On Aug 25, 2004, at 16:52, Matthew Garrett wrote:
You believe that there are some languages that are inherently non-free?
I'm still waiting to hear an example of something that patch clauses
actually make impossible.
I saw, at one point, a book (i.e., an actual dead tree book) which
containe
Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:41:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>>The following is an example of an unacceptable opinion for a Debian
>>applicant:
>>
>>>5a. The GNU Free Documentaion License (FDL) has been heavily
>>>discussed on debian-legal recently. Read
>>>http://people.d
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 08:51:52PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>
>> >>> I find badly writte
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 08:51:52PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >>> I find badly written perl approximately as hard to deal with as
> >>
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I find badly written perl approximately as hard to deal with as
>>> brainfuck. Do you believe that poor quality perl is non-free, or is the
>>> motive
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I find badly written perl approximately as hard to deal with as
>> brainfuck. Do you believe that poor quality perl is non-free, or is the
>> motive of the author important?
>
> I think it really dep
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> No. It means a user must have access to the source to have freedom.
>> C is often used as source. Obfuscated C is never used as source.
>> Write-only languages like Brainfuck are almost never sourc
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:19:44AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> No, I believe some sourceless programs are inherently non-free. If
>> >> they're not practically modifiable, then they can't be free
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:19:44AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> No, I believe some sourceless programs are inherently non-free. If
> >> they're not practically modifiable, then they can't be free software.
> >
> > Does this mean that a progra
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No. It means a user must have access to the source to have freedom.
> C is often used as source. Obfuscated C is never used as source.
> Write-only languages like Brainfuck are almost never source.
I find badly written perl approximately as hard
On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 08:51 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Your position on what's modifiable, and what's a preferred form of
> modification, is so far from the baselines of the project, or indeed
> the world, that you can only be characterized as extremist. In accord
> with your professed b
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> No, I believe some sourceless programs are inherently non-free. If
>> they're not practically modifiable, then they can't be free software.
>
> Does this mean that a program written in C is only free if the user you give
> it to is fluent in C ? Or can g
Your position on what's modifiable, and what's a preferred form of
modification, is so far from the baselines of the project, or indeed
the world, that you can only be characterized as extremist. In accord
with your professed beliefs, please refrain from advocating such
beliefs until such time as
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:30:03PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 15:25 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >
> >> Sure we can. I might convince you that they're in the wrong place --
> >> and certainly debian-legal is
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 12:12:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> What matters is that certain arguments voiced in debian-legal reduce the
> credibility of debian-legal, and that has a negative impact on the
> project as a whole.
Yes, arguments such as "Branden Robinson should not be taken into a
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, I think -project would be the appropriate place for those types of
> discussions (whether Debian's ideas of freeness are correct).
Ok, that sounds reasonable.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:00:56PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> My goal is to maintain Debian's standards of freedom at the point that
>> they are and where I believe they should be. You believe that those
>
> And in order to do so, you're labelling e
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 17:30 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > No, I don't think debian-legal /is/ the right place. Debian-legal is the
> > place to discuss whether a license is free or not based on Debian's
> > ideas of freeness, not whether Debian
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 15:25 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
>> Sure we can. I might convince you that they're in the wrong place --
>> and certainly debian-legal is the right place for that discussion. Or
>> you might convince me that they are i
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:52:33PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 15:25 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
> > Sure we can. I might convince you that they're in the wrong place --
> > and certainly debian-legal is the right place for that discussion. Or
> > you might con
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 15:25 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sure we can. I might convince you that they're in the wrong place --
> and certainly debian-legal is the right place for that discussion. Or
> you might convince me that they are in the right place. Neither of
> those is an axioma
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:00:56PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > My goal here is to convince you to stop labelling your opponents in
> > reasoned discussion extremists and thus unworthy of debate.
>
> My goal is to maintain Debian's standards of freedom at the point that
> they are and where I
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My goal is to maintain Debian's standards of freedom at the point that
> they are and where I believe they should be. You believe that those
> standards should be in a different place. Given the fundamental
> difference in viewpoint, I'm not convinced
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 09:38 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > �"surprising modifications"?
>
> Modifications which surprise the copyright holder -- code reuse which
> he didn't expect.
I think you're being insufficiently imaginative about build
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:43:01PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > So you believe that if we taught all developers about intricate
>> > licensing issues, the number who would be of the opinion
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:58:53AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
> >On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:34:43PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> >assume the rest of your argument holds true, the most you can say
> >> >about that is that they're a (perhaps unintentional) effort to
>
Andrew Suffield writes:
>On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:34:43PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> >assume the rest of your argument holds true, the most you can say
>> >about that is that they're a (perhaps unintentional) effort to
>> >sabotage the work of -legal.
>>
>> Simple question: what do you thin
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:34:43PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >"Extreme views" here is a meaningless term and an tasteless attempt at
> >demagoguery. I've tolerated it this far, but enough is enough; please
> >grow some manners. The validity of a viewpoint is not determined by
> >how close it c
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:34:43PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >I see no connection between this paragraph and the real world. Most of
> >the people on -legal who participate in the important stuff are also
> >critically short of time and tend to skip over useless threads. Most
> >of the useless
Andrew Suffield writes:
>On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 05:56:54PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> Thanks. Written in your typical patronising fashion, of course. That's
>> half the reason why a lot of people don't/won't take part in
>> discussions here.
>
>Unsubstiantiated assertion. Also unlikely, a
On 2004-08-24 17:56:54 +0100 Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes: [stuff]
Thanks. Written in your typical patronising fashion, of course. That's
half the reason why a lot of people don't/won't take part in
discussions here. [...]
I think I've disagreed with Andrew
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:43:01PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So you believe that if we taught all developers about intricate
> > licensing issues, the number who would be of the opinion that DFSG 4 is
> > a mistake and that the GPL is on
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 05:56:54PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
> >On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:01:37PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >>
> >> And it's not what he's claiming at all, as you well know. debian-legal
> >> currently includes a large number of people who are on
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:08:17AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 06:44:25PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > On 2004-08-24 17:55:43 +0100 Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:09:02AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > >>Really? *all*? So, what is the val
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> You don't appear to be arguing against the idea that debian-legal is
>>> extreme compared to the rest of the project.
>>
>> I'm arguing that what you pe
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 06:21:17PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> You don't appear to be arguing against the idea that debian-legal is
> >> extreme compared to the rest of the project.
> >
> > I'm
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You don't appear to be arguing against the idea that debian-legal is
>> extreme compared to the rest of the project.
>
> I'm arguing that what you perceive as extremism is simply the presence
> of know
Andrew Suffield writes:
>On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:01:37PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> And it's not what he's claiming at all, as you well know. debian-legal
>> currently includes a large number of people who are on the more
>> extreme end of the range of licensing opinions expressed withi
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 06:44:25PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-08-24 17:55:43 +0100 Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:09:02AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>Really? *all*? So, what is the value of having these questions in
> >>the NM
> >>process?
> >As I said,
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 06:18:56PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:06:39AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:41:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > The following is an example of an unacceptable opinion for a Debian
> > > applicant:
> > >
> >
On 2004-08-24 17:55:43 +0100 Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:09:02AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Really? *all*? So, what is the value of having these questions in
the NM
process?
As I said, to ensure the applicants understand the issues involved.
If *all* answers
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:06:39AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:41:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:08:34PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > > > Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what
> > > > answers to 5a and 6 wo
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:41:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:08:34PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > > Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what
> > > answers to 5a and 6 would be accepted, given the expressed views of
> > > some DDs. Anyway,
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> And I suspect the population of lisp maintainers who believe that the
>> feature macros are a grave mistake or that the path-name standards are
>> only still there because X3J13 insisted is greater t
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:09:02AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-08-24 04:08:34 +0100 Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[...] I accept *all* answers, even
>
> Really? *all*? So, what is the value of having these questions in the
> NM process?
As I said, to ensure the applicants unde
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:01:37PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
> >On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:16:06PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> The debian-legal mailing list is often "bashed" because it repreresents
> >> an extreme point of view relative to Debian proper.
> >
>
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:01:37PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
> >here. You don't have to be an attorney to understand the law, only to
> >practice it.
>
> But it's a great help in terms of understanding the meanings of lots
> of the *legal* license terms that are bandie
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 03:12:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I certainly agree. The thrust of my comments was to make sure NMs
> understand that licensing issues are often difficult, and that if one isn't
> prepared to wrestle with them oneself, one needs to place more trust in
> one's peer
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And I suspect the population of lisp maintainers who believe that the
> feature macros are a grave mistake or that the path-name standards are
> only still there because X3J13 insisted is greater than in the
> developer population at large. That's
On 2004-08-24 15:01:37 +0100 Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
currently includes a large number of people who are on the more
extreme end of the range of licensing opinions expressed within
Debian.
I find the concept of "the more extreme end of the range" odd. What,
there's only one
On 2004-08-24 15:15:30 +0100 Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
And I suspect the population of lisp maintainers who believe that the
feature macros are a grave mistake [...]
Arrrgh, this list was such a peaceful place. Why do you want to bring
that horrible flamewar here? ;-)
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Debian should ignore licenses and include everything in main.
>
> Sure, just move the main archive out of licence encoumbered country, and that
> would be all right. :)
Err, forget what i said. i thought of patents, not licences.
F
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:41:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:08:34PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > > Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what
> > > answers to 5a and 6 would be accepted, given the expressed views of
> > > some DDs. Anyway,
Andrew Suffield writes:
>On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:16:06PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> The debian-legal mailing list is often "bashed" because it repreresents
>> an extreme point of view relative to Debian proper.
>
>Being interested in licensing issues is "extreme"? That's quite a
>strange
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The proportion of the population of debian-legal who believe that the
> patch clause exemption in DFSG 4 is a grave mistake or that the GPL is
> only free because of DFSG 10 seems greater than in the developer
> population at large. That seems like a r
* Andrew Suffield:
> Yes. That's the whole point of the NM process. If this were not true
> then it would be unnecessary. The following is an example of an
> unacceptable opinion for a Debian applicant:
>
>> 5a. The GNU Free Documentaion License (FDL) has been heavily discussed
>> on debian-le
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:08:34PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what
> > answers to 5a and 6 would be accepted, given the expressed views of
> > some DDs. Anyway, we probably need some questions about the more
> > interesting things l
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:16:06PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> The debian-legal mailing list is often "bashed" because it repreresents
>> an extreme point of view relative to Debian proper.
>
> Being interested in licensing issues is "extreme"? T
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:16:06PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The debian-legal mailing list is often "bashed" because it repreresents
> an extreme point of view relative to Debian proper.
Being interested in licensing issues is "extreme"? That's quite a
strange thing to claim.
> > particul
On 2004-08-24 04:08:34 +0100 Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what
answers to
5a and 6 would be accepted, given the expressed views of some DDs.
[...]
I find it appalling that believe you think that some answers to 5a
and 6
s
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:17:13AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-08-23 21:16:06 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 03:12:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >>I am dismayed and exasperated by the recent trend of bashing the
> >>debian-legal list collectively,
> >I don't
On 2004-08-23 21:16:06 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 03:12:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I am dismayed and exasperated by the recent trend of bashing the
debian-legal list collectively,
I don't think turning around and blaming the NM process is a
reasonable
reac
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 03:12:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I certainly agree. The thrust of my comments was to make sure NMs
> understand that licensing issues are often difficult, and that if one isn't
> prepared to wrestle with them oneself, one needs to place more trust in
> one's peer
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 03:12:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [I am not subscribed to -newmaint.]
>
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 02:15:37PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
> > Hello Brian,
> >
> > * Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-09 12:58]:
> > > It can be really tough to test NM's who are
[I am not subscribed to -newmaint.]
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 02:15:37PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
> Hello Brian,
>
> * Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-09 12:58]:
> > It can be really tough to test NM's who are not native English speakers
> > about licensing issues. Legal text is very dif
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 07:07:11PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Apart from Raul Miller's[1], I have yet to read a rebutal to Manoj's draft
> position statement on the GNU FDL[2].
>
> If you would direct me to one which represents "the will of the project as
> a whole", I'd appreciate it.
>
>
Hello Brian,
* Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-09 12:58]:
> It can be really tough to test NM's who are not native English speakers
> about licensing issues. Legal text is very different from colloquial
> English, and non-native speakers are often completely overwhelmed.
> Hell, even na
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 06:57:03PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [I am not subscribed to -newmaint.]
>
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 08:37:40PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > For that matter, I'm not quite sure we should necessarily be subjecting
> > applicants to the joys of rigorous licence ana
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
> >
> >In general, I find this complaining about debian-legal to be
> >misplaced. It is as if people started complaining that the french
> >localization list came up with a french style guide without
> >"consulting" anyone (oh, and
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 06:05:56AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 03:39:01AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > I echo his point that this probably needs to be justified.
> >
> > In all of the cases to date, where we've gone again
[I am not subscribed to -newmaint.]
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 08:37:40PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> For that matter, I'm not quite sure we should necessarily be subjecting
> applicants to the joys of rigorous licence analysis. We have d-legal for
> this purpose just so maintainers don't have to
Walter Landry writes:
>
>In general, I find this complaining about debian-legal to be
>misplaced. It is as if people started complaining that the french
>localization list came up with a french style guide without
>"consulting" anyone (oh, and they use this strange terminology called
>"French" to
Josh Triplett writes:
>Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Again, you're exaggerating this. Some license clauses are clearly,
>> unambiguously not free. Others are not. If we've seen several
>> variations along the same theme where there is a clear consensus that
>> such a thing is non-free, _that's_ when I'm
Joe Moore writes:
>
>The freeness of a package effects much more than just the programmers.
>It effect the users too. Please don't exclude the users that are
>interested.
Of course users are important to us, and we need to listen to their
opinions. But when it comes to making real decisions, DD
Walter Landry wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>>>Josh Triplett writes:
>>>
With that in mind, what if we just amended the DFSG to include a
statement at the top explicitly acknowledging the "Guidelines"
interpretation, and pointing out tha
* Walter Landry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040806 14:10]:
> If there are people who disagree with the conclusions of debian-legal,
> then they are free to discuss it on this mailing list. This has
> happened numerous times. You seem to want to force people to care
> about such issues. If they care, th
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > Josh Triplett writes:
> >>With that in mind, what if we just amended the DFSG to include a
> >>statement at the top explicitly acknowledging the "Guidelines"
> >>interpretation, and pointing out that the DFSG is not an exhaustive
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 03:39:01AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > I echo his point that this probably needs to be justified.
> >
> > In all of the cases to date, where we've gone against the
> > interpretat
Josh Triplett wrote:
As for some debian-legal members not being developers :), that is an
issue to consider as well. On the one hand, many contributors to
debian-legal are not DDs. On the other hand, we don't really want
single-shot opinion mails from people uninterested in rational
discussion.
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Josh Triplett writes:
>>Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>>>But it seems that codifying the more common non-free clauses would
>>>remove some of the ambiguities in the DFSG, and then people on -legal
>>>would have less to hand-wave about. That seems to be a core
>>>objection...
>>
>
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 08:24:24PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Actually, Matthew Garrett convinced me that choice of venue could be
> DFSG-free (see, our opinions are not set in stone), although I still
> dislike it; see the bottom of
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00812.h
Nathanael Nerode writes:
> Actually, Matthew Garrett convinced me that choice of venue could be
> DFSG-free (see, our opinions are not set in stone), although I still
> dislike it; see the bottom of
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00812.html, which
> nobody commented on.
Since a
Apologies for the thread break; reading from *not* my usual computer.
Glenn Maynard wrote:
Regardless of whether choice of venue is a "fee", the only people I've
seen who appear to believe that choice of venue is free are you, Lex
Spoon and Sven Luther.
On the other side, we appear to have: Edm
Josh Triplett writes:
>Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> But it seems that codifying the more common non-free clauses would
>> remove some of the ambiguities in the DFSG, and then people on -legal
>> would have less to hand-wave about. That seems to be a core
>> objection...
>
>No, I think the main obje
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> David Nusinow writes:
>
>>2) Steve McIntyre has continually suggested codifying the various things in
>>the
>>DFSG. I fully agree with this. If you really truly believe that your
>>interpretations are shared by the rest of the project, then you have nothing
>>to
>>fear fr
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 03:39:01AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, David Nusinow wrote:
> > This is going to sound really bad, and I'm not trying to stir up
> > trouble in saying this, but perhaps the guidelines need weakening?
>
> So we should be willing to give up more of the
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 04:28:41AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 09:57:53AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > On 2004-07-28 03:35:31 +0100 David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >1) MJ Ray has suggested doing more work with people in the NM queue.
> > >[...]
> > As s
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, David Nusinow wrote:
> This is going to sound really bad, and I'm not trying to stir up
> trouble in saying this, but perhaps the guidelines need weakening?
So we should be willing to give up more of the freedom that we now
need in order to have a work in Debian?
> current in
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 09:57:53AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-28 03:35:31 +0100 David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >1) MJ Ray has suggested doing more work with people in the NM queue.
> >[...]
> As should be obvious, I don't understand the NM black box. How would
> we do thi
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 01:05:45AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> It's fairly easy to say "we're debating the QPL; this may affect these
> packages ...", but it's very hard to do the same for a specific restriction,
> which is probably what you're really looking for. The best that could be
> hoped
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 10:55:21AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
> >On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 01:42:56PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> >> This sort
> >> of declaration of consensus despite a lack of clarity grounded in the DFSG
> >> is
> >> exactly what's caused so much ire
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 09:46:00PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 02:00:53AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 05:56:16PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > DD's
> > > have universally agreed to uphold the DFSG, not some additional material
> > > that'
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 01:34:04PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> It's these sorts of potential problems, IMO, which have stifled DFSG
> amendments.
Mostly it's just a lack of time. You would not believe how much work
it takes to put something like this together. I'm kinda planning on
seeing it ha
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If it was, and the project as a whole really did agree that the things
> being argued recently--choice of venue, license-termination-at-my-slightest-
> whim, forced distribution to upstream on demand, forced archival of source
> for years (GPL#3b without
Andrew Suffield writes:
>On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 01:42:56PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
>> This sort
>> of declaration of consensus despite a lack of clarity grounded in the DFSG is
>> exactly what's caused so much ire within the rest of the project towards this
>> list.
>
>No, firstly (a) that's j
David Nusinow writes:
>On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 11:52:42PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> It can help, though. There are multiple discussions going on here:
>> 1: "does DFSG#1 only prohibit fees, or other stuff, too? What's a
>> fee? Where's my dictionary?"; and 2: "is choice of venue an onerous
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 10:35:35AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > My opinion is that choice of venue is a restriction, and that "fees" are
> > just
> > one example of restrictions which "may not restrict" in DFSG#1 disallows.
>
> DFSG #1 says : "may not restrict any party from selling or giving aw
David Nusinow writes:
>
>2) Steve McIntyre has continually suggested codifying the various things in the
>DFSG. I fully agree with this. If you really truly believe that your
>interpretations are shared by the rest of the project, then you have nothing to
>fear from this, and you only stand to gain
* David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040728 00:58]:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 06:27:36PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > I find 80% to be pretty clear. I guess you're one of the people claiming
> > that there's a silent majority secretly disagreeing with the vast majority
> > of d-legal (who can't
On 2004-07-28 03:35:31 +0100 David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
1) MJ Ray has suggested doing more work with people in the NM queue.
[...]
As should be obvious, I don't understand the NM black box. How would
we do this?
2) Steve McIntyre has continually suggested codifying [...]
I
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
