Some poorly informed person ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>I get it already, everything is "software" in Debian and that issue is simply
>not up for debate or vote. (Some people on your side are just more direct ?
>about it.)
Actually, there were several years of debates and two full-scale votes,
Chris Bannister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 11:38:40AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 05:19:18PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>> > Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
>> > > Very few responses for an universe as big as debian-user, I think.
>> > > http://lists.deb
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 08:17:44PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> Oh now I feel guilty. Without trying to sound flippant, does it concern
> the 'average' debian user? Is it holding up the release of sarge? I
> don't subscribe to debian-devel or debian-legal.
>
> Should the 'average Joe Blogg debi
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 11:38:40AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 05:19:18PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> > > Very few responses for an universe as big as debian-user, I think.
> > > http://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-user.png
> >
> > Thanks for t
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> making the conversation mysteriously vanish for people on d-user.
Making this conversation mysteriously vanish would be a blessing,
I think. It has long since moved on from the poll results to a
more general result. Can one or more of the participants refocus
the discussion
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
debian-user dropped, because I don't read that list.
Fine, but please cc replies because I'm not on the debian-project list.
Marty wrote:
I accept this vote regarding "Free Software," but I don't accept your
implicit re-definition of the word "software" to include docum
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 07:43:47PM -0400, Marty wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
> >On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 06:02:25PM -0400, Marty wrote:
> >>Glenn Maynard wrote:
> >>> http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003
> >>>
> >>> "1. Debian will remain 100% free
> >>>
> >>> We provide the guidelines that
(fwd to d-user)
> debian-user dropped, because I don't read that list.
No, please retain list CC's. They're used to allow people who are only
on one of several lists to follow a thread; in this case, d-project
allows me and you to read it, and d-user allows people on d-user to
read it. There's
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 03:03:58PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> According to http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004, 255 people voted for
> option 4 (rescind 003) over the default option. That definitely met quorum;
> it's even more than voted altogether in the preceding GR. The option did
>
debian-user dropped, because I don't read that list.
Marty wrote:
>
> I accept this vote regarding "Free Software," but I don't accept your
> implicit re-definition of the word "software" to include documentation.
No one is redefining documentation, nor software.
This is very simple: software
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 06:02:25PM -0400, Marty wrote:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003
>
> "1. Debian will remain 100% free
>
> We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free"
> in the document entitled "The Debian Free
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 04:08:37AM -0400, Marty wrote:
Not at all. As I read the FSF and Stallman's position on the matter,
that's what intended. To me what seems crackbrained and radical is this
notion that everything in Debian is "software" and must therefore be
under a
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 06:02:25PM -0400, Marty wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003
> >
> > "1. Debian will remain 100% free
> >
> > We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free"
> > in the document entitled "The Debian Free Softwa
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 03:09:33PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 01:52:35PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >This was voted in by an overwhelming majority of those voting, to make
> > Who were a tiny fraction of the total number of developers, pr
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 01:52:35PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >This was voted in by an overwhelming majority of those voting, to make
> Who were a tiny fraction of the total number of developers
A "tiny" fraction of some 55% (214 vs 396) of the voters who bothered
t
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 01:52:35PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >This was voted in by an overwhelming majority of those voting, to make
> Who were a tiny fraction of the total number of developers, probably
> as a result of the changes being defined "editoral" (which f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>This was voted in by an overwhelming majority of those voting, to make
Who were a tiny fraction of the total number of developers, probably
as a result of the changes being defined "editoral" (which for most
people means "has no practical effect").
--
ciao,
Marco
--
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 04:08:37AM -0400, Marty wrote:
> Not at all. As I read the FSF and Stallman's position on the matter,
> that's what intended. To me what seems crackbrained and radical is this
> notion that everything in Debian is "software" and must therefore be
> under a free software
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are you arguing that the "right" to "see the
author's work as the author intended it to be seen" is more important
than that? (I'll pass on the question of whether such a right exists,
except to note that I've never heard of s
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:52:17PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> --- Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The GPL is about making sure everyone that receives the work receives
> > permission to do things to it (modify, distribute, and so on), and
> > making sure that everyone gets sourc
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050422 09:15]:
> [...]
I usually ignore anonymous comments.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:35:13PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I fully agree this sounds crackbrained and radical. It does not have
> precedent in the field of free software, but my thinking here is not
> totally original either, there is some basis for it in other fields.
>
> The place I sa
--- Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 12:36:33AM -0700,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Not quite. The public domain license is about giving works over
> into
> > the commons. This is not true of GPL and GFDL. Once it's in the
> > commons, it can be misappropriated i
--- Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 12:23:40AM -0700,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Sometimes having invariant sections protects a user's right to see
> the
> > author's work as the author intended it to be seen, which is a
> point I
> > made before that you seem
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 09:49:20AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Both sides appear to "defend it to the death", while this thread
> goes round and round, having less and less to do with the stated
> subject of "Poll results". Please introduce new data and/or go
> off-list and/or change the subject line an
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 08:39, Marty wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:21:38AM -0400, Marty wrote:
> >> By protecting the authors' rights, same as the GPL. You must have
> >> missed by main point.
> >
> > You seem to be confused. The GPL is not primarily designed to
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:21:38AM -0400, Marty wrote:
>> > By protecting the authors' rights, same as the GPL. You must have
>> > missed by main point.
>>
>> You seem to be confused. The GPL is not primarily designe
foo_bar_baz_boo-deb wrote: [...]
> 1) Just because you keep saying this, does not make it true. It's just
> your opinion. [...]
Both sides appear to "defend it to the death", while this thread
goes round and round, having less and less to do with the stated
subject of "Poll results". Please introd
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 12:36:33AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Not quite. The public domain license is about giving works over into
> the commons. This is not true of GPL and GFDL. Once it's in the
> commons, it can be misappropriated into proprietary software, or
> twisted to misrepresent it
--- Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 02:39:48AM -0400, Marty wrote:
> > Look at the word "copyright." Notice the last 5 letters. Now, who
>
> > holds it, with respect to GPL'ed software? Who gets to pick that
> > license in the first place? Who can change it
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 12:23:40AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sometimes having invariant sections protects a user's right to see the
> author's work as the author intended it to be seen, which is a point I
> made before that you seem to be sidestepping. Is it inconvenient for
> you to consid
--- Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:21:38AM -0400, Marty wrote:
> > By protecting the authors' rights, same as the GPL. You must have
> > missed by main point.
>
> You seem to be confused. The GPL is not primarily designed to
> protect
> the author's rights
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 03:33:03PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > "It's the same program whether it's in C or in m68k machine code."
>
> For example, I may place a formal copyright notice in a comment in
> every .c file in my application. You're not allo
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 03:33:03PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> So, while perhaps you do find PDF based documentation to be pretty
> useless, it can actually be used by people.
I do, actually, but that's not what I was saying. And if you'll notice,
some incarnations of PDF are still considered t
Brian Nelson wrote: [...]
> Given that only 60% voted "Yes", and a few of those clarified that only
> this particular licensing issue was overblown, that indicates to me many
> had not given knee-jerk responses and had given some consideration to
> the GFDL before answering.
"Yes" to which questio
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 01:01:31PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > A work that only allows distribution of patches does not meet DFSG #4.
> > It must also specifically allow the distribution of modified binaries
> > made from those patches.
>
> Maybe it's
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 01:01:31PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> A work that only allows distribution of patches does not meet DFSG #4.
> It must also specifically allow the distribution of modified binaries
> made from those patches.
Maybe it's just me, but since I can't read binary, I would find
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:30:12PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > Ability to modify and reuse a work are absolutely fundamental to a work
> > being Free. Promoting the distribution of a work by prohibiting its
> > modification is not a trade acceptable to free software.
>
> You can modify it in t
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 03:20:55PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Ability to modify and reuse a work are absolutely fundamental to a
> > work being Free. Promoting the distribution of a work by
> > prohibiting its modification is not a trade acceptable to
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 03:20:55PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > They promote the sharing of the information in the invariant section. In
> > fact, they require it. The question is, will less people share the document
> > if they are forced to share it with the invariant section attached? I th
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 11:06:21AM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 08:03:48AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Proprietary licenses protect the authors' rights even more. Never
> > publishing the work, and therefore never subjecting it to copyright
> > law, also protects the au
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 01:26:52PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
[...]
> The preamble of the survey was terrible, in my opinion. I found
> it in the mail log, but not in the results posted here or on
> the poll results text file. I consider it incorrect on several
> key points and it states a lot of the sur
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 05:19:18PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> > Very few responses for an universe as big as debian-user, I think.
> > http://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-user.png
>
> Thanks for that!
>
> For the non-graphical, http://lists.debian.org/stats/ claims 259
Adam McKenna writes:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 08:03:48AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Proprietary licenses protect the authors' rights even more. Never
>> publishing the work, and therefore never subjecting it to copyright
>> law, also protects the authors' rights. Neither of those help freed
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 08:03:48AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Proprietary licenses protect the authors' rights even more. Never
> publishing the work, and therefore never subjecting it to copyright
> law, also protects the authors' rights. Neither of those help freedom
> or the sharing of info
Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> Very few responses for an universe as big as debian-user, I think.
> http://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-user.png
Thanks for that!
For the non-graphical, http://lists.debian.org/stats/ claims 2598
subscribers. So 28 responses is 1.08%, which would be a very low
res
Em Seg, 2005-04-18 Ãs 22:13 -0700, Brian Nelson escreveu:
> 29 responses
[...]
> 28 responses
[...]
> 28 responses
Very few responses for an universe as big as debian-user, I think.
http://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-user.png
I tend to agree with Glen that most opinions are probably going to b
Brian Nelson wrote:
> I recently conducted a poll on debian-user to get some input from users
> about the FDL issue. The results are available here:
> http://people.debian.org/~pyro/fdl_poll_results.txt
As some of you may know, I try to promote good practice in
surveys and consultations. Someti
Marty writes:
> Michael Poole wrote:
>> Marty writes:
>>
>>> Invariant sections are perfect example of a restriction that enhances
>>> the rights of the author (copyright holder) at the expense of the end
>>> user, but does so in a way that promotes sharing of information as
>>> opposed to "hoardi
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 11:53:15AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > [...] GPL#1 says [...]
>
> GPL#1 is for verbatim only. Releasing under a new licence is a modification.
> Please illustrate how the GPL does not follow DFSG or leave this.
GPL#2 is for modified copies, and says "un
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> [...] GPL#1 says [...]
GPL#1 is for verbatim only. Releasing under a new licence is a modification.
Please illustrate how the GPL does not follow DFSG or leave this.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PRO
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 10:49:01AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > The preamble can be removed, but not from other people's works; when
> > the GPL is attached to a work, the preamble is a full-blown invariant
> > section.
>
> Can't one just license the work under trivial-not-GPL w
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> The preamble can be removed, but not from other people's works; when
> the GPL is attached to a work, the preamble is a full-blown invariant
> section.
Can't one just license the work under trivial-not-GPL which is
the GPL's terms but no preamble? I remember that being given
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 10:04:55AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Olive wrote:
> > The preamble of the GPL is totally similar to an invariant section: it
> > express political opnion (and nothing or few about the licence itself)
> > and cannot be changed nor removed. [...]
>
> The preamble of the GPL can
Olive wrote:
> The preamble of the GPL is totally similar to an invariant section: it
> express political opnion (and nothing or few about the licence itself)
> and cannot be changed nor removed. [...]
The preamble of the GPL can be removed in some situations, with
similar conditions to DFSG 4 IMO
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 02:39:48AM -0400, Marty wrote:
> Look at the word "copyright." Notice the last 5 letters. Now, who
> holds it, with respect to GPL'ed software? Who gets to pick that
> license in the first place? Who can change it? Who's entitled to
> enforce it in court? I see the
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:21:38AM -0400, Marty wrote:
By protecting the authors' rights, same as the GPL. You must have
missed by main point.
You seem to be confused. The GPL is not primarily designed to protect
the author's rights. It's designed to protect *user's* right
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:33:52AM -0400, Marty wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
> >I find that anyone with a "shut up and stop wasting time making sure Debian
> >remains Free" attitude rarely actually has any defensible arguments. :)
>
> I can't tell if your arguments are defensible because you
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:21:38AM -0400, Marty wrote:
> By protecting the authors' rights, same as the GPL. You must have
> missed by main point.
You seem to be confused. The GPL is not primarily designed to protect
the author's rights. It's designed to protect *user's* rights, which
always c
Glenn Maynard wrote:
I find that anyone with a "shut up and stop wasting time making sure Debian
remains Free" attitude rarely actually has any defensible arguments. :)
I can't tell if your arguments are defensible because you didn't make
any (except for your last one, which depends on the validi
Michael Poole wrote:
Marty writes:
Invariant sections are perfect example of a restriction that enhances
the rights of the author (copyright holder) at the expense of the end
user, but does so in a way that promotes sharing of information as
opposed to "hoarding."
This is a rather curious contentio
Incoming from s. keeling:
> Incoming from Glenn Maynard:
> >
> > I find that anyone with a "shut up and stop wasting time making sure Debian
> > remains Free" attitude rarely actually has any defensible arguments. :)
>
> Where the H*** is Rock Moen when you need him?!?
s/Rock/Rick/
Oop
Incoming from Glenn Maynard:
>
> I find that anyone with a "shut up and stop wasting time making sure Debian
> remains Free" attitude rarely actually has any defensible arguments. :)
Where the H*** is Rock Moen when you need him?!?
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficientl
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 08:26:47PM -0400, Marty wrote:
> Olive wrote:
>
> >The preamble of the GPL is totally similar to an invariant section: it
> >express political opnion (and nothing or few about the licence itself)
> >and cannot be changed nor removed. The advertising close of the old BSD
Marty writes:
> Invariant sections are perfect example of a restriction that enhances
> the rights of the author (copyright holder) at the expense of the end
> user, but does so in a way that promotes sharing of information as
> opposed to "hoarding."
This is a rather curious contention. How do
Olive wrote:
The preamble of the GPL is totally similar to an invariant section: it
express political opnion (and nothing or few about the licence itself)
and cannot be changed nor removed. The advertising close of the old BSD
license is free (by rule nr 10 of the social contract) and cannot be
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 01:23:28PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> > only a tiny handful of them had anything beyond single-word answers, and
> > most of those are weak arguments that have been made and debunked many
> > times already.
>
> right, so we have a situation where we have go
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 01:23:28PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> Is there an overview page of arguments (and debunkments) somewhere, that we
> can point people to? Or is everyone currently on their own in finding the
> pearls of wisdom buried in long threads on mailinglists most of o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19-04-2005 13:23, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> Is there an overview page of arguments (and debunkments) somewhere, that we
> can point people to? Or is everyone currently on their own in finding the
> pearls of wisdom buried in long thread
On Tuesday 19 April 2005 07:45, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 10:13:33PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > I strongly suggest reading the mail log, since many of the full
> > responses are more interesting than the overall results.
>
> I read it, and didn't find anything of interest;
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 10:13:33PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> I recently conducted a poll on debian-user to get some input from users
> about the FDL issue. The results are available here:
>
> http://people.debian.org/~pyro/fdl_poll_results.txt
>
> And the full mail log is available here:
>
I recently conducted a poll on debian-user to get some input from users
about the FDL issue. The results are available here:
http://people.debian.org/~pyro/fdl_poll_results.txt
And the full mail log is available here:
http://people.debian.org/~pyro/fdl_poll.mail
Here's a summary:
72 matches
Mail list logo
