On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 11:16:57AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 11:07:29PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I don't have any issues with what you've said, but I still don't have
a fully formed opinion on the whole issue.
Is it just a matter of thinking it through, or is
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 01:39:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 07:19:58PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:31:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
That I do not support grandfathering efforts on these manuals doesn't
mean I'll fight them,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 13 December 2001 08:48, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 08:00:53AM -0600, ichimunki wrote:
Obviously if the FSF is intending to lead by example, they think the
Manifesto is a good benchmark for what kind of texts
Hi people,
I'm rehashing an old subject mostly because I'd like to save Branden
trouble in the near future (how kind of me... nah).
Back in June 2000, James Treacy asked about the SGI Free Software
License B. Go look at the archives if you are interested in the whole
discussion. One of
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 09:33:53PM +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
[...]
My personal opinion is that this is ok. This does not conflict with
the DFSG because this is not software we are talking about and until
now I haven't read a convincing argument that is does indeed relate to
the
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 12:49:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
You're, uh, just eliding what I consider the substantive and interesting
points in this discussion. That's not really very helpful. Do you agree
with them, and are you
I fear that one problem here is that I regard Debian as comprising
only the main archive.
Some people seem to have, in the back of their heads, that relabelling
the emacs manual as non-free is a mere bookkeeping change of no major
consequence, that moving it from main to non-free is a mere issue
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 07:27:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I'm still not clear on whether the GNU Manifesto [0] has a place in
main, and, if it does, what that place should be. I'm not sure where the
line should be drawn, except that licenses should be okay, and that it
shouldn't be
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 01:56:44PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
The DFSG was not written or intended to be an automated mechanism
which you apply to a software and you get yes or no as output.
Agreed; it's a manual mechanism which you apply to a work and you get
yes or no as output. A
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:02:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I can see justification for making a rule that one shouldn't have a
dependency on a package with invariant manual sections.
And what justification would that be?
If the primary motivation in this discussion is what's
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:06:30PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I fear that one problem here is that I regard Debian as comprising
only the main archive.
That's not a problem, that is correct.
Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:41:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's been discussed to death. Some people want to be able to include
megabytes upon megabytes of invariant non-technical
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:43:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:02:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I can see justification for making a rule that one
On 14 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Some people seem to have, in the back of their heads, that relabelling
the emacs manual as non-free is a mere bookkeeping change of no major
consequence, that moving it from main to non-free is a mere issue of
labelling.
I haven't seen this
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 07:18:37PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 01:56:44PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
The DFSG was not written or intended to be an automated mechanism
which you apply to a software and you get yes or no as output.
Agreed; it's a manual
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 14 December 2001 06:06, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I fear that one problem here is that I regard Debian as comprising
only the main archive.
So do I. That's one of my top reasons for using Debian in favor of other
Linux distros where
ichimunki [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So do I. That's one of my top reasons for using Debian in favor of other
Linux distros where hardware allows (there are other reasons to love Debian,
but this is a huge one). To that end, I'd like to see main only contain
truly free packages (including
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:02:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
And voila, you're Cc'ing me again.
I know it's easy to forget, but ``Our Priorities are **Our Users**
and Free Software''. Putting docs for random packages in a package with
a completely bizarre name, and collating a
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FWIW, if I can't reuse a sentence from the Debian manifesto, I don't think
it belongs in Debian either.
Old BSD software (including stuff currently in Debian) requires the
addition of an advertising sentence in many circumstances. The GPL
requires the
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
What I suspect you're becoming confused about though, is thinking that
removing a package from the Debian distribution, and adding it to the
non-free component, harms users even slightly. It doesn't. It is still
trivial to get, still supported, and
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 05:12:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I think it's reasonable to judge that people who install a package
shouldn't automatically get something with more restrictive conditions
attached to it.
We don't have any such rule within main; for example apt-get
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
If you find the restrictions are that bothersome, then it's probably
appropriate to just put the docs in non-free. That's what it's for.
I don't think the restrictions are that bothersome. (Duh!)
I said that I could understand that some people
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 06:51:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Thomas, stop Cc'ing me.
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
What I suspect you're becoming confused about though, is thinking that
removing a package from the Debian distribution, and adding it to the
non-free
Stop Cc'ing me.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 07:04:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
If you find the restrictions are that bothersome, then it's probably
appropriate to just put the docs in non-free. That's what it's for.
I don't think the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 14 December 2001 08:37, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
What about things that are not documentation, but which the
documentation licenses requires to be included too? (Which is
actually the case we are talking about.)
What we are
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Then why do you want them put in some special debian-political package
which other packages aren't allowed to recommend?
I didn't say I wanted that. I tossed it out as a wacky suggestion,
which would rather put it to RMS by decrying his contention
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Well, not to be as pedantic as Branden often is, but I never said it was
just as easy to get, I said it was still trivial to get. And it is:
you add one line, or even one word, to /etc/apt/sources.list and then
do what you would've if it was in
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
It's a bit rich you saying this when you've gone ahead and ignored
everything in my mails that addressed these issues.
I told you, already, that such ignoring is not something
intentional, but represents a judgment on my part that something
seemed
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 07:35:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Then why do you want them put in some special debian-political package
which other packages aren't allowed to recommend?
I didn't say I wanted that. I tossed it out as a wacky
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 07:35:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Then why do you want them put in some special debian-political package
which other packages aren't allowed to recommend?
I
(There wasn't a Mail-Followup-To: header in the mail I'm replying to)
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:06:10PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Then why do you want them put in some special debian-political package
which other packages aren't allowed to recommend?
I didn't say I wanted
Ok, we've spun in circles for quite a while.
Here are three separate things, which actually form a coherent
argument. Do not assume that these are rehashes of things I've said
before; in various ways they represent some change of mind about some
things. Please read the whole post before
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
I'm not seeing why you're suggesting things that you don't want.
I'm looking for compromise positions. Is that a foreign concept?
Geez, I hope not.
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quote
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] [011214 19:40]:
[...]
Well, only for people on the net.
[...]
My layman's point of view from the discussion and the number of posts
you have made is that you just want to argue and others are obliging.
I also think that in email you need to pay
Grant Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I also think that in email you need to pay attention to everything
written. To ignore some fundamental point is a less than cooperative
tactic that delays the efforts of summarizing and coming to a complete
resolution that everyone can agree to.
I do
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:40:30PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I'm not seeing why you're suggesting things that you don't want.
I'm looking for compromise positions. Is that a foreign concept?
Geez, I hope not.
If you don't want it, how does it make sense as a compromise?
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:40:30PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I'm not seeing why you're suggesting things that you don't want.
I'm looking for compromise positions. Is that a foreign concept?
Geez, I hope not.
If you don't want it,
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:37:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
A. Only copyright statements themselves can be invariant.
B. Only copyright statements and associated licenses can be invariant.
C. Only Copyright statements, licenses, giving-credit-where-
credit-is-due, and
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:37:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
A. Only copyright statements themselves can be invariant.
B. Only copyright statements and associated licenses can be invariant.
C. Only Copyright statements, licenses,
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 09:11:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:40:30PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I'm not seeing why you're suggesting things that you don't want.
I'm looking for compromise positions. Is that a foreign concept?
Geez, I hope
I omitted Anthony Towns's debian-doc proposal from my list of
options here.
If I understand it right, his proposal would fit into BLANKTWO as
follows:
BLANKTWO OPTION AT: , if they are debian-doc, various
This would make the operative sentence:
In addition, packages may contain, if they
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
It would be helpful if you didn't repeatedly skip over the points people
think are substantive, even when they're specifically brought to your
attention.
I'm desperately trying to punt the whole meta discussion and the whole
meta meta discussion,
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 09:22:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
If I understand it right, his proposal would fit into BLANKTWO as
follows:
BLANKTWO OPTION AT: , if they are debian-doc, various
This would make the operative sentence:
In addition, packages may contain, if they are
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 09:31:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I think I would be willing to sign on to Branden's latest proposal (as
referred to in the headers of this message), with two provisos.
That's not Branden's latest proposal.
First, I would like to replace the 32K limit with
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 09:31:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I think I would be willing to sign on to Branden's latest proposal (as
referred to in the headers of this message), with two provisos.
That's not Branden's latest proposal.
45 matches
Mail list logo
