On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 09:46:47AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 01:08:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns a ?crit :
> > For what it's worth, we don't do that. References I'm aware of:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/05/msg00092.html
> > http://lists.debian.org/
Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> thank for the links. So in the end, am I right to say that, since
> the point of view of the FTP team is that RFC are software,
> orig.tar.gz files which contain them fail to comply the DFSG and
> therefore are not accepted in main?
No. Whether or not
Le Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 01:08:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
>
> For what it's worth, we don't do that. References I'm aware of:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/05/msg00092.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/05/msg00149.html
Hi Anthony,
thank for the lin
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 11:24:21PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:35:15PM -0500, Peter Samuelson a ?crit :
> I fully agree with what you write. Indeed what I support is not to ignore
> the RFC or other similarly non-free, non-programmatic files, but to
> document them in
Le Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:35:15PM -0500, Peter Samuelson a écrit :
> A lot of users appreciate our promise to read all the licenses so they
> don't have to.
> as I explain further, suddenly we have a user who notices, for the
> first time, that the RFC (or Sun Java, or whatever) actually _does_
[Charles Plessy]
> On the other hand, does the effort of removing these documents from
> the upstream sources has any chance to make things change in the
> future, by either having the IETF freeing the RFCs, or volunteers
> paraphrasing free versions of them?
The fact that Debian cares about lice
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 11:38:38AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:05:26PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit a ?crit :
>
>
> I think that shipping the non-programmatic, non-modifiable works in
> non-free binary packages generated from source packages located in main
> would better
2007/9/14, Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This said, it does not make a big difference, apart from the packager's
> time... But would I be asked to expurge one of my package, I would
> probably consider moving it in non-free instead.
The nice thing about the current system is that whoever w
Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Much of the free software development is about creating replacements
> of non-free component to build a free OS with free applications.
If so, that's an effect, not the goal. The goal isn't about "creating
replacements", it's about increasing freedom f
Le Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:05:26PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit a écrit :
> With your argument, gcc would be in non-free right now...
This is why it has been proposed on this list that original sources
containing non-free elements that are not part of the software could be
allowed in main, as long as n
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 07:05:08AM +, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 08:50:04PM -0500, Peter Samuelson a écrit :
> >
> > We're pretty much at an impasse, then, so I don't think I'll reply
> > after this message. I, and many Debian folks, don't quite understand
> > the essenti
Le Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 08:50:04PM -0500, Peter Samuelson a écrit :
>
> We're pretty much at an impasse, then, so I don't think I'll reply
> after this message. I, and many Debian folks, don't quite understand
> the essential difference, between functional source code and
> non-functional documen
12 matches
Mail list logo
