Andrew Suffield writes:
> If you are handing [out binary CDs] then you should also be prepared to
> hand out source CDs to anybody who wants one.
Or provide a written offer.
--
John Hasler
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 09:28:59PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Florian Weimer dijo [Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 10:16:11PM +0100]:
> > > So... If I hand over a Debian CD to someone, will I be breaching the
> > > law as I am giving him only the binaries, even if they have a very
> > > easy way of getting t
Florian Weimer dijo [Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 10:16:11PM +0100]:
> > So... If I hand over a Debian CD to someone, will I be breaching the
> > law as I am giving him only the binaries, even if they have a very
> > easy way of getting the sources?
>
> It's generally believed that it's sufficient to offe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Gunnar Wolf:
>
>>> No, Debian distributes source and binaries on the same (virtual)
>>> medium. This is different from handing over a physical object with
>>> the "binary" and providing a URL for some re
Florian Weimer dijo [Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 07:22:45PM +0100]:
> >> This is an unusual GPL interpretation. Most commentators assume that
> >> providing a *separate* URL is *not* enough.
> >
> > That's exactly what Debian does, isn't it?
>
> No, Debian distributes source and binaries on the same (vi
* Gunnar Wolf:
>> No, Debian distributes source and binaries on the same (virtual)
>> medium. This is different from handing over a physical object with
>> the "binary" and providing a URL for some resource on the Internet.
>
> So... If I hand over a Debian CD to someone, will I be breaching the
Florian Weimer dijo [Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 07:14:55PM +0100]:
> > Well... Remember the GPL does not require you to provide the sources
> > _together_ with the binary/printout/whatever - It requires you to
> > provide means to get the sources. So if you print a book that [...]
> > has the URL for the
Florian Weimer dijo [Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 02:21:00PM +0100]:
> I'd prefer a slightly different set of freedoms, but this goal is
> impractical. For instance, I believe that the GNU GPL is not a free
> documentation license because it unnecessarily complicates the
> distribution of printed copies,
* Gunnar Wolf:
> Florian Weimer dijo [Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 07:14:55PM +0100]:
>> > Well... Remember the GPL does not require you to provide the sources
>> > _together_ with the binary/printout/whatever - It requires you to
>> > provide means to get the sources. So if you print a book that [...]
>>
* Gunnar Wolf:
> Well... Remember the GPL does not require you to provide the sources
> _together_ with the binary/printout/whatever - It requires you to
> provide means to get the sources. So if you print a book that [...]
> has the URL for the place you can refer to in order to get the
> source,
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 02:21:00PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett:
>
> > Perhaps an easier way to do this would be to look at the DFSG and work
> > out what changes need to be made. We have a set of freedoms that we
> > believe software should provide - rather than providing an e
* Matthew Garrett:
> Perhaps an easier way to do this would be to look at the DFSG and work
> out what changes need to be made. We have a set of freedoms that we
> believe software should provide - rather than providing an entirely
> different set of freedoms for documentation, we should try to ju
Peter Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just checked my dictionaries and checked "define:software" on Google, and
> most sources define software along the lines of "computing programs designed
> to perform various applications, e.g. word processing"[1]. That is, only the
> pieces of informati
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Henrique de Moraes Holschuh:
> >2. The freedom to study how the text is written, and adapt it to your
> > needs. Access to the text in the preferred form for modification is a
> > precondition for this. This includes the ability to modify the work
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh:
>2. The freedom to study how the text is written, and adapt it to your
> needs. Access to the text in the preferred form for modification is a
> precondition for this. This includes the ability to modify the work to fit
> in low memory situations, reference cards
Peter Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is it so clear that in Debian, we chose to subscribe to the second
> definition? Apparently from these discussions that pop up every now and then
> there are several people that agree more with the first one (that would
> include me).
It doesn't
Jacobo Tarrio:
For Debian, software is everything that is stored or transmitted in
digital form.
I just checked my dictionaries and checked "define:software" on Google, and
most sources define software along the lines of "computing programs designed
to perform various applications, e.g. word
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2005, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
>> If in main, what distinguishes the bits in a document (README.TXT) from
>> the program (hello_world)? If in doc/main, would there be a single
>
> Since this is an old point, and we already
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Here is my problem, and my take, on the situation. If we have a Free
> Documentation Guideline, where would these documents reside? In main? In
> doc/main?
Wherever they are now. If they are acceptable, they go in main somewhere,
this really matt
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005, David Schmitt wrote:
> And here the whole thing falls on its face: As I read it in the other
> messages, GFDL docs with (big) invariant sections must be rejected under
> this point, thus adopting such a policy wouldn't change the situation much.
This is a *given*. The DFDG
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't believe that Documentation is similiar enough to Software that
>> we can blindly apply the DFSG.
>
> Please explain what documentation is in debian which is not also software.
> That is conspicuously absent from
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > We wrote the Debian /Free Software/ Guidelines, there isn't anything
> > stopping us from creating the Debian /Free Documentation/ Guidelines.
>
> Indeed. And as you suggested, we can just
Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't believe that Documentation is similiar enough to Software that
> we can blindly apply the DFSG.
Please explain what documentation is in debian which is not also software.
That is conspicuously absent from your summary. I suggest that there is
no no
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
As for what could compose the DFDG, there is a farily good set of ideas on
Manoj's page (which are in line with the DFSG):
< begin quote >
Freedoms for Documentation
Analogous to the software program freedoms, we need to articulate the
freedoms required for th
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005, Anand Kumria wrote:
> We wrote the Debian /Free Software/ Guidelines, there isn't anything
> stopping us from creating the Debian /Free Documentation/ Guidelines.
Indeed. And as you suggested, we can just let the maintainer choose whether
a document is to foll
O Mércores, 5 de Xaneiro de 2005 ás 03:39:25 +1100, Anand Kumria escribía:
> We wrote the Debian /Free Software/ Guidelines, there isn't anything
> stopping us from creating the Debian /Free Documentation/ Guidelines.
For Debian, software is everything that is stored or transmitted
Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(Re: requirements for documentation)
> There are many more contentious points that we ought to be able to
> enumerate as we did in while creating the DFSG. I shall try to post a
> summary, frequently, of guidelines raised to keep discussion progressing[1].
gmatists, and bend the DFSG, or make the DFSG more
> accomodating, in which case it could be argued that we will be taking
> the DFSG more seriously.
[snip]
Or we can take what is behind Door number 3!
We wrote the Debian /Free Software/ Guidelines, there isn't anything
stopping us from
28 matches
Mail list logo
