On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:07:03AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> The Social Contract makes a promise we are not keeping. You say it's
> "not ... something the social contract cares about". That's not at all
> clear from reading it -- the social contract makes a straightforward
> promise, which has no
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:24:39AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to
> > > one's ideals.
> >
> > Yeah, and we're not lying about adhering to our ideals simply by
> > distributing the obligatory license data. If we weren't doing that,
>
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Personally, I don't see "distributing non-modifiable license texts"
> to be "violating the social contract".
I'm curious to know how you reconcile Social Contract §1 and DFSG §3,
and the fact that we distribute non-modifiable texts in Debian.
--
\
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, consider DFSG §10:
> The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are examples of
> licenses that we consider "free".
>
> Then recall that the meta-license of the GPL permits no modification
> (relaxed by FSF policy to be permitted
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:48:51AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to
> > one's ideals.
>
> Yeah, and we're not lying about adhering to our ideals simply by
> distributing the obligatory license
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:37:16PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > License texts *are* distributed by Debian, now, under terms that
> > are non-free. This behaviour doesn't match the Social Contract.
>
> Sure, they are technically being distributed, but not a
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:48:51AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Egad, it sounds like you actually live in an evil parallel universe where
> > idealism is inherently dishonest and false. That universe must really suck.
> > :)
>
> There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to o
> Egad, it sounds like you actually live in an evil parallel universe where
> idealism is inherently dishonest and false. That universe must really suck. :)
There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to one's
ideals.
> Please, try to remember the spirit of those promises, rath
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 07:42:02PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > 'We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free
> > according to these guidelines.'.
>
> Dear Josip,
>
> are you really sure that the licences are "components of the Debian
> system"? If one removes them, t
On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 12:37 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> License texts *are* distributed by Debian, now, under terms that are
> non-free. This behaviour doesn't match the Social Contract.
Is there any package in Debian which includes a license that is not
being distributed as the terms of use and di
Le Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:25:31PM +0200, Josip Rodin a écrit :
> 'We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free
> according to these guidelines.'.
Dear Josip,
are you really sure that the licences are "components of the Debian
system"? If one removes them, the system, on
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:37:16PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Yes, the social contract says that the Debian system and all of its
> > components will be fully free; but for all practical intents and
> > purposes (heh), the accompanying license texts are as much a
> > "component" of the "system" a
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:37:16PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Also, nobody cares for statements that can be normalized to 'you can
> > do all this, except that, that, that, and that', and those should
> > also be avoided if we want readers to take the spi
13 matches
Mail list logo
