Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On 2003-09-29, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (2) No practical problems have arisen from allowing snippets to be
> > included. No one has proposed any gedanken practical problem.
>
> OK, here's one: what if the Japanese governmen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
>
> > The following persons have agreed to serve on a committee regarding the
> > FSF - Debian discussion:
> >
> > Eben Moglen, Attorney for the Free Software Foundation.
> > Henri Poole, Board memb
On 2003-09-29, Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> OK, here's one: what if the Japanese government wants to make a
>> completely localised version of emacs? They would be unable to,
>> because they would not be able to translate the GNU Manifesto, which
>> does not yet have an official trans
Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On 2003-09-29, Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> OK, here's one: what if the Japanese government wants to make a
> >> completely localised version of emacs? They would be unable to,
> >> because they would not be able to translate the GNU
On 2003-09-29, Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>> On 2003-09-29, Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> OK, here's one: what if the Japanese government wants to make a
>> >> completely localised version of emacs? They would be unable to,
- Original Message -
From: "Brian T. Sniffen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Dylan Thurston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: coupling software documentation and political speech in the
GFDL
> Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 20
On 2003-09-29 07:07:45 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
and Thomas Bushnell is a GNU developer as well.
Isn't it a good reason to have him in such committee? Doesn't it prove
that he have great interest in both projects and so have reasons to be
constructive?
Sadly, it leaves him o
Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (1) Allowing snippets to be included is the current Debian practice,
> so the burden of proof is on those who would propose to remove them
> to show a compelling reason for doing so.
Burden of proof argum
On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 01:16:12PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> There is certainly a significant group within Debian that would ilke
> to see non-free get axed. We'll find out how large soon enough; I
> would be surprised if the question has not been resolved by the end of
> the year.
As someon
Mathieu Roy said:
> But what happens when the manifesto is included in a GFDLed manual,
> which clearly allows translation, as long as the original text is
> provided?
You have an example of a dual-licensed work.
You can distribute the manifesto under the "No modification" license, or at
your opt
>From section 1 of the GFDL:
A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work
containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied
verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into
another language.
Would emacs20_20.7-13.1_i386.deb fit the definition of "Modified V
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:01:19AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Burden of proof arguments are, at best, very trick to make -- I
> suggest you not rely on it. Certainly I don't buy it in this case.
> Unless you can actually point to someplace that says this is current
> practice, I don't think yo
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:01:19AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> * If the answer to the above is no, should we distribute them anyway,
> simply because we don't have them in a free form?
Hi. I think my first reply to this mail didn't get to my actual point.
I think your question here is the w
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
>On 2003-09-26 08:04:12 +0100 Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 0) Is printed Emacs Manual in bookstore a software or hardware?
>Not necessarily either.
>> 1) Is Emacs Manual recorded on CD-Audio a software or hardware?
>Not necessarily either, but I f
On 2003-09-29, Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:01:19AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Burden of proof arguments are, at best, very trick to make -- I
>> suggest you not rely on it. Certainly I don't buy it in this case.
>> Unless you can actually point to
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Fedor Zuev wrote:
>> First, try to answer to several simply questions.
> FYI, these are *my* answers, not necessarily everyone's answers.
>> 0) Is printed Emacs Manual in bookstore a software or hardware?
> The lump of paper and ink is hardware. Inc
On 2003-09-29, Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:01:19AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> * If the answer to the above is no, should we distribute them anyway,
>> simply because we don't have them in a free form?
>
> Hi. I think my first reply to this mail d
Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From section 1 of the GFDL:
> A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work
> containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied
> verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into
> another language.
>
> Would emacs20_2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 29 September 2003 03:35, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> (2) No practical problems have arisen from allowing snippets to be
> included. No one has proposed any gedanken practical problem.
> Generally we decide that something is bad (a violation
On 2003-09-29, Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
>> Fedor Zuev wrote:
>>> First, try to answer to several simply questions.
>> FYI, these are *my* answers, not necessarily everyone's answers.
>
>>> 0) Is printed Emacs Manual in bookstore a softwa
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:01:19AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> * If the answer to the above is no, should we distribute them anyway,
>> simply because we don't have them in a free form?
>
> Hi. I think my first reply to this mail didn't get to
On 2003-09-27, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have occasionally received requests in private mail for some links
>> to a document "summarizing Debian's position" on the GNU FDL as it
>> relates to the DFSG.
>
> I think we need to have a position statement, issued under the
>
至贵公司财务部：
你好！广州市荣泰贸易有限公司，是一家制造及销售为一体的责任公司，本公司由于业务不足，现有剩余普通商品销售发票代开，点数较底，如贵公司在进项或出项方面
有需要，可来电联系或咨询：
13570401554 宋先生
祝:商棋!
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> First, try to answer to several simply questions.
>If you do likewise.
>> 0) Is printed Emacs Manual in bookstore a software or hardware?
>No. Is it in Debian?
>> 1) Is Emacs Manual recorded on CD-Audio a software or hardware?
>No. Is it in Debia
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Fedor Zuev wrote:
>>Maybe neither, both or firmware. I don't really know what you mean.
>
> Is DFSG extends to cases when program distributed deep inside a
> consumer electronics (like a clocks, telephones, VCR, etc.)?
If we start distributing clocks (xclock), telephones
(as
On 2003-09-29 18:03:09 +0100 Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, your new, corrected, definition of "software" [...]
Wrong. My preferred definition of software has been close to Tukey's
first use in print for quite some time. Designs of hardware held on
computer hardware are
Peter S Galbraith said:
> Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> From section 1 of the GFDL:
>> A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work
>> containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied
>> verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into
>> another
Joe Moore said:
> Would emacs20_20.7-13.1_i386.deb fit the definition of "Modified
> Version" above? It is clearly a copyrightable work, and it contains
> the Document (usr/share/emacs/20.7/etc/GNU for example) copied
> verbatim.
Sorry, the correct example is the GNU Emacs manual. (which is the w
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 03:23:06AM +0900, Fedor Zuev brabbled:
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >> 8)Is Debian logo written on [cover of] the same CD-ROM software or
> >> hardware?
>
> >No. Is it in Debian?
>
> So, your definition of "software" is heavily
> Debian-specific. E
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:37:37 + (UTC)
Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2003-09-27, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I have occasionally received requests in private mail for some links
> >> to a document "summarizing Debian's position" on the GNU FDL as it
> >> rela
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2003-09-24 23:12:06 +0100 Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Software" is a controversial word in English.
>
> "Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the
> automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes." --
> M
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We want to have freedom over what we distribute in "binary" packages.
> We are willing to tolerate noxious restrictions like the TeX ones only
> because they do not impact what we can distribute in the binary
> package: they only restr
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 02:04:55PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> A while ago, you gave a nice explanation of the correct meaning of the
> term "begging the question" as used in the study of logic and
> discourse.
>
> I'd like to thank you for helping to make sure everyone understands
> the con
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) Because the borders between the cases are ambiguous and uncertain.
>
> I sent a message a day or two ago (perhaps after you sent this one)
> which addresses that issue.
>
> 2) Because we want to be able to combine works from different sou
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Your casual suggestion to "pick whichever seems better" leaves out the
> object: better for whom? For the Free Software community? For the
> Free Software Foundation, whose goals are quite different?
>
> That is a cheap shot, because it
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The point I am making is that Debian might indeed remove the political
> essays from our manuals if they could be removed. A few months ago,
> some people said here that if only the invariant sections could be
> removed (even though they could not be
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you want to criticize the FSF based on things you can imagine we
> might do, I am sure you can imagine no end of nasty possibilities.
> The only answer necessary to them is that they are false.
You are criticizing Debian based on things you can im
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think
> > it needs to be possible to use text from manuals in a program.
> > A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals.
>
> And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as
>
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:35:46 -0400, David B Harris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:37:37 + (UTC)
> Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(I seem to have overlooked this message initially)
>> On 2003-09-27, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> I h
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 12:22:31PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> > Scanning all our packages for such snippets would be a truly
> > gargantuan task.
>
> And yet at the same time you claim that the inclusion of any particular
> such "snippet" was a
PS I should add that your "begging the question" message was quite
uncharacteristic, in that --- right or wrong --- your logic is
generally apparent and your exposition cogent and lucid.
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What are the advantages of keeping them?
>
> - The time and effort that would be spent on locating and removing them
> and maintaining a repackaged source archive can instead be spent on
> writing code and fixing bugs.
> - We maintain better relations
On Sunday, Sep 28, 2003, at 14:30 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
A good candidate would also be familiar with debian-legal's analysis
of the GFDL. Any of N Nerode, D Armstrong, or A DeRobertis would
I am neither a developer nor a NM applicant (yet); however, I would be
happy to serve.
On Sunday, Sep 28, 2003, at 21:35 US/Eastern, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
(1) Allowing snippets to be included is the current Debian practice,
so the burden of proof is on those who would propose to remove them
to show a compelling reason for doing so.
I propose that a compelling reason is the
On Sunday, Sep 28, 2003, at 19:34 US/Eastern, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning there.
You gave the "lemmings" argument (everyone else does X, so so should
we). He pointed out that in certain circumstances where everyone else
ignores non-freeness X, we don't.
On Monday, Sep 29, 2003, at 02:07 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Doesn't it prove
that he have great interest in both projects and so have reasons to be
constructive?
Maybe, but Debian people who are not familiar with his contributions to
-legal would see quite a conflict of interest.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:59:38AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> You gave the "lemmings" argument (everyone else does X, so so should
> we). He pointed out that in certain circumstances where everyone else
> ignores non-freeness X, we don't.
Which, incidentally, is one major reason I use De
On 2003-09-29, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday, Sep 28, 2003, at 14:30 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> A good candidate would also be familiar with debian-legal's analysis
>> of the GFDL. Any of N Nerode, D Armstrong, or A DeRobertis would
>
> I am neither a develo
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To be fair, the joke in poor taste is that we demand people speak English on
> this list, but my thoughts on that are well-known --
> http://ttt.esperanto.org/
Why, because more people speak Esperanto?
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sadly, it leaves him open to accusations from both sides that he is
> representing the other one instead of them. I'm not sure that those
> accusations should be taken seriously, but they are quite likely to
> happen, in my experience.
Um, well, I think on th
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > You don't even have to go through that much of a hassle.
> >
> > Old-Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> That could of been forged.
Note to self: when forging Anthony DeRobertis, spell it "could of".
Check.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 05:44:28PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> PS I should add that your "begging the question" message was quite
> uncharacteristic, in that --- right or wrong --- your logic is
> generally apparent and your exposition cogent and lucid.
I believe that is the most backhanded
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
> A good candidate would also be familiar with debian-legal's analysis
> of the GFDL. Any of N Nerode, D Armstrong, or A DeRobertis would
> serve well -- Branden Robinson would, I suspect, be objectionable to
> the FSF, and Thomas Bushnell is a GNU dev
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 01:11:37AM +, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> On 2003-09-29, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday, Sep 28, 2003, at 14:30 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> >> A good candidate would also be familiar with debian-legal's analysis
> >> of the GFDL. Any o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
> Bear in mind that Debian does distribute freely modifiable political
> text, for which the original author is *dead*, and yet his original
> words are still copied about substantially unchanged: the book of
> Amos, for example, in package bible-kjv-te
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, according to your defintion "software" is synonym to
> "digital information". Right?
Wrong. "Software" is synonymous with "information".
> Song written on CDDA is a software, whereas the song written on a
> analog magnetic tape (exactly the sam
> A good candidate would also be familiar with debian-legal's analysis
> of the GFDL.
This would only be the case if we had to prove that invariant sections are
outside of the DFSG. I don't think we will have to argue about that,
it's pretty obvious. But I can keep the people mentioned on call in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
> > A good candidate would also be familiar with debian-legal's analysis
> > of the GFDL.
>
> This would only be the case if we had to prove that invariant sections are
> outside of the DFSG. I don't think we will have to argue about that,
> it's pretty ob
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 13:13, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> "Software" is not a controversial word in English (roughly inverse of
> >> "hardware" in one sense). Some people advocate a bizarre definition of
> >> it in order to further their agenda. If you're
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 05:02:00PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 12:22:31PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> > > Scanning all our packages for such snippets would be a truly
> > > gargantuan task.
> >
> > And yet at th
On 2003-09-30 02:13:23 +0100 Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe that a "no" answer to
"Is an MP3 file software?" implies that the respondent's primary
definition of software is not "anything made of bits".
I think you are extrapolating too far from that little data.
The main poi
On 2003-09-30 02:11:43 +0100 "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
To be fair, the joke in poor taste is that we demand people speak
English
on this list, but my thoughts on that are well-known --
http://ttt.esperanto.org/
Why, because more peo
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2003-09-24 23:12:06 +0100 Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Software" is a controversial word in English.
>
> "Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the
> automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes." -
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 06:20:51PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> While, it seems to me that a joint committee is not properly there to
> interpret the DFSG to anyone, it does seem to be important to have
> someone who is very familiar with our general standards so that they
> can be aware of
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 03:14:24AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-09-30 02:11:43 +0100 "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>To be fair, the joke in poor taste is that we demand people speak
> >>English
> >>on this list, but my thoughts
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:39:35AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >*** A "snippet" is a file in a source tarball which:
>
> Oooh, ooh, can we put xroach back in as a snipet? Its not technical ---
> its a small toy --- and its not free (as we found out years after we
> started distributing it
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 05:02:00PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 12:22:31PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> > > Scanning all our packages for such snippets would be a truly
> > > gargantuan task.
> >
> > And yet at th
67 matches
Mail list logo
