On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:11:11PM -0500, Christopher Martin wrote:
The important question here is one of legitimacy. Who exactly has the
authority to determine these matters of interpretation? Specifically, who
decides what is in accordance with the DFSG? The developers do, through
GRs,
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 03:33:10PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
So I don't understand what you're trying to get at, or what possible
relevance this theoretical discussion could have to anything else we're
talking about.
If we have many documents covered under GFDL and all of them contain
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 10:59:09AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
GFDL explicitly permits licenses that disallow any combined works.
Sorry, I wanted to say DFSG explicitly permits.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 06:57:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On 7 Feb 2006, Lionel Elie Mamane spake thusly:
Should the situation arise with the current constitution, the
secretary can use 7.1.4 to avoid impropriety or we can still
formally have the election run by the secretary, but
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 03:33:10PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
So I don't understand what you're trying to get at, or what possible
relevance this theoretical discussion could have to anything else we're
talking about.
If we have many documents
A thought came to me as I was waking up this morning, so it might not be
the best thought-out example, but I thought I'd toss it out and see what
people think.
It seems to me that a secondary section can turn into a non-secondary
section in a modified document.
Suppose that I want to write a
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:21:36PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
What it says, for those who can't (or can't be bothered) to read it is
essentially this:
We will include GFDL'd works that have no bad bits unless we have
permission to remove them.
Or rewritten slightly more clearly (by bad
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:40:36AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
The problem with the GFDL with invariant sections is very, very simple: it
doesn't allow modifications of portions of the work. Either people
consider that non-free or not. People who don't consider that non-free
are probably
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:47:10AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On 8 Feb 2006, Lionel Elie Mamane said:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 06:57:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On 7 Feb 2006, Lionel Elie Mamane spake thusly:
Should the situation arise with the current constitution, the
secretary
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:40:36AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
The problem with the GFDL with invariant sections is very, very simple:
it doesn't allow modifications of portions of the work. Either people
consider that non-free or not. People who
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The first notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
do whatever we want with it.
The second notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
adapt it to various needs and to improve it.
This is a false dilemma, of course.
Hello,
* Anton Zinoviev [Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:33:30AM +0200]:
During the the discussions in this and the previous month it became
clear there are two completely different notions of freedom among
us.
The first notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
do whatever we
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:47:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:21:36PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
What it says, for those who can't (or can't be bothered) to read it is
essentially this:
We will include GFDL'd works that have no bad bits unless we have
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:50:51AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GR as amended might appear to contradict the Social Contract, or the
DFSG, but it certainly *does not* modify them, and hence cannot be said to
require a supermajority.
This
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that
developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority,
it would therefore seem to be the case that the majority of developers
agreed with it. In which case those asserting
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 07:56:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that
developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority,
it would therefore seem to be the case that
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
In any event, there is in fact a meaning in that case: the 3:1
suerpmajority would still apply to issues where the majority of developers
felt that the proposed resolution did contradict the social contract or
DFSG -- and that the social
Hello,
After my amendment to the GFDL GR was accepted, there was a bit of
discussion about the majority requirement that should be put on it. In
a nutshell, this is what happened:
- in what may have been a bad decision but seemed appropriate at the
time, I wrote the amendment
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
In any event, there is in fact a meaning in that case: the 3:1
suerpmajority would still apply to issues where the majority of developers
felt that the proposed resolution did
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GR as amended might appear to contradict the Social Contract, or the
DFSG, but it certainly *does not* modify them, and hence cannot be said to
require a supermajority.
Well, um. That depends if you want the GR-as-amended to actually *do*
anything
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, the amendment (Adeodato's) itself. I've just noticed that it's a
complete waste of space as presented at
http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 -- the second paragraph of
point 2) of the first (un-headed) section reads as follows:
Formally, the
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If the project secretary decides
that my proposal (for GFDL) requires 3:1 supermajority, this would
mean that the project secretary decides on behalf of the whole project
that our notion of free software differs from the notion of FSF.
This is not correct.
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:02:54PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Actually, I think that both FSF and DFSG define free software pretty
similarily. The problem arises from the fact that our Social Contract
applies DFSG to all works, not just software, whereas FSF considers
software a special
I second the Amendment fully quoted below, as a replacement of the
previous one Adeodato wrote.
Le Jeu 9 Février 2006 06:26, Adeodato Simó a écrit :
---8
---
Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
24 matches
Mail list logo
