On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:20:18 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote:
> Personally, I think that we can make this distinction, but actually,
> we shouldn't, at least for technical documentation which describes how
> a program works. If we change the program, we sometimes need to
> change the documentation. I
On 7/28/05, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050727 18:45]:
> > On 7/27/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd prefer to approach this issue from a different direction.
> >
> > The point behind the DFSG is that we need to be able to solve
* Francesco Poli:
> But if you propose to disable DFSG#2 for non-programs, you have to
> propose a criterion to tell programs and non-programs apart.
> IOW, you must be able to tell when DFSG#2 must be applied and when it
> may be ignored...
It's enough if we are sufficiently confident that such
* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050727 18:45]:
> On 7/27/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Uh, I don't? I said that the other guidelines are *applicable* to
> > non-program works, and *should be applied* to non-program works -- not that,
> > as presently written, we are obliged
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:52:15 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 12:28:23AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > I fail to understand how you justify your reading of "program" as
> > program in DFSG#2 while you read "program" as work in the other
> > guidelines at the same time
On 7/27/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Uh, I don't? I said that the other guidelines are *applicable* to
> non-program works, and *should be applied* to non-program works -- not that,
> as presently written, we are obliged to apply them to non-program works.
I'd prefer to approac
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 12:28:23AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 05:17:35 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I think that clauses 6, 7, and 8 are applicable to documentation and
> > data as well as to programs, and I think that they're rules that
> > Debian should follow for ever
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:28:23 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
[some hopefully useful contributions to the discussion, but with *wrong*
Mail-Followup-To:]
Please, ignore the wrong Mail-Followup-To: set in the my previous
message.
I forgot to disable it! :-(
I really really apologize.
Sylpheed authors
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 05:17:35 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> I think that clauses 6, 7, and 8 are applicable to documentation and
> data as well as to programs, and I think that they're rules that
> Debian should follow for everything we distribute.
>
> I think that clause 2 is *not* clearly applic
9 matches
Mail list logo
