On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 04:40:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:53:56AM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
> > Except for the title, the DFSG is very content-agnostic. It can be
> > applied equally well to software, fiction, nonfiction, images, what have
> > you.
>
> I thi
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 02:07:14PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > b) people at debian-legal do not keep people at debian-doc up-to-date to
> > latest consensus wrt to documentation licensing (yes, until somebody who is
> > at -doc says "please RTFM" and somebody at -legal says "TFM is worthless
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 12:23:16PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> Could you please point to the discussion you mention that makes that
> content out of date? I thought I pretty much cover all the -legal
> discussions to date at
> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/footnote
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:30:56PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:47:32PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > >>people to
> > >>http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/ch-common.en.html.
> > > This claims the GNU FDL is acceptable, so it'
On Sat, 2003-07-05 at 17:22, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 04:35:09PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > So, I assume that with that you mean that we have "sacrificed one of our
> > core values" as well? My. All this sacrifice is making me hungry. :P
>
> Damn. That means some OTHER
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 12:33:52AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> There are borderline cases, such as the GFDL or free works in
> >> non-editable formats (PS, PDF, in some cases even HTML), or licenses
> >> or other documents of perceived legal r
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> There are borderline cases, such as the GFDL or free works in
>> non-editable formats (PS, PDF, in some cases even HTML), or licenses
>> or other documents of perceived legal relevance.
>
> I have argued on debian-legal that licenses as applied to sp
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 05:16:07PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Fortunately, the situation you describe is unlikely to occur because few
> people are perverse enough to make their software free but their
> documentation very non-free.
/me falls into a fit of coughing
*COUGH*h
*COUGH*t
*COUGH*t
*C
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:53:56AM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
> Except for the title, the DFSG is very content-agnostic. It can be
> applied equally well to software, fiction, nonfiction, images, what have
> you.
I think that's a feature. Apparently, some people think it's a bug.
--
G. Brande
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:53:55AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:34:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> | The Debian Social Contract says "Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software".
> | If there are things "in Debian" that are "not free" or "not software",
> | then we
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:03:11PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Debian really needs a separate policy for works which are not
> >> software.
> >
> > We could have a policy for non-software, but it should still exclude
> > non-free things. What y
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 04:35:09PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> So, I assume that with that you mean that we have "sacrificed one of our
> core values" as well? My. All this sacrifice is making me hungry. :P
Damn. That means some OTHER deity has been intercepting the products of
ritual slaughter o
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:54:20PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> * Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:42:01PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> > > I think non-free removal will seem more radical if it means that
> > > Debian will no longer distribute RFCs on
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:13:09PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> And I am arguing that there is no reason not to endorse RFCs just as
> we endorse license texts. That last sentence is a personal judgement
> that I would guess many Debian developers would find agreement with.
I wouldn't.
The be
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 02:10:12PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Stephen Stafford]
> > We have a commitment that everything in Debian main is Free. Since
> > the RFC license is NOT Free, it can't be in main. This does NOT
> > imply anything about the usefulness of RFCs, merely about their
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 02:10:12PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Stephen Stafford]
> > We have a commitment that everything in Debian main is Free. Since
> > the RFC license is NOT Free, it can't be in main. This does NOT
> > imply anything about the usefulness of RFCs, merely about their
[Stephen Stafford]
> We have a commitment that everything in Debian main is Free. Since
> the RFC license is NOT Free, it can't be in main. This does NOT
> imply anything about the usefulness of RFCs, merely about their
> Freedom.
There seem to be two ways of interpreting the social contract. O
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:30:47PM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:36:13PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Bullshit. It is common for RFCs to be revised over time, and
> > formulated into new documents. This license prohibits agencies other
> > than the IETF from revising
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 11:41:51AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> Couldn't you write a new document along the lines of "This is based on
> RFC1341 with the following exceptions "?
Tell that to the authors of RFC2616 :-)
Sometimes it's very valuable to NOT have people reading the old version
first,
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 04:24:20PM +0800, Isaac To wrote:
> It is far from obvious. What if I develop my software, finds the
> specification of MIME to be very similar to what my software does, but yet I
> need to modify the things here and there so as to suit my needs; and when
> documenting my s
> "Brian" == Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> Couldn't you write a new document along the lines of "This is
Brian> based on RFC1341 with the following exceptions "?
Brian> That way you can see exactly what differences there are to the
Brian> known standard, at
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:18:02PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Which is why no one is doing any such thing. Instead, we are pointing
> out that the RFCs do not comply with the DFSG, and thus, under the
> Social Contract as written, should not be included in main.
Yes, I read more into the thre
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:36:13PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Bullshit. It is common for RFCs to be revised over time, and
> formulated into new documents. This license prohibits agencies other
> than the IETF from revising an RFC and publishing the result.
Yes, and the new document is given
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:47:32PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
>
>>Andrew Suffield wrote:
>>
people to http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/ch-common.en.html.
>>>This claims the GNU FDL is acceptable, so it's worse than useless.
>>It claims that GNU FDL san
On Fri, 2003-07-04 at 11:06, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 11:54:17PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
>
> | How do you show it's not software? How does it differ from software?
> |
> | What if I take the view that Mozilla is an interpreter and anarchism is
> | the program? Please e
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:47:19PM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> To require or demand that the IETF changes their copyright policy or
> their publishing practices to cater to someone else's idea of what the
> document should be used for is plain arogance. Respect the wishes of
> the original auth
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:47:19PM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:43:10PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > You have some free software, and it comes with a manual.
>
> Your counter example does not apply to IETF Standards documentation. It
> is not software.
Then we ha
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:47:32PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >>people to http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/ch-common.en.html.
> > This claims the GNU FDL is acceptable, so it's worse than useless.
> It claims that GNU FDL sans cover texts and invariant se
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:47:19PM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> To require or demand that the IETF changes their copyright policy or
> their publishing practices to cater to someone else's idea of what the
> document should be used for is plain arogance.
Which is why no one is doing any such thin
Andrew Suffield wrote:
>>people to http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/ch-common.en.html.
> This claims the GNU FDL is acceptable, so it's worse than useless.
It claims that GNU FDL sans cover texts and invariant sections is acceptable.
Cheers
T.
pgpFhyQTZaH4d.pgp
Description: PGP si
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:43:10PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> You have some free software, and it comes with a manual.
Your counter example does not apply to IETF Standards documentation. It
is not software.
In a more general reaction to posts on the list, to say an RFC is an
editable docum
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 06:44:57PM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 09:45:41PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> >
> > Why not indeed traft a DFDG spec that includes licenses such as the GFDL
> > and IETF's and W3C's licenses, as someone suggested, and add a
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 09:45:41PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
>
> Why not indeed traft a DFDG spec that includes licenses such as the GFDL
> and IETF's and W3C's licenses, as someone suggested, and add a separate
> 'Documentation' section?
Because that has been already drafted. Not only I su
On Thu 03 Jul Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> [Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña]
> > (For those who are not aware of this issue, please read #92810)
>
> There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
> treated as software. Standards are not software. Standards do not
> improv
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 11:54:17PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
| How do you show it's not software? How does it differ from software?
|
| What if I take the view that Mozilla is an interpreter and anarchism is
| the program? Please explain how that differs from the Perl interpreter
| and Perl pro
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:04:51PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> > So be it. The Social Contract and the traditions of our project
> >> > compel us to make principled decisions, not politically expedient
> >> > ones.
> >>
> >> Not correct. Look at the handling of security issues. The projec
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:55:30PM +0200, Sebastian Rittau wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:04:51PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > But how far goes clause 4? Obviously not that far that Debian
> > includes Java (for rather complete values of "Java", which seems to
> > imply a certain propriet
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:04:51PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> But how far goes clause 4? Obviously not that far that Debian
> includes Java (for rather complete values of "Java", which seems to
> imply a certain proprietary implementation at the moment).
Which non-free Java implementations a
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:39:46PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> > So be it. The Social Contract and the traditions of our project
>> > compel us to make principled decisions, not politically expedient
>> > ones.
>>
>> Not correct. Look at the handlin
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Debian really needs a separate policy for works which are not
>> software.
>
> We could have a policy for non-software, but it should still exclude
> non-free things. What you are trying to say is "Debian really needs to
> include non-free things".
T
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:39:46PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > So be it. The Social Contract and the traditions of our project
> > compel us to make principled decisions, not politically expedient
> > ones.
>
> Not correct. Look at the handling of security issues. The project
> has chosen
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:19:07PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I fully agree. Banning RFCs from debian is just silly.
>
> And I wonder what's next? fsf-funding(7)?
Yup, I'll go file a bug about that now; thanks for pointing it out. We
shouldn't
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So be it. The Social Contract and the traditions of our project
> compel us to make principled decisions, not politically expedient
> ones.
Not correct. Look at the handling of security issues. The project
has chosen (never formally, though) that
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I fully agree. Banning RFCs from debian is just silly.
And I wonder what's next? fsf-funding(7)? The GPL?
Debian really needs a separate policy for works which are not
software.
Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
> treated as software. Standards are not software. Standards do not
> improve if everyone is allowed to modify them and publish the modified
> version as an updated version of t
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 05:16:07PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:19:59PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > You have some free software, and it comes with a manual. You modify
> > the software in a manner which suits you... bu
> "Jérôme" == Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jérôme> But we absolutely don't want to do this.
Jérôme> It is just like modifying someone else' speach and
Jérôme> redistributing it without changing the author's name.
Jérôme> It is obvious it should be out of the scop
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:46:11AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> Of course not. They're software.
>
> RFCs aren't software, and so applying the Debian Free /Software/
> Guidelines to them seems a little odd.
Hmmm...
Depends on your definition, really. They're sure as hell not hardware
or fir
Selon Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:46:11AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
>
> > RFCs aren't software, and so applying the Debian Free /Software/
> > Guidelines to them seems a little odd.
>
> But...but...what if you want to make your own "RFC 2661" by embracing
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 07:50:07AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:42:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > And, incidentally, the specific issue you address has -- I'm sure you'll
> > be quite startled -- discussed at length on debian-legal. Maybe you
> > ou
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 15:19, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
>
>>Cameron Patrick wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:36:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>>Oh, cool. How about changing in DFSG to "Anything that can go in main or
>>contrib."
> Because that's a circular definiti
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 11:54:17PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 14:53, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:34:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > | The Debian Social Contract says "Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software".
> > | If there are things "i
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:42:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> And, incidentally, the specific issue you address has -- I'm sure you'll
> be quite startled -- discussed at length on debian-legal. Maybe you
> ought to check out those archives?
I'm well aware that some people have flogged
On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 14:53, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:34:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> | The Debian Social Contract says "Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software"
On 03 Jul 2003 23:45:56 -0500
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 15:19, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > Cameron Patrick wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:36:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > | Well, once you folks have come up with a definition of "software",
On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 15:19, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Cameron Patrick wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:36:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > | Well, once you folks have come up with a definition of "software", you
> > | be sure and let us know.
> > How about "anything included in Debian"?
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 05:16:07PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> It's more acceptable to me than the alternative: to move a good portion
> of documentation to non-free where it will not be distributed by
> vendors, will not be considered "part of Debian" and thus will be under
> threat of removal, a
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 05:16:07PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > You have some free software, and it comes with a manual. You modify
> > the software in a manner which suits you... but you're not allowed to
> > modify the manual to reflect this change; the license of the manual
> > requires that
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:19:59PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
>> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:23:14PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
>> >> > That would be clause #1 of the Debian Social Contract.
>
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:46:36AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> How about linuxgazette?
Junk, which is only barely excused because it's free.
> Or any of the /usr/local/doc/ non-software based packages?
No packages in Debian have files in /usr/local/doc. Doing so would be
an RC bug.
> Prehaps
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:16:15PM -0700, David Schleef wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:53:55AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:34:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>>
>> | The Debian Social Contract says "Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software".
>> | If there are th
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 03:53:55AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:34:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> | The Debian Social Contract says "Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software".
> | If there are things "in Debian" that are "not free" or "not software",
> | then we
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:19:59PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:23:14PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> > That would be clause #1 of the Debian Social Contract.
> >>
> >> Where do you draw the line between softw
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:23:14PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
>> > That would be clause #1 of the Debian Social Contract.
>>
>> Where do you draw the line between software, data and documentation? I
>> get the impression that you are readin
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:54:20PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> > Without foundation, your remark serves as sloganeering, perhaps
> > calculated to intimidate or silence those who are simply viewing the
> > RFCs' licenses in an objective light.
>
> Do you always read the most malicious and mani
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:03:47AM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
> (For those who are not aware of this issue, please read #92810)
>
> Since the doc-rfc packages have been moved to non-free, I have just cloned
> the doc-rfc RC bug (#92810) and assigned it to some other packages whic
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:02:59PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
>
> > If the separation between main and non-free is intended primarily as a
> > guarantee that everything in main is DFSG-free, and that no part of the
> > core distribution depends on n
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:42:01PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> > I think non-free removal will seem more radical if it means that
> > Debian will no longer distribute RFCs on the basis that their
> > licensing is not permissive enough.
>
> After
Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:36:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> | Well, once you folks have come up with a definition of "software", you
> | be sure and let us know.
> How about "anything included in Debian"? That way we won't be in danger
> of violating the Social Con
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:02:59PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> If the separation between main and non-free is intended primarily as a
> guarantee that everything in main is DFSG-free, and that no part of the
> core distribution depends on non-free software, I completely agree with
> you. To t
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:42:01PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> > * Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > > On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:17:29PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:42:01PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> > * Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > > On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMA
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:36:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
| Well, once you folks have come up with a definition of "software", you
| be sure and let us know.
How about "anything included in Debian"? That way we won't be in danger
of violating the Social Contract #1.
Cameron.
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:34:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
| The Debian Social Contract says "Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software".
| If there are things "in Debian" that are "not free" or "not software",
| then we may be violation of our guiding principles.
The anarchism package is an e
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 08:07:59PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> Yet we let them in because they are called licenses. And no, I'm not
> asking to be able to change the _contract_ between the copyright owner
> and the licensee. I'm talking about the file. I'm talking about this:
>
>
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 07:21:34PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Well, of *course* we do. It would be idiotic and hypocritical to
> interpret it as "The software in Debian will be free, but the
> documentation doesn't have to be".
>
> We have historically allowed some free non-software things in
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:39:21AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:20:02PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> |
> | When the program is run, it gets put in read/write memory.
> |
>
> So embedded firmware running from an EPROM doesn't count as a program
> then?
Well, once y
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:23:14PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:51:15AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > That would be clause #1 of the Debian Social Contract.
>
> Where do you draw the line between software, data and documentation?
Easy. I don't. I've w
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:12:02PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:54:00AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> > If they are not software, then under clause one of the Social Contract,
> > they don't belong in debian.
> >
> > This has been debated several thousand time
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:42:01PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> Keep in mind that this hard-line stance of applying the DFSG to
> everything in the archive will probably make it more difficult to gain
> support for the non-free removal resolution.
So be it. The Social Contract and the traditio
Sebastian Rittau wrote:
>There's no need to. But I want to have the right to change a standard
>slightly, and hand it around, telling people that this is how I would
>have liked the standard. I also want to have the right to enhance or
>even change a standard, and use it e.g. for some internal pro
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 02:10:43PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:46:11AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
>
> > RFCs aren't software, and so applying the Debian Free /Software/
> > Guidelines to them seems a little odd.
>
> But...but...what if you want to make your own "R
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:46:11AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:35:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> | So, what other non-DFSG-free stuff is it "silly" to ban? Netscape
> | Navigator? Adobe Acrobat Reader?
>
> Of course not. They're software.
>
> RFCs aren'
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:15:19AM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> I like this DFDG idea (Debian Free Documentation Guidelines) :-)...
Feel free to propose a General Resolution to amend the Debian Social
Contract. The Project Secretary will probably tell you to wait for the
GRs to disambiguate Con
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:42:01PM -0500, Joshua Haberman wrote:
> * Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >I believe this whole case of RFC standard
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >I believe this whole case of RFC standards are not confirming to The
> > >Debian Free Software Guidelines display a
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:20:02PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
|
| When the program is run, it gets put in read/write memory.
|
So embedded firmware running from an EPROM doesn't count as a program
then?
CP.
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:23:14PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > That would be clause #1 of the Debian Social Contract.
>
> Where do you draw the line between software, data and documentation? I
> get the impression that you are reading "Debian Will Remain 100% Free
> Software" to mea
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:14:49PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > software
> >n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or
> >rules and associated documentation pertaining to the
> >operatio
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:54:00AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> If they are not software, then under clause one of the Social Contract,
> they don't belong in debian.
>
> This has been debated several thousand times on -legal...
I don't recall a consensus that software documentation does
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:46:11AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> RFCs aren't software, and so applying the Debian Free /Software/
> Guidelines to them seems a little odd.
But...but...what if you want to make your own "RFC 2661" by embracing and
extending the existing one, and redistribute it to
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:01:08PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Or else, if the standards are not free, let them in non-free. We're not
> going to let non-free documents enter main just because they are called
> RFC's or W3C recommendations.
Yet we let them in because they are called lice
Le jeu 03/07/2003 à 13:00, Petter Reinholdtsen a écrit :
> There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
> treated as software. Standards are not software. Standards do not
> improve if everyone is allowed to modify them and publish the modified
> version as an updated ver
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:35:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
| So, what other non-DFSG-free stuff is it "silly" to ban? Netscape
| Navigator? Adobe Acrobat Reader?
Of course not. They're software.
RFCs aren't software, and so applying the Debian Free /Software/
Guidelines to them seems a
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I believe this whole case of RFC standards are not confirming to The
> >Debian Free Software Guidelines display a complete lack of
> >understanding of the value of stan
On Thursday, Jul 3, 2003, at 07:00 US/Eastern, Petter Reinholdtsen
wrote:
[Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña]
(For those who are not aware of this issue, please read #92810)
There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
treated as software. Standards are not software.
If they
"Marco d'Itri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jul 03, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I believe this whole case of RFC standards are not confirming to The
> >Debian Free Software Guidelines display a complete lack of
> >understanding of the value of standards, and should
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> software
>n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or
>rules and associated documentation pertaining to the
>operation of a computer system and that are stored in
>read/w
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:00:47PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
> treated as software. Standards are not software. Standards do not
> improve if everyone is allowed to modify them and publish the modified
> version as an
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:51:15AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> That would be clause #1 of the Debian Social Contract.
Where do you draw the line between software, data and documentation? I
get the impression that you are reading "Debian Will Remain 100% Free
Software" to mean "everythin
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
