choice 3: Martin Michlmayr > [ 3 ] Choice 4: None Of The Above > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/> iD8DBQFAeBhgVcFcaSW/uEgRAlN/AJ486pbBbzkcvopz9dZa9O+GLheKlwCfdScy V3ZjeTMoPrIsd4x+37ZLAM8= =MGlG -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Final call for votes for the debian project leader election 2004
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > [ 2 ] Choice 1: Gergely Nagy > [ 2 ] Choice 2: Branden Robinson > [ 1 ] Choice 3: Martin Michlmayr > [ 3 ] Choice 4: None Of The Above > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/> iD8DBQFAeBhgVcFcaSW/uEgRAlN/AJ486pbBbzkcvopz9dZa9O+GLheKlwCfdScy V3ZjeTMoPrIsd4x+37ZLAM8= =MGlG -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: >> I will also say this; when you use that kind of language, your will fail to >> get your point across. When I saw your that e-mail full of curse words and >> general unpleasantness, I simply decided to delete without bothering to read >> it any further, because I had better things to do than to try to pick through >> that kind of nonesnse looking to see if you had a point. Regardless of >> whether or not we as a cummunity decide to say that sort of thing is beyond >> the pale (and I agree with Thomas's point that this sort of thing is exactly >> the kind of behaviour that tends to cause many people --- and >> disproportionate number of women --- to avoid certain on-line forums), you >> can not force me to READ what you write. > > the word "fuck" is used in everyday conversation, and has been for as long as > i > can remember. for anyone younger than my grandparent's generation, there is > nothing particularly offensive about it - it is an emphasis marker. It's considered to be *very* offensive where I live, and is certainly not acceptable in everyday conversation. Just because you consider it to be "nothing particularly offensive" does not mean that others feel the same way. For the record, I was disgusted by your post. If you have a point to make, make it calmly and rationally. - -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/> iD8DBQFAUgpQVcFcaSW/uEgRAqNiAJ9D4ODAFG7o+5gWwZNC1cKR9L2XwwCgikOV /WJtJ75Bx1ioCF4E3xAptmI= =DIJt -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: >> I will also say this; when you use that kind of language, your will fail to >> get your point across. When I saw your that e-mail full of curse words and >> general unpleasantness, I simply decided to delete without bothering to read >> it any further, because I had better things to do than to try to pick through >> that kind of nonesnse looking to see if you had a point. Regardless of >> whether or not we as a cummunity decide to say that sort of thing is beyond >> the pale (and I agree with Thomas's point that this sort of thing is exactly >> the kind of behaviour that tends to cause many people --- and >> disproportionate number of women --- to avoid certain on-line forums), you >> can not force me to READ what you write. > > the word "fuck" is used in everyday conversation, and has been for as long as i > can remember. for anyone younger than my grandparent's generation, there is > nothing particularly offensive about it - it is an emphasis marker. It's considered to be *very* offensive where I live, and is certainly not acceptable in everyday conversation. Just because you consider it to be "nothing particularly offensive" does not mean that others feel the same way. For the record, I was disgusted by your post. If you have a point to make, make it calmly and rationally. - -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/> iD8DBQFAUgpQVcFcaSW/uEgRAqNiAJ9D4ODAFG7o+5gWwZNC1cKR9L2XwwCgikOV /WJtJ75Bx1ioCF4E3xAptmI= =DIJt -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
