Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is a document, and what is a program? How can Debian even begin
> to distinguish what makes free documentation different from free
> software when we can't distinguish whether a particular piece of
> data is software or documentation in the first pla
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 04:34:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The issue is that the Debian Social Contract doesn't say "All software
> in Debian will remain 100% free", it says "Debian will remain 100% Free
> Software."
Interesting. I had always read it as "Debian will remain (100% Free)
Softw
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:52:21AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:32:16PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > I'm not certain I agree. Point one of the social contract is "Debian Will
> > Remain 100% Free Software". The obvious reading of this is that anything
> > that is not
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:32:16PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
> I'm not certain I agree. Point one of the social contract is "Debian Will
> Remain 100% Free Software". The obvious reading of this is that anything
> that is not free software cannot be in Debian.
I tend to doubt that *either* was
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:32:16PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
> I'm not certain I agree. Point one of the social contract is "Debian Will
> Remain 100% Free Software". The obvious reading of this is that anything
> that is not free software cannot be in Debian.
>
> This includes non-free softwa
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> What the FSF considers software vs. documentation is not relevant to the
> DFSG.
>
> What matters is whether Debian applies the DFSG to a work, irrespective
> of whether the work is categorized by its author, the FSF, or Debian as
> "software", "docume
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:27:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I think there's a consensus that the DFSG and Social Contract are poorly
> > phrased; [...]
>
> Uh, no, there's not. That you don't understand the terms, or misinterpret
> them, doesn't mean they absolutely need to be changed.
I w
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:20:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:45:56PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> > You know, I keep hearing this. Does this mean we should ditch the entirety
> > of GCC's manuals, even old ones which weren't under the FDL, since the FSF
> > has *clea
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:45:56PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> You know, I keep hearing this. Does this mean we should ditch the entirety
> of GCC's manuals, even old ones which weren't under the FDL, since the FSF
> has *clearly* indicated that *they* do not consider them to by software,
> since th
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:45:56PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> > The alternative is that documentation will be treated as something we
> > are enjoined by the Social Contract from distributing at all. Debian
> > Will Remain 100% Free Software. This may have been poor phrasing on
> > the part o
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:45:03AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:12:41AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 20:53, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Why should the DFSG have to worry about such philosophical questions?
> > > Why isn't it enough to worry abo
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:36:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> It's more useful, I think, to look at it this way: there is a sense that
> the freedom we insist upon for executable code may not necessarily be
> appropriate for other kinds of information that may be found in a Debian
> package.
I r
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 10:27, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:08:18AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > I think there's a consensus that the DFSG and Social Contract are poorly
> > phrased; [...]
>
> Uh, no, there's not. That you don't understand the terms, or misinterpret
> them, do
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:08:18AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> I think there's a consensus that the DFSG and Social Contract are poorly
> phrased; [...]
Uh, no, there's not. That you don't understand the terms, or misinterpret
them, doesn't mean they absolutely need to be changed.
Cheers,
aj
--
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 08:45, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:12:41AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > Similarly, it would be a lot easier to just define documentation to be
> > software "for the purposes of the DFSG". But does it make sense?
>
> The alternative is that documentat
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:12:41AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 20:53, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Why should the DFSG have to worry about such philosophical questions?
> > Why isn't it enough to worry about the license?
> Because software isn't documentation?
> Think of it
On Tuesday, April 9, 2002, at 02:36 , Jeff Licquia wrote:
Except that most of the crypto technology you used to find on Italian
and Dutch FTP servers was either code from the USA or (rather poorly)
algorithms from the USA.
Yes, that's because it was perfectly legal to print it out and
mail it, but
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:36:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> These are all good arguments. If they hold, I would humbly suggest then
> that we rename the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" to the "Debian Free
> Content Guidelines". This, it would seem, would be more direct.
That would be a mas
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 01:08, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Replies to -legal if you must make them. This list is for development
> issues, not boring license pedantry.
>
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:12:41AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 20:53, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > Why shou
Replies to -legal if you must make them. This list is for development
issues, not boring license pedantry.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:12:41AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 20:53, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Why should the DFSG have to worry about such philosophical questions?
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 20:53, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Why should the DFSG have to worry about such philosophical questions?
> Why isn't it enough to worry about the license?
Because software isn't documentation?
Think of it this way: national security would be so much easier to
maintain if we co
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:39:31AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 04:34:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Software." Therefore, for something to be part of Debian, it must be
> > Free Software, even if it's documentation. Now, this may be an
>
> It must be free software,
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 04:34:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Software." Therefore, for something to be part of Debian, it must be
> Free Software, even if it's documentation. Now, this may be an
It must be free software, even if it's documentation?
So any documentation, if included in Deb
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:24:44PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > The FDL is not DFSG-compliant, but that doesn't make it non-free.
> >
> > By the definitions we have given "non-free", it is exactly that.
>
> If it was software, it was non-free. Our definitions are only about
> software. The
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:22:53PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:29:27PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
> > > user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
> > > if I'm
> How about: /usr/bin/latex is a program - my_neat_little_phdthesis.tex is
> a file?
Actually, /usr/bin/latex is an interpreter.
my_neat_little_phdthesis.tex *is* program code, even though the vast
proportion of the content will be literal text for output. See Andrew
Greene's BASiX (BASIC interp
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:39:12PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 20:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Whatcha mean "becoming"? Lispers have been blurring the line between
> > data and code for the last half-century.
>
> Speaking as a budding LISPer (working my way through "On
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 20:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Whatcha mean "becoming"? Lispers have been blurring the line between
> data and code for the last half-century.
Speaking as a budding LISPer (working my way through "On Lisp" while my
classes ruin my brain with Java), I'm well aware of this.
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:12:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
> > SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software
>
> Unfortunately this is becoming less true.
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:22:51AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:15:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > In fact, XML and HTML (and I would imagine therefore CSS and XSLT) are
> > explicitly listed as transparent formats. I'm not going to argue that.
> > The problems, alt
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:29:27PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a
> > user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system
> > if I'm only using packages from main.
>
> The FDL is not DFSG-compliant, but
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:15:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 14:29, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > It's possible to draw a line. The GNU FDL clearly describes what a
> > "Transparant copy" is for example.
>
> Whether or not it describes what a transparent copy is is irrelevant
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:15:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> In fact, XML and HTML (and I would imagine therefore CSS and XSLT) are
> explicitly listed as transparent formats. I'm not going to argue that.
> The problems, although they're transparent, they're programs as well
> as documents.
Bl
Il lun, 2002-04-08 alle 00:15, Joe Wreschnig ha scritto:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 14:29, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for
> > > content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not
> > > sure, but it's definitely not j
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 04:34:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 11:56:59AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
>
> > The DFSG is an excellent place to start, but trying to apply it to things
> > which *are not software* is silly, and results in the sort of sillyness
> > which we're
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 16:08, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> documentation != document. XSLT is cleary a program and s stylesheet
> should go under a code license. but a manual about programming in XSLT
> is definitely documentation and should be treated in a different way.
What about inline stylesh
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 14:29, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for
> > content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not
> > sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be
> > included as "documentatio
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 11:56:59AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:12:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > > people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
> > > SOFTWARE guidelines. documentati
Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 19:12, Joe Wreschnig ha scritto:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
> > SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software
>
> Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS co
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:12:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
> > SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software
>
> Unfortunately this is becoming less true.
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:12:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
> > SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software
>
> Unfortunately this is becoming less true.
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free
> SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software
Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for
content generation and counting variables. Is
Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 10:01, Ben Pfaff ha scritto:
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: normal
>
> Orphaned because it's now considered non-free.
>
> Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Package: gnu-standards
> > Version: 2002.01.12-1
> > Severity: serious
> > Justification: Policy 2.1.2
>
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
Orphaned because it's now considered non-free.
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package: gnu-standards
> Version: 2002.01.12-1
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Policy 2.1.2
>
> The GNU standards are licensed under two seperate licenses, neither one
44 matches
Mail list logo
