On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:16:45PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 09:45:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > [ ] Choice 3: GFDL is DFSG-free and suitable for main in all cases [3:1]
> I need to correct this. The title for my proposal is
> [ ] Choice 3: GFDL is compat
Quoting Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:16:43PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> > > as an "editorial change" and deceived many other develo
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:22:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Second, my proposal doesn't revoke automatically the decision of the
> > release team to remove the GFDL-documents from main. If my proposal
> > wins, it is the release team who will have to change this decision
> Frankly, I have
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:02:01AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:16:43PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > > Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software
I second Adeodato's revised amendment, as I did the earlier version.
Thanks to Adeodato and everyone who contributed...
Hamish
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> ---8<---
>
> Debian and the GNU Free Do
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 06:59:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:22:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > In spite of the Project Secretary's determination that this ballot
> > option requires a 3:1 supermajority because it modifies the DFSG,
> > given that I can't rec
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:54:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> It does prohibit some modifications which are useful.
>
> Geez, reference cards. Useful!
You can make reference cards but if you make more than 100 copies you
have to accompany the reference cards with additional sheet(s)
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 04:12:38PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> Err, that doeds not compute. If the developers decide that the
> GFDL is compatible, then is it not tantamount to overriding gthe
> decision taken? It is not as if the release team can go around doing
> otherwise. The
* Nathanael Nerode [Fri, 10 Feb 2006 01:51:33 -0500]:
Hi,
> So, does this mean that if this amendment is passed, outlawing storing a copy
> of a document with non-world-readable permission is considered an acceptable,
> free restriction by the Developers? Really?
> I *hope* that this amendmen
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Yes. Because I would trust the developers to see the amendment as the silly
> > fraud that it would be, and vote it down. We don't need the Secretary's
> > protection, believe it or not.
>
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:43:30PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 06:59:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:22:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > In spite of the Project Secretary's determination that this ballot
> > > option requires a 3:1
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:06:03AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > > The interpretation being proposed seems to be "the DFSG allows certain
> > > restrictions on modifications, including the GPL's interactivity
> > > notification stuff and the GFDL's unmodifiable sections, with others
> > > pot
* Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060210 11:36]:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:54:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >
> > It does prohibit some modifications which are useful.
> >
> > Geez, reference cards. Useful!
>
> You can make reference cards but if you make more than 100 copies
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:54:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>
>> It does prohibit some modifications which are useful.
>>
>> Geez, reference cards. Useful!
>
> You can make reference cards but if you make more than 100 copies you
> have to
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>
>> On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Has anyone come forward and said "I was deceived by GR 2004-03"? I
>
>> Yes, multiple people did. HTH.
>
> Who? I can't recall any. Ca
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:06:03AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>
>> > The interpretation that I hold is the following:
>>
>> >The license must give us permissions to modify the work in
>> > order to adapt it to various needs or to improv
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:52:33PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060210 11:36]:
> > On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:54:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > >
> > > It does prohibit some modifications which are useful.
> > >
> > > Geez, reference cards. U
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:03:45PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> You neglected to mention what happens about reference cards for
> documentation with invariant sections. Reference cards for Emacs and
> GCC would be most useful, but AFAICT both of these manuals have
> invariant sections.
Yes, the
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:33:05PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > I think the following is an useful test. If the license forbids some
> > modification that is necessary in order to adapt the document to some
> > need, then the document is non-free.
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:33:05PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > I think the following is an useful test. If the license forbids some
>> > modification that is necessary in order to adapt the document
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the following is an useful test. If the license forbids some
> modification that is necessary in order to adapt the document to some
> need, then the document is non-free.
No, it is not, because according to many of your fellow DDs the result
o
Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 19:15:08 +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>
>> And then, has nobody ever raised the rumor that the purpose of this "GFDL
>> is non-free" hullaboo is just to make sure that we will have our non-free
>> section, for ever?
>
> I feel it the sam
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:36:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [Christopher Martin]
> >> If an issue is highly controversial, then I can think of no better
> >> way of settling it in a way that most developers will accept than a
> >> vote.
On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > As it happens, it says nothing about implicit changes to foundation
> > > documents, or even about having to act in accord with them.
> > Section 4.1.5.3 seems
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning
> the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that power, it
> follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities (when doing so on
> the basis of a
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The reference cards do not require the removal of the invariant
> sections. You can print the invariant sections on separate sheet(s)
> of paper.
Any work requiring waste of paper on that relative scale is
not only not free as in freedom, but unethical and non
I hereby nominate myself as a candidate for the next Debian Project
Leader.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
>> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Yes. Because I would trust the developers to see the amendment as the
>> > silly
>> > fraud that it would be, and vote it down. We don't need t
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:54:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>
>> It does prohibit some modifications which are useful.
>>
>> Geez, reference cards. Useful!
>
> You can make reference cards but if you make more than 100 copies you
> have to
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We all know that GFDL is incompatible with GPL, but if the sorce was
> covered by BSD-like license there is no problem - you can satisfy the
> requirements of the BSD license by additional invariant section.
But the resulting program would be a non-fre
Thorough summaries written by representative proponents and opponents of
each principal side of the GFDL debate would be well received at this
time. Such summaries are requested. For other DDs, I cannot speak, but
such summaries would likely decide my vote at least.
To clarify the request: Neit
Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 10.02.06 05:13:11:
>
> On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:26, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be
> > > set or not?
> >
> > The
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:07:00AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> The Emacs Manual requires rather more than one additional sheet of
> paper. If a small footnote could handle it, that would be fine.
You can not include the whole text of GPL in a footnote either, not to
mention that you ar
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 01:41:42PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I think the following is an useful test. If the license forbids some
> >> > modification that is necessary in order to adapt the document to some
> >> > need, then the document is non-free. Otherwise, that is if the
> >> >
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:07:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > We all know that GFDL is incompatible with GPL, but if the sorce was
> > covered by BSD-like license there is no problem - you can satisfy the
> > requirements of the BSD license
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:07:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > We all know that GFDL is incompatible with GPL, but if the sorce was
>> > covered by BSD-like license there is no problem - you c
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If GDB were under BSD, you could:
>
>1. Add docstrings to the sources of GDB in a way permissible by
> GFDL. In particular the invariant sections should be present in
> all opaque copies of the produced documentation. GFDL does not
>
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> But that isn't my point. My point is that you can't include the
> GFDL'd material in any free program. (Or, by doing so, you render the
> program non-free.) This is not controversial; even the FSF agrees.
This won't be tr
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:34AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If GDB were under BSD, you could:
> >
> >1. Add docstrings to the sources of GDB in a way permissible by
> > GFDL. In particular the invariant sections should be prese
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:37:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > You can't argue that since the constitution doesn't explicitly forbid the
> > Secretary to take it upon him/herself to interpret the DFSG for everyone
> > else, that therefore he/she must do so, in order to discharge the
> > constitut
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 01:41:42PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I think the following is an useful test. If the license forbids some
>> >> > modification that is necessary in order to adapt the document to some
>> >> > need, then the docum
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:34AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > If GDB were under BSD, you could:
>> >
>> >1. Add docstrings to the sources of GDB in a way permissible by
>> > GFDL.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:59:59PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 01:41:42PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I think the following is an useful test. If the license forbids some
> >> >> > modification that is nece
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:08:54PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:34AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > If GDB were under BSD, you could:
> >> >
> >> >1. Ad
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:43:30 +0200, Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The interpretation that I hold is the following:
>The license must give us permissions to modify the work in
> order to adapt it to various needs or to improve it, with no
> substantive limits on the nature
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is strange. :-) The program is covered under BSD license and you
> say it is non-free.
No. The resulting program is covered under the BSD license and the
GFDL together.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscri
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Returning back to the topic, we have the following situation:
>
>1. The binary form of GDB would be covered under BSD license
Wrong. Because the binary would be including text from the manual, it
would be covered under the GFDL too.
--
To UNSUB
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>
>> But that isn't my point. My point is that you can't include the
>> GFDL'd material in any free program. (Or, by doing so, you render the
>> program non-free.) This is not con
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:25:10AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > It says how the documents can be superceded or withdrawn; it doesn't
> > say anything about ignoring them outright, or changing the way they're
> > interpreted.
> That's a strawman argument.
> The ballot options are not being ignored.
On 9 Feb 2006, Christopher Martin uttered the following:
> No, we'd like the issue settled in a _legitimate_ fashion. And I
> take umbrage at your insinuations.
May I take umbrage at your insinuation that the vote to modify
the social contract was "illegitimate"?
Actually, the a
On 8 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns stated:
> Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are honourable
> enough to note vote for a proposal they think contradicts the social
> contract or DFSG; and I don't see much point to all the implications
> that we're not that honourable and need to have
On 9 Feb 2006, Christopher Martin told this:
> You're stuck in a loop. I know perfectly well that to change a
> foundation document requires 3:1, but the question is, who decides
> what is and is not a contradiction or change to the foundation
> documents and so needs 3:1? You? The Secretary? Som
On 9 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns told this:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 04:03:48PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I am away from home, so I can't sign this email. However, we can
>> not hold a vote until the minimal discussion period is over, which
>> makes it Feb 23,rd at the earliest, so I'll proba
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If there is an option on the ballot, there should be adequate
> time to discuss it. Indeed, a new option on the ballot may present
> novel idea, and having a vote without discussion of the new option
> seems ... odd.
This is true, but note
* Thomas Bushnell BSG [Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:23:12 -0800]:
> So this would require the Secretary to be alert to the possibility of
> dilatory amendments, and refuse to accept them in that case.
Oh dear. Too busy replying to every post on earth to read d-d-a?
--
Adeodato Simó
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:02:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>> The original proposal became formal with Roger Leigh's second, on
> >>> the 12th of January, and as no further amendments were accepted, a
> >>> call for a vote is appropriate any time two weeks after that (from
> >>> the 26th
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:34:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 8 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns stated:
> > Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are honourable
> > enough to note vote for a proposal they think contradicts the social
> > contract or DFSG; and I don't see much point
Anthony Towns writes:
> That view, namely "other people may propose ballots that aren't good
> enough, and it's my job to stop that", is precisely a supervisory one.
Often the role of a Secretary is a ministerial one, and which wouldn't
include supervisory elements.
However, Debian is different
Anthony Towns writes:
> That view, namely "other people may propose ballots that aren't good
> enough, and it's my job to stop that", is precisely a supervisory one.
> Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as possible,
> even to the point where votes would be run without an
On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns outgrape:
> That view, namely "other people may propose ballots that aren't good
> enough, and it's my job to stop that", is precisely a supervisory
> one.
The secretary is responsible for running the vote, and also
has the final decision for the form of the
On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns verbalised:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:02:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The original proposal became formal with Roger Leigh's second,
> on the 12th of January, and as no further amendments were
> accepted, a call for a vote is appropriate any ti
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:10:20PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as possible,
> > even to the point where votes would be run without any human
> > intervention. I've thought about that before, but I don't have th
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:08:32PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > That view, namely "other people may propose ballots that aren't good
> > enough, and it's my job to stop that", is precisely a supervisory one.
> Often the role of a Secretary is a ministerial one, and
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can we have some discussion on the why's and wherefores of
> invariant-less GFDL licensed works?
Well, for my part, I agree with the main GR proposed by Anthony, which
explains satisfactorily to me why even the invariant-less GFDL works
run
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:48:29PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > In summary, I don't think a pedantic reading of the constitution
> > justifies delaying the vote; and I don't think there's anything much
> > still to be said that would full up two weeks of discussion. Having
> > the issue be un
Meh, -devel dropped.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:27:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns outgrape:
> > That view, namely "other people may propose ballots that aren't good
> > enough, and it's my job to stop that", is precisely a supervisory
> > one.
> The sec
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 03:22:28PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Anyway, I've got better things to do, so I'll see you all in another
> two weeks, when this vote will've been in discussion for two months.
Actually, there's one other possibility:
Branden, under 4.2(4) you're empowered to vary the
67 matches
Mail list logo