MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Personally, I'm not bothered if people put "under the same terms
> > > as otherthing" as we can do a reasonable substitu
n" is a language, not a program, and does not have a license.
Alternately, "Python" is a distribution of a language and standard
library, and has many licenses (with potentially conflicting terms). In
neither case is "Under the same terms as Python" acceptable.
These argum
ng problems aren't restricted to only popular languages. :)
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
ules in the archive.
I sent an email to Mark Pilgrim on December 4th asking for clarification
on this, but haven't gotten a response yet.
Is this assesment accurate? Should I file bugs?
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER
RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF
CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN
CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTEC
On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 21:25, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 08:24:46PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > How do you feel about specifying what is *not* the preferred form of
> > modification ("object code", in GPL parlance)?
>
> It's likely t
s *not* the preferred form of
modification ("object code", in GPL parlance)?
I've a number of documents that say "References to "object code" and
"executables" in the GNU GPL are to be interpreted as the output of any
document formatting or typesetting system, including intermediate and
printed output." Some of them I've written, but I borrowed the wording
from something else (I suspect in Debian), and I've encouraged people to
use this phrasing many times since.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ent.xhtml only lists
those three. I've not read a more exhaustive treatment yet; if you have
a reference in the -legal archives I'd like to see it.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 15:55, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Specifically, would it be possible to
> >> 1) Allow storage/transmission on encrypted filesystems/links to
> >>counter the "DRM restriction"?
> >
a program and vice versa, which is a common case in software
documentation.
If upstream really needs a documentation-specific license, one
possibility is releasing the documentation under a GFDL/GPL dual
license. If the author does this, then we don't even need exceptions to
the GFDL, because the GPL alone is free.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
That word shouldn't be there.
It is in the license that started this thread.
> thread (which presumably is somewhere in the X.org source, and will be
> in a future Debian X release). It is not found in the Open Group
> license.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signatu
On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 14:14, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> >The X license also says permission is granted "subject to the following
> >conditions" (note the plural);
>
> What X license are you reading? I'm reading
> http://www.x.or
ntial portions of the Software." is also an assertion. The verb of
obligation in question, "shall", is used in this clause and the
"dealings" one.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
e following
conditions" (note the plural); under your interpretation of the license,
that's grammatically incorrect because there's only one condition.
I think the wording of the license suggests that the bit after the
warranty disclaimer is itself a condition (and for that mat
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 03:45, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-08-09 06:17:17 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Since February, -legal has had an "official" (as official as they get)
> > document claiming that even without further annoyances from X-Oz
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 11:02, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 03:31, MJ Ray wrote:
> >> On 2004-08-09 05:35:10 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 04:59, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-08-09 10:38:45 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I don't see the difference. I mean, I see the difference that one can
> > be
> > read as an "assertion" and the other can be rea
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 03:31, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-08-09 05:35:10 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Clause 4 -- which you declared non-free in that thread *before* public
> > conversations with X-Oz, and Brian declared non-free at the start of
> &g
On Sun, 2004-08-08 at 17:57, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:20:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 11:15, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > The summary claims that clause 4 makes the license non-free.
>
> ...because we don't u
On Sun, 2004-08-08 at 17:44, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:33:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > Now, that just means it *was* consensus. If it is no longer consensus
> > (and it better not be), we need to look at how such an egregious mistake
> > hap
On Sun, 2004-08-08 at 18:38, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:10:44AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 09:31, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:03:33PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
> > > > "Debia
e that means the author is letting
you exercise the formerly listed freedoms without paying him or her
money.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
1. Don't Cc me, I am on the list.
On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 14:59, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:33:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 13:35, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wro
On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 14:17, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> >> Brian, stop calling the MIT and 3 clause BSD licenses non-free. If
> >> anyone needed e
On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 13:35, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > Brian, stop calling the MIT and 3 clause BSD licenses non-free. If
> > anyone needed evidence that debian-legal has become overreaching and
> &g
ce the free
software community was defined initially by the people distributing
software under this and other licenses.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 15:02, Simon Law wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 05:15:16PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 09:31, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 11:15, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 09:31, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:03:33PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
> >> > "Debian Legal
xcept as contained in this notice, the name of Software in the Public
Interest, Inc. shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote
the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written
authorization from Software in the Public Interest, Inc."
> It's not jus
o look at the copyright notice of the software ?
>
> Yes, I could, but I can't make some true statements! That can't be free.
Then US copyright law prevents any licenses from being free.
Brian, stop calling the MIT and 3 clause BSD licenses non-free. If
anyone needed evidence that debian-legal has become overreaching and
useless, it's here.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
at the start of this thread is, with the
> execption of whos names it protects, word-for-word identical.
>
> Am I missing something?
Yes. Clause 3 is the GPL-incompatible non-free one. Clause 4 is standard
boilerplate, found in many licenses (it's also superfluous, being
written
On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 23:32, Ryan Underwood wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:23:37PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > > opinions aren't going to work for policy. For non-program files such as
> > > multimedia or publications, there should be a master list of MIME types
the GPL's is a very good place to start, and I think
most everyone agrees with me on this point. I think it might also end
there, based on my definition of "preferred"; others, like Glenn and if
I remember correctly Thomas Bushnell, disagree. I think most people
involved (especia
hy I drew a distinction between "creation" and "modification"
before; the "created" form (huge uncompressed wavs) don't give you much,
if any, more "editability" than Vorbis, in the sense that you can apply
filters, cut, etc, Vorbis files just as well as
clared the vast majority of XFree
> > non-free.
> >
> > (That's almost the exact wording used in the XFree license)
>
> (and the standard MIT/X11 licence, mostly copyrighted to
> institutions/entities that no longer exist.)
And the 3 clause BSD license.
--
Joe Wreschn
On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 03:38, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> The preferred form of modification is not always the same as the
> preferred form for creation. I keep the latter for modifying stuff; I
> don't always (probably rarely) keep the former,
Of course, that's backwards...
--
Jo
te that they do
keep.
I do agree that having the preferred form of modification -- the form
the author uses for modification -- is absolutely essential.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
've come to the conclusion that
because the .doc reader itself is free and because many of our users
might want to open .docs (even though they are proprietary pieces of
shit), we include the reader.
Prior to the inclusion of OpenOffice, I don't even think we had anything
that could generate free .docs (no, AbiWord can't); I believe GCC can
generate free Gameboy binaries.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 15:54, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> Primarily GR 2004-003, which just got its first CFV.
By which of course I meant GR 2004-004, which is only *about* GR
2004-003.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
> >> conclusion they communicate to me, and none of them resemble each other.
>
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 02:26:05PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > I agree with Michael Poole insofar as this message. Here's an attempt at
> > an unbiased summary:
> > There are f
al. If 3) and 4)
are not copyright infringement (I and others believe they are, Michael
and others believe they are not, that is what this debate is about), we
*could* potentially suspend the SC/DFSG and release with them. I think
this is also a bad idea, but it's feasible. If 3) and 4) are
g00064.html
Depending on the outcome of GRs, it might change so that only the former
class has to be removed.
Either way, firmware not licensed under a GPL-compatible license needs
to be removed.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
ailable regarding the GPL.
> Surely if
> anyone should be concerned, it's one with a half-billion dollar market
> capitalisation rather than one with tens of thousands in its bank account.
Why should we accept this argument for firmware when we didn't accept it
for KDE? And
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 22:42, Michael Poole wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig writes:
>
> > Step by step, tell me where you start to disagree:
> >
> > If I write a program that contains the entire ls source code as one
> > large C string, and then prints it out, that is a deriva
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 21:59, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> Step by step, tell me where you start to disagree:
>
> If I write a program that contains the entire ls source code as one
> large C string, and then prints it out, that is a derivative work of the
> ls source.
>
> If I
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 18:32, Michael Poole wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig writes:
>
> > On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 17:18, Michael Poole wrote:
> >> A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00130.html
&
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 18:48, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> [snip]
> > When you compile a kernel, the firmware is included in it. When you
> > distribute that compiled binary, you're distributing a work derived from
> > the kernel and the firmware.
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 17:18, Michael Poole wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:21:38PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> >
> > [firmware as mere aggregation]
> >> Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
&g
[Moving to -kernel and -legal instead of -kernel and -devel.]
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 12:56, Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 16/06/2004 14:31 : wrote Joe Wreschnig :
>
> > On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 09:41, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 09:01:52PM
the letter of it, unless we find out otherwise"
precedent that's being set by this; we didn't accept it for KDE, so why
is it okay for the kernel?
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
sion they are at least in the US, because of the implied
warranties that are disclaimed by most licenses.)
[0] http://www.norvig.com/license.html
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
makefile in the original tgz is
> designed this way.
In the same way a C program's makefile generates an "unreadable"
executable from multiple source files, Moosic's generates an
"unreadable" base64 encoded set of Python bytecodes.
If you apt-get source moosic, y
do it prominently, all caps, whatever. But we will not walk out on stage
(print messages during use of the software) to advertise your
filesystem.
We do follow that model, it does work, and it is the right thing to do.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
notoriously forgetful or ignorant of such
things; but unless they do that, Debian (in fact anyone but the
copyright holder) cannot distribute applications linked against the
library. I find that the authors that are aware of licensing issues, are
also the kind who prefer not to grant GPL except
everal times on OGF-L, and it also makes sense to me personally: The
computation part of a game would be patented, but the "data" -- that is,
tables of spells -- would be copyrighted.
OTOH you can make a game very similar to Spellcast but with different
spells, and you're legally in the clear (that doesn't mean you won't be
sued -- it means you're likely to win any such suit).
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
d that Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software, regardless of the
work it takes me.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
leased entirely
under the GNU GPL).
The DFSG and SC are free, I believe they're under the Open Publication
License (with no options exercised).
If I looked harder I could find more.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 01:08, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>
> > On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 14:13, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > On 2003-09-23 00:45:52 +0100 Andrew Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > [2] Ok
ely anecdotal, I'm the only person I know of that uses "free
software" around here (University of Minnesota). All the professors use
"open source" (or rarely, "public software", "freeware", or some other
term), as do my friends and classmates.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
tion of contrib.
contrib is meant for circumventing "technical" requirements like shared
libraries. The GFDL is a legal requirement.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
).
Regardless of how things behave in a perfect world, the reality is that
hundreds of thousands of programs embed documentation within them, and
for IMO perfectly valid reasons.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 17:18, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> On 2003-09-16, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Your problem is here. Quote more carefully next time.
> >> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ing can get into Debian. If you
want something else to get into Debian, you need to propose definitions
or guidelines on -project as a GR.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
refers to any such program or work..."
Thus, anything I license under the GPL is by its definition, a Program.
It just has to be any work that can be licensed under copyright law.
This can be a program, but it can also be a not-program.
> <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
s free.
No one thinks this is the case, though. Or rather, I hope no one does.
Debian sure doesn't.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 17:59, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:49:06AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 14:49, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > > I would say that the LPPL is not equal. Because it requires you to
> > > change the name
e LPPL is not equal. Because it requires you to
> change the name of the files you modify and that's a direct problem
> when using LaTeX.
Actually, one of the reasons this was considered "acceptable" by many,
is because it's *not* a direct problem using LaTeX. LaTeX has convenien
ted in the toolbar and menus, and so it's
probably closer to 80-100. However, that's *solely* for the mail
composing window. I'd say 500 sentences - about 2000 words - would be a
minimum for Evolution. Emacs? I don't even want to think about it.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
cratch). But, these are not non-free *licenses*, they are non-free
*laws*.
So in your opinion, what does make a license non-free? This is not a
rhetorical question; I am honestly interested in both your opinion on
this question, and your opinion on my answer to it above.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
ly mentioned it. The only times the FSF (in the form of
RMS) have approached "us" as a project, is on debian-legal, and he has
made it very clear that he has no intention of changing the GNU FDL.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
ould this count as obscuring
the document? What if I just chose a really really hard to read font?
Now I *really* don't see the point of invariant sections. Either you can
do a simple cipher of them and not infringe, or you have to use the
highest quality fonts and printing methods available...
-
uses
invariant sections extensively. Since these are the manuals a few people
are trying to keep in Debian regardless of their freeness, this ad hoc
solution will be just as unpopular as removing all FDLd documentation
from main. So we might as well do it right, and remove it all.
--
Joe Wreschnig
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 21:50, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-08-28 03:41:47 +0100 Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I use "documentation" in the strictest sense here
> > [...] free publication license. Sorry for the confusion.
>
> "Documentation"
ug 27, 2003 at 03:39:11PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > Just because the FSF is the first to release a free documentation
> > *license*, doesn't mean it was the first to come up with free
> > documentation *criteria*.
>
> Even that is not true. The "OPL" (O
first to release a
free documentation *license*, doesn't mean it was the first to come up
with free documentation *criteria*.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 03:08, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to
> > > distribute something else than software.
> >
> > The social contract says
ered as such. You shall not modify someone speech, you shall
> > > not cut some part of someone's speech and tell everyone that you
> > > wrote it, and so on.
> > > There are limits everywhere in everyone's freedom.
> >
> > We shall not distribute it.
>
> This is an extreme vision of freedom I do not share.
So Debian doesn't have the freedom to *not* distribute GNU manuals? This
makes no sense.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
GNU manuals or programs when they are normally
distributed together, the specific example is unimportant.
Do you think this was the fault of open source movement (or those
misinformed by their rhetoric), or perhaps was it someone concerned
about disk or physical (e.g. number of printed pages) sp
or others misunderstood the statement that the FSF is
working to make the GFDL and GPL compatible licenses, and didn't
consider the possibility that it was the GPL that would be modified.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
ents will need to
be made to the Social Contract, and some sort of "Debian Free
Documentation Guidelines" outlining the necessary freedoms for
documentation needs to be proposed and voted on.
No one has yet done this, for various reasons.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
one wants to modify to
main, too. It won't make Debian any less free.
I think qmail would make a great first package for this new "if I don't
want to modify it, it's free no matter what" policy; I hear it's written
so expertly that the author doesn't want anyone else perverting his
"vision" of the code.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
hard to maintain a complete free software
operating system, clearly non-free software is being advocated by you,
and published by the Free Programs-But-Not-Documentation Foundation.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
r all subsequent authors and users.
> Interest of distributor is non-issue.
So go start your own undistributable GNU/Linux distribution. As a
distributor, Debian doesn't consider our interest a non-issue.
Your arguments get stupider with each new message of yours I read. Let's
fix that.
*plonk*
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 19:46, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> O Domingo, 24 de Agosto de 2003 ás 19:36:20 -0500, Joe Wreschnig escribía:
>
> > How about the GPL v2? "The source code for a work means the preferred
> > form of the work for making modifications to it"; binary or
#x27;ve seen, are already
present in the GPL v2. It's really a wonderful license.
The problem is that some organizations, like the FSF, seem to be
hell-bent on distributing non-free documentation to accompany their free
programs.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
e GPL to *add*
> invariant sections takes a lot.
Good, I'm not the only one that read it that way...
Hopefully RMS clarifies this in his replies.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
d
> counter-censorship measures in its license.
Thankfully I don't know anyone else advocating the GFDL who holds an
opinion this stupid. Also thankfully, you've hopefully guaranteed that
no one else involved in any side of this debate will take you seriously.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
use any of the GCC manual in
writing it.
Saying this is a "license incompatibility" is like saying I can't
integrate Windows source into the Linux kernel because it's a license
incompatibility. Strictly, it is, but no one would ever call it that
because the "incompatibilit
ompatibility problem and is going to work this out, as soon
> as it gets enough manpower.
Since I see no way to reconcile GPL-compatibility and maintaining the
invariance of invariant sections, should I believe this is not the case
(and possibly never was)?
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROT
f the FSF speak up about this
issue -- is this change to the GFDL happening? Does it actually address
Debian's concerns, or are invariant sections and transparent formats
going to remain?
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 04:54, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> This is in policy (and the social contract) already. Maintainers must
> review the source code they package.
I realized after I sent this that it doesn't convey what I actually
meant. Maintainers must not put non-free software in mai
in the bounds of the
license. What's tainted is not the GFDL, but the freeness of the
document.
> and make it a _must_ for maintainers to review the documents and turn
> the documentation into non-free packages when needed.
This is in policy (and the social contract) alrea
ce).
The GPL says you have to distribute the source, which is your preferred
format for modification. The GFDL says you have to distribute the
source, and that the source has to be in the *FSF's* preferred form for
modification.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
> Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS.
>
> [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion.
>
> Part 2. Status of Respondent
>
> Please mark with an "X" the following item only if it is true.
>
> [ X ]
is clearly non-free. While
> FDL seems to be disputable on this list.
Repeating over and over "FDL seems to be disputable on this list" does
not make the FDL disputed, it just makes you contridictory.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 02:49, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 18:38, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 22:39, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > >That's an overly-expansive view of software. You would include
> > > >anything that i
t;off-air TV signals,
> > (actually, off-air TV signals are partly analogue, FYI...)
>
> Except for the newer digital TV broadcasts, completely analogue.
^^^
What?
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
h as our bug-tracking system and mailing
> lists) for non-free software packages
> ==
>
> This part clearly says, which kind of software is supported by Debian.
If this software is supported by Debian, you should have no qualms about
moving the FSF's manuals and RFCs there.
--
the best solution, and it has happened in some cases iirc, but I
don't see the FSF doing it in the near future.
c) Someone proposes a GR with new guidelines, rather than shouting "free
enough" at the top of their lungs. Then we can all laugh at the terrible
wording of this GR, as th
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 14:03, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Tuesday, Aug 5, 2003, at 18:39 US/Eastern, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
>
> > If I hack the hell out of some yacc/lex output and put that in my
> > program, the yacc/lex files aren't the source anymore, the C code
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
