[John:
Not only did you ignore my Mail-Followup-To header, to which I drew your
attention in the very first line of my reply, but you mailed me a
private copy of your message.
Please review the Debian Mailing List Code of Conduct.
Followups set, AGAIN.]
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 03:34:06PM
[Followups set.]
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 03:21:00AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
I'd say that you have your priorities wrong. If we decide that
documentation is not software then there is no reason to waste time to
figure out if the GFDL is DFSG-free or not.
It's not within debian-legal's
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 02:00:49AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
The survey asks whether the GFDL _does_ satisfy the DFSG, not whether
it needs to. Did you misspeak here?
Yes. I wrote that reply in hot blood. I didn't write my survey thus.
--
G. Branden Robinson|
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Aug 22, Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Additionally, whether the DFSG should apply to documentation in Debian
is not relevant to the survey, which asks whether the GFDL complies
with the DFSG: we can deal with the insanity of whether
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 02:25:51PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Aug 22, Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Additionally, whether the DFSG should apply to documentation in Debian
is not relevant to the survey, which asks whether the
What I'm referring to is the excerpts of C and E-Lisp source in those
manuals. They're clearly both documentation and software, even if you
don't believe that text can be both documentation and software.
I don't believe even the non-optional parts of the GFDL can be found
DFSG-free (as a
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 04:43:03PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
But do not attempt to subvert [the Social Contract and DFSG] by
attempting to persuade people that clause 1 of the Social Contract
says things it obviously does not.
If you take Clause 1 of the Social Contract to
Quoting Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 11:18, Jérôme Marant wrote:
No, no, no! You don't get it. There may be a majority among the
debian-legal zealots, but we need a consensus among Debian as a
whole (which means voting of course).
mailto:[EMAIL
Quoting Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:18:10PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
We musn't let the bigots decide for us! ;-)
Thanks for excusing yourself from the discussion thus.
Where has you sense of humour gone?
More seriously, I do not consider that
Quoting Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
ROTFL.
Am I the only one who interpreted this as a joke? Humpf, as even
Branden sent a sincere follow-up I think I am missing something
important. Perhaps the word cabal was missing? Throwing in some
darn might have helped, too.
Jérôme, please
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 09:58:30AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
JrmM Branden's survey is misleading and assumes that documentation is
JrmM software. It is unfair and doesn't count.
Hey, Branden, how about another survey, about whether documentation is
software or not, and whether documentation
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:28:52AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Jérôme, please use darn cabal of debian-legal zealots next time.
cu and- triple reading the original mail, stil smiling -reas
And don't forget to call them licensing geeks!
Richard Braakman
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:17:04 +0200, Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Quoting Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:18:10PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
We musn't let the bigots decide for us! ;-)
Thanks for excusing yourself from the discussion thus.
Where
Quoting Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:28:52AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Jérôme, please use darn cabal of debian-legal zealots next time.
cu and- triple reading the original mail, stil smiling -reas
And don't forget to call them licensing geeks!
Do
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 04:53:30PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
Quoting Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:28:52AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
J?r?me, please use darn cabal of debian-legal zealots next time.
cu and- triple reading the original mail, stil
[Followups set.]
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 09:58:30AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Branden's survey is misleading and assumes that documentation is
software. It is unfair and doesn't count.
No, my survey is narrowly scoped.
It is not the job of the debian-legal mailing list, as I understand it,
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 01:14:40PM +0300, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
Hey, Branden, how about another survey, about whether documentation is
software or not,
I'm not interested in circulating such a survey. Someone else may wish
to, but debian-legal is not an appropriate list for it -- I
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 10:17:04AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Quoting Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:18:10PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
We musn't let the bigots decide for us! ;-)
Thanks for excusing yourself from the discussion thus.
Where has you
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
More seriously, I do not consider that documentation is software and
this is the reason why I don't know how to reply to you survey: is
this another way to exclude people from discussions? I cannot
imagine it wasn't deliberate.
So I take it
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:06:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 09:58:30AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Branden's survey is misleading and assumes that documentation is
software. It is unfair and doesn't count.
No, my survey is narrowly scoped.
The Social
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:19:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
No. It's a way to assess whether the silent majority arguments raised
by a few loud people on debian-legal, claiming that most people don't
really believe that the GNU FDL needs to satisfy the DFSG, are the real
consensus view.
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
The corrolary is that 0% of Debian is non-free software.
Documentation is not software at all.
Ah. So we're 97% Free Software, 3% Documentation, and 0% Non-Free
Software.[1]
Thanks for clearing that up.
If you take Clause 1 of the Social Contract to
On Aug 22, Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Additionally, whether the DFSG should apply to documentation in Debian
is not relevant to the survey, which asks whether the GFDL complies
with the DFSG: we can deal with the insanity of whether this software
over here is or is not software
Quoting Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
No he wouldn't. FDL is about free documentation. :-)
Except it isn't :-)
According to you :-)
According to debian-legal consensus.
Is
Jrme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Quoting Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jrme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
No he wouldn't. FDL is about free documentation. :-)
Except it isn't :-)
According to you :-)
According to
Quoting Jamin W. Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This has been covered to death already. There are a sufficient number
of respondents that see it as non-free. The RM's recent post indicates
that possibly the FSF has even come around to the idea that their
license is less than Free. Can we
Quoting Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
consensus
n : agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief
[syn: {general agreement}]
unanimity
n : everyone being of one mind
A world of difference.
No, no, no! You don't get it. There may be a
We musn't let the bigots decide for us! ;-)
Sorry, but that insult doesn't put a winksmiley on my face.
Please don't try to start a useless flamewar. They break
out so easily on their own. There is no need to discuss
this matter here; it has already been thoroughly discussed
in debian-legal
Jérôme Marant dijo [Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:18:10PM +0200]:
consensus
n : agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief
[syn: {general agreement}]
unanimity
n : everyone being of one mind
A world of difference.
No, no, no! You don't get it.
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:18:10PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
We musn't let the bigots decide for us! ;-)
Thanks for excusing yourself from the discussion thus.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Software engineering: that part of
Debian GNU/Linux | computer
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 11:18, Jrme Marant wrote:
No, no, no! You don't get it. There may be a majority among the
debian-legal zealots, but we need a consensus among Debian as a
whole (which means voting of course).
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We musn't let the bigots decide for us! ;-)
Jérôme Marant said:
Quoting Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
consensus
n : agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief
[syn: {general agreement}]
unanimity
n : everyone being of one mind
A world of difference.
No, no, no! You don't get it.
Le jeu 21/08/2003 à 09:33, Jérôme Marant a écrit :
According to debian-legal consensus.
Is there any? John's message proves that there isn't any yet, IMO.
I have trouble with the concept of another nonono gfdl is free because
there is free in the acronym message affecting the consensus.
--
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
consensus
n : agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief
[syn: {general agreement}]
unanimity
n : everyone being of one mind
A world of difference.
No, no,
Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jerome demonstrated a clear understanding of the Social
Contract and the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Perhaps you would care to re-read the Social Contract and DFSG? Your
understanding seems to have wavered.
It's off to the
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 04:28:07PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 11:18, Jérôme Marant wrote:
We musn't let the bigots decide for us! ;-)
http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint-discuss/2000/debian-newmaint-discuss-29/msg00086.html
Jerome demonstrated a
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 03:02, Miles Bader wrote:
Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jerome demonstrated a clear understanding of the Social
Contract and the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Perhaps you would care to re-read the Social Contract and DFSG? Your
Quoting Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Le mar 19/08/2003 à 23:33, Mike Hommey a écrit :
Ok, let's google a bit, and shazaam !
http://www.linex.org/sources/linex/debian/linex/nvidia-glx_1.0.4349-1_i386.deb
Oh ! non-free software !
Thanks Richard for keeping me laughing.
Great, the debian-legal discussions moved to debian-devel.
Quoting Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Now consider that most or all of the FSF documentation for their GPL'ed
software is released under the GFDL. The licenses are incompatible so
someone who forks a project cannot cut and
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 08:35, Jrme Marant wrote:
Quoting Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Le mar 19/08/2003 23:33, Mike Hommey a crit :
Ok, let's google a bit, and shazaam !
http://www.linex.org/sources/linex/debian/linex/nvidia-glx_1.0.4349-1_i386.deb
Oh ! non-free
Quoting Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
No he wouldn't. FDL is about free documentation. :-)
Except it isn't :-)
According to you :-)
--
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 11:33:12PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tuesday 19 August 2003 22:12, Martin Schulze wrote:
[...]
[2]Libranet 2.8, which is based on Debian. Richard Stallman [3]said
he now prefers the [4]GNU/LinEx distribution over Debian because of
non-free software on our FTP
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 05:30:39PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
Quoting Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
No he wouldn't. FDL is about free documentation. :-)
Except it isn't :-)
According to you :-)
This has been covered to death already. There are a sufficient number
of
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
No he wouldn't. FDL is about free documentation. :-)
Except it isn't :-)
According to you :-)
According to debian-legal consensus.
On Wednesday 20 August 2003 20:13, Hans Ekbrand wrote:
There's more of it: http://www.linex.org/sources/linex/debian/linex/
lists acroread_4.05-3, mplayer_0.90pre5-3
flashplugin-nonfree_6.0.79-1, hsflinmodem-linex_0.5.2-1
... and j2re, yes, I saw that afterwards...
Some are quite badly
Le mar 19/08/2003 à 23:33, Mike Hommey a écrit :
Ok, let's google a bit, and shazaam !
http://www.linex.org/sources/linex/debian/linex/nvidia-glx_1.0.4349-1_i386.deb
Oh ! non-free software !
Thanks Richard for keeping me laughing.
Bah, if RMS really didn't like non-free software, he
On Wednesday 20 August 2003 00:34, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mar 19/08/2003 à 23:33, Mike Hommey a écrit :
Ok, let's google a bit, and shazaam !
http://www.linex.org/sources/linex/debian/linex/nvidia-glx_1.0.4349-1_i38
6.deb Oh ! non-free software !
Thanks Richard for keeping me
On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 00:43, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wednesday 20 August 2003 00:34, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mar 19/08/2003 23:33, Mike Hommey a crit :
Ok, let's google a bit, and shazaam !
http://www.linex.org/sources/linex/debian/linex/nvidia-glx_1.0.4349-1_i38
6.deb Oh !
On Wednesday 20 August 2003 02:16, Scott James Remnant wrote:
The biggest deficiency in our free operating systems is not in the
software--it is the lack of good free manuals that we can include in
our systems. Documentation is an essential part of any software
package; when an
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 20 August 2003 02:16, Scott James Remnant wrote:
The biggest deficiency in our free operating systems is not in the
software--it is the lack of good free manuals that we can include in
our systems. Documentation is an essential
50 matches
Mail list logo
