Custom Search
|
Date: March 28, 2006
From: Hubert Chan <hubert@xxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<85r74ok179.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (David Kastrup's message of "Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:37:14 +0200")
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <f12aa2e40603140454j22dc401ei12a584a60fe4e07@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87y7zcpwfj.fsf_-_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <8764mgg0ih.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <87bqw8tn4e.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <871wx4l4nl.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <8438.1143410473@mixed
> <858xqwltq4.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <11634.1143426325@mixed
> <85r74ok179.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:37:14 +0200, David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> said: > Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> To me, the non-freeness added to developers (for a fork, for example) >> is more important than the inconvenience (or possible extra costs) to >> publishers. > If it leaves you no sensible way to publish your own manuals, the word > "freedom" seems to acquire a backward meaning. "If it leaves you no sensible way to copy between a program and its own documentation, the word "freedom" seems to acquire a backward meaning." Frankly, I think that the developers' freedom is more important than a publisher's minor inconvenience or added cost. And if that were the only reason for different license terms, IMHO the sensible thing to do would be either to license the documentation under a GPL + exceptions license, or to dual license. -- Hubert Chan - email & Jabber: hubert@xxxxxxxxx - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA (Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Date: March 27, 2006
From: Daniel Schepler <schepler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<441855EC.3030909@xxxxxx>
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <1142434571.44182b0b4118d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <441855EC.3030909@xxxxxx>
Le Mercredi 15 Mars 2006 19:25, Sven Joachim a écrit : > It is certainly true that Emacs is "technically able to work without its > info manual", but "technically able" and "perfectly reasonable" are quite > different things. Getting back to the discussion on the Emacs manual in particular, I have to say that I hardly ever use the Emacs manual, and I've been using Emacs for years now. In fact, I don't think I've read it a single time since getting my current computer several months ago. So to me, an Emacs installation without the manual _is_ perfectly reasonable. The inline documentation accessed by e.g. C-h f or C-h k is a different story; but since that's generated from the GPL source files (both .c and .el files), it's automatically covered by the GPL. -- Daniel Schepler
Date: March 27, 2006
From: David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx>
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <f12aa2e40603140454j22dc401ei12a584a60fe4e07@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87y7zcpwfj.fsf_-_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <8764mgg0ih.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <87bqw8tn4e.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <871wx4l4nl.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <8438.1143410473@mixed
> <858xqwltq4.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <11634.1143426325@mixed
>
Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Because the manual is also distributed in printed form. And the GPL >> is not really well-suited for publications in print: the obligation to >> provide the full source code at cost means additional obligations for >> a publisher, impacting the work flow and the price of the end result, >> even though no sane person would actually have a use for the source of >> that _particular_ publication instead of the one accompanying his copy >> of Emacs. > > To me, the non-freeness added to developers (for a fork, for > example) is more important than the inconvenience (or possible extra > costs) to publishers. If it leaves you no sensible way to publish your own manuals, the word "freedom" seems to acquire a backward meaning. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Date: March 27, 2006
From: Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<858xqwltq4.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <f12aa2e40603140454j22dc401ei12a584a60fe4e07@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87y7zcpwfj.fsf_-_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <8764mgg0ih.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <87bqw8tn4e.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <871wx4l4nl.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <8438.1143410473@mixed
> <858xqwltq4.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> The Emacs documentation is far more integrated into its > >> normal operation than with other tools. It does not make sense to > >> separate them. > > > > Right. One wonders why they have to be under different licenses. > > Because the manual is also distributed in printed form. And the GPL > is not really well-suited for publications in print: the obligation to > provide the full source code at cost means additional obligations for > a publisher, impacting the work flow and the price of the end result, > even though no sane person would actually have a use for the source of > that _particular_ publication instead of the one accompanying his copy > of Emacs. To me, the non-freeness added to developers (for a fork, for example) is more important than the inconvenience (or possible extra costs) to publishers. Peter
Date: March 27, 2006
From: Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<fc339e4a0603151348v54d1ce92x@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <f12aa2e40603140454j22dc401ei12a584a60fe4e07@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <878xrcvvac.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1142434571.44182b0b4118d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <441855EC.3030909@xxxxxx> <87ek13o3ca.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <fc339e4a0603151348v54d1ce92x@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sorry for coming in to this late... Sven Joachim <svenjoac@xxxxxx> wrote: > Jérôme Marant wrote: > > In practice I guess it's just going to mean that most people end up > > putting non-free in their sources.list, weakening the effect of having a > > separation between "free" and "non-free" in the first place, and more > > users end up confused because lack of hard dependencies will mean the > > doc packages don't get installed. > > That hits the nail on the head. The whole effect of these anti-GFDL > efforts is to actually undermine Debian's position as a 100% free OS. Or the FSF's position as distributor of "free" documentation. Miles Bader <miles@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'm surprised there is still a misunderstanding. Debian decided that > > invariant sections were problematic (you will find rationales > > everywhere on debian sites). It is not Debian's fault if they do > > exist. > > There is no misunderstanding. We simply think debian did something > dumb, that will hurt it as a project. The flip side is that this sheds some public light on the non-free invariant sections. - I'm glad that we're no longer closing our eyes on this issue. The mere fact of having incompatible licenses for Emacs and its documentation is weird to me (even if they were both free licenses), since much of the docs are cut and pasted between the two. When this was brought up to RMS, he said that (1) the manual isn't written the same as the doc strings anyway, and (2) it's a non-issue because the FSF is copyright-holder for both works and can do want it wants. The first reponse is clearly not always true, and the second proves the combination is unfree to some degree when only the copyright holder can exercise some of the changes. Peter
Date: March 27, 2006
From: Hubert Chan <hubert@xxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<858xqwltq4.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (David Kastrup's message of "Mon, 27 Mar 2006 00:35:47 +0200")
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <f12aa2e40603140454j22dc401ei12a584a60fe4e07@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87y7zcpwfj.fsf_-_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <8764mgg0ih.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <87bqw8tn4e.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <871wx4l4nl.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <8438.1143410473@mixed
> <858xqwltq4.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 00:35:47 +0200, David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> said: > Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> The Emacs documentation is far more integrated into its normal >>> operation than with other tools. It does not make sense to separate >>> them. >> >> Right. One wonders why they have to be under different licenses. > Because the manual is also distributed in printed form. Is that the only reason? Why not dual-license, then? > And the GPL is not really well-suited for publications in print: the > obligation to provide the full source code at cost means additional > obligations for a publisher, impacting the work flow and the price of > the end result, even though no sane person would actually have a use > for the source of that _particular_ publication instead of the one > accompanying his copy of Emacs. -- Hubert Chan - email & Jabber: hubert@xxxxxxxxx - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA (Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Date: March 26, 2006
From: David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx>
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <f12aa2e40603140454j22dc401ei12a584a60fe4e07@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87y7zcpwfj.fsf_-_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <8764mgg0ih.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <87bqw8tn4e.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <871wx4l4nl.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <8438.1143410473@mixed
>
Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> The Emacs documentation is far more integrated into its >> normal operation than with other tools. It does not make sense to >> separate them. > > Right. One wonders why they have to be under different licenses. Because the manual is also distributed in printed form. And the GPL is not really well-suited for publications in print: the obligation to provide the full source code at cost means additional obligations for a publisher, impacting the work flow and the price of the end result, even though no sane person would actually have a use for the source of that _particular_ publication instead of the one accompanying his copy of Emacs. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Date: March 26, 2006
From: Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <f12aa2e40603140454j22dc401ei12a584a60fe4e07@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87y7zcpwfj.fsf_-_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <8764mgg0ih.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <87bqw8tn4e.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <871wx4l4nl.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> wrote: > The Emacs documentation is far more integrated into its > normal operation than with other tools. It does not make sense to > separate them. Right. One wonders why they have to be under different licenses. The docs should be GPL'ed. This isn't what you intended to say, and I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm just pointing out the flip side of the coin. Peter
Date: March 26, 2006
From: Sven Joachim <svenjoac@xxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <f12aa2e40603140454j22dc401ei12a584a60fe4e07@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87y7zcpwfj.fsf_-_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <8764mgg0ih.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <87bqw8tn4e.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <871wx4l4nl.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hubert Chan wrote:
The inconsistency smells a lot like an oversight. Have you checked with upstream to see if that was what was actually intended, or if it was a copy/paste bug?
I reported this to bug-make@xxxxxxx, let's see what they say.
Date: March 26, 2006
From: Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@xxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<87d5gah6f9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx>
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87u09nn7ru.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <fc339e4a0603240947y7b4c7acu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87lkuz8wyo.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85veu360bf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87odzvttln.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <85wtej4i74.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <8764m3tqj0.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <jk7j6iblls.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <87d5gah6f9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx>
Jérôme Marant <jmarant@xxxxxxx> writes: > Is feeding with poetry yet another condescending way of > expressing one's opinion? surely, we can agree it is not hardware. > As a non native English speaker, I don't grok English poetry > that easily. I'm glad you do, but I don't think you bring > anything concrete to the debate this way. sometimes concreteness is not indicated (that's what a doctor told me as he scribbled a prescription for laxatives ;-). no worries, i will shut up now. what will happen, will happen. thi
Date: March 25, 2006
From: Hubert Chan <hubert@xxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<857j6i3m6c.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (David Kastrup's message of "Sat, 25 Mar 2006 10:31:39 +0100")
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87u09nn7ru.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <fc339e4a0603240947y7b4c7acu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87lkuz8wyo.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85veu360bf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87odzvttln.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <85wtej4i74.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87d5gbqlxq.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <857j6i3m6c.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 10:31:39 +0100, David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> said: > Hubert Chan <hubert@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:59:59 +0100, David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> said: >> >>> Well, then _stand_ by your convictions. Remove software from the >>> GNU project from Debian. Free software with unfree documentation is >>> a sham. If you call the documentation unfree, then the software >>> can't be used like free software, and you should remove it, too. >> >> Do you assert that any software without documentation is non-free? > Software _bereft_ of its documentation is crippled. Perhaps, but it is no more "crippled" than software that does not have any documentation. Software without documentation is "crippled" from birth. > In particular, if access to the documentation is a well-integrated > operation of the software. Yes, like the documentation of make is a well-integrated operation of make.</sarcasm> Even with emacs, the documentation is easily separable. There are a few commands such as "C-h C-p" that will show some documentation files, but those are hardly critical to the operation of emacs. Emacs happens to have an info browser with which you can read its documentation in info format, but the info documentation is not necessary for the operation of emacs. Emacs works fine without it. > If Debian considers crippleware "free", they are sending out a message > about freedom that does not seem particularly helpful to the cause. "Crippled" is orthogonal to free, just like buggy is orthogonal to free, or undocumented is orthogonal to free. I think that most Debian Developers would consider it non-ideal, just like they would consider buggy or undocumented software to be non-ideal, but that has nothing to do with freedom. -- Hubert Chan - email & Jabber: hubert@xxxxxxxxx - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA (Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Date: March 25, 2006
From: Jérôme Marant <jmarant@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<jk7j6iblls.fsf@xxxxxxxx> (Thien-Thi Nguyen's message of "25 Mar 2006 10:16:47 -0500")
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87u09nn7ru.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <fc339e4a0603240947y7b4c7acu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87lkuz8wyo.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85veu360bf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87odzvttln.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <85wtej4i74.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <8764m3tqj0.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <jk7j6iblls.fsf@xxxxxxxx>
Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@xxxxxxxx> writes: > JérÃŽme Marant <jmarant@xxxxxxx> writes: > >> everything that's not hardware is software. > > "all the light that's not is dark": Is feeding with poetry yet another condescending way of expressing one's opinion? As a non native English speaker, I don't grok English poetry that easily. I'm glad you do, but I don't think you bring anything concrete to the debate this way. -- Jérôme Marant
Date: March 25, 2006
From: Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@xxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<8764m3tqj0.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx>
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87u09nn7ru.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <fc339e4a0603240947y7b4c7acu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87lkuz8wyo.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85veu360bf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87odzvttln.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <85wtej4i74.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <8764m3tqj0.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx>
JérÎme Marant <jmarant@xxxxxxx> writes: > everything that's not hardware is software. "all the light that's not is dark": no more sunsets in the park. no more colors or blends of hue, no more schism twixt points of view. i may be a simple square that barely recalls the perfect form of my millenium guide, but that bright memory shares in its stall the neighing king without inside. now imprisoned for having seen, i strain my angles but my nature's tangles leave only rationality to war against confines of age and doubt. and if my thoughts be code at core, pray tell: when i expire, will they let me out?! now imprisoned for having seen, now imprisoned for having seen. thi
Date: March 25, 2006
From: David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx>
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87u09nn7ru.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <fc339e4a0603240947y7b4c7acu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87lkuz8wyo.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85veu360bf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87odzvttln.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <85wtej4i74.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87d5gbqlxq.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hubert Chan <hubert@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:59:59 +0100, David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> said: > >> Well, then _stand_ by your convictions. Remove software from the GNU >> project from Debian. Free software with unfree documentation is a >> sham. If you call the documentation unfree, then the software can't >> be used like free software, and you should remove it, too. > > Do you assert that any software without documentation is non-free? Software _bereft_ of its documentation is crippled. In particular, if access to the documentation is a well-integrated operation of the software. If Debian considers crippleware "free", they are sending out a message about freedom that does not seem particularly helpful to the cause. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Date: March 25, 2006
From: Hubert Chan <hubert@xxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<85wtej4i74.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (David Kastrup's message of "Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:59:59 +0100")
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87u09nn7ru.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <fc339e4a0603240947y7b4c7acu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87lkuz8wyo.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85veu360bf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87odzvttln.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <85wtej4i74.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:59:59 +0100, David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> said: > Well, then _stand_ by your convictions. Remove software from the GNU > project from Debian. Free software with unfree documentation is a > sham. If you call the documentation unfree, then the software can't > be used like free software, and you should remove it, too. Do you assert that any software without documentation is non-free? -- Hubert Chan - email & Jabber: hubert@xxxxxxxxx - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA (Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Date: March 25, 2006
From: David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx>
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87u09nn7ru.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <fc339e4a0603240947y7b4c7acu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87lkuz8wyo.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85veu360bf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87odzvttln.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <85wtej4i74.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <877j6jmnr2.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 24 Mar 2006, David Kastrup verbalised: > >> Free software with unfree documentation is a sham. > > I am glad you agree. Can you see if upstream would make the > documentation free? It has, according to its standards. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Date: March 25, 2006
From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<85bqvv4g74.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (David Kastrup's message of "Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:43:11 +0100")
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87u09nn7ru.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <fc339e4a0603240947y7b4c7acu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87pskbmzip.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85d5gb7ieb.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <877j6jlf3t.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85acbf5y21.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <873bh7lbpy.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85bqvv4g74.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 24 Mar 2006, David Kastrup outgrape:
> Florent Rougon <f.rougon@xxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> If you don't want your software to be distributed by Debian at all,
>> then release it with a fully non-free license, to make things
>> clear. Bah.
>
> I think it a safe bet that the FSF and the GNU project do not
> consider Debian an upstream authority for their notion of what
> constitutes freedom.
Likewise.
manoj
--
Do you have exactly what I want in a plaid poindexter bar bat??
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@xxxxxxxxxx> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Date: March 25, 2006
From: Marco Cabizza <mc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<85bqvv4g74.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87u09nn7ru.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <fc339e4a0603240947y7b4c7acu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87pskbmzip.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85d5gb7ieb.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <877j6jlf3t.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85acbf5y21.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <873bh7lbpy.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85bqvv4g74.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Ven, 24-03-2006 alle 23:43 +0100, David Kastrup ha scritto: > I think it a safe bet that the FSF and the GNU project do not consider > Debian an upstream authority for their notion of what constitutes > freedom. This is becoming a sterile discussion, it's like "I don't want to play with you anymore". Is there any other conclusion apart from "we know that we're right and you're doing the wrong thing"? And I'm not claiming that you are not (right), of course, but. Ciao ~marco
signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente
Date: March 24, 2006
From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<85wtej4i74.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (David Kastrup's message of "Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:59:59 +0100")
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87u09nn7ru.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <fc339e4a0603240947y7b4c7acu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87lkuz8wyo.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85veu360bf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87odzvttln.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <85wtej4i74.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 24 Mar 2006, David Kastrup verbalised:
> JérÎme Marant <jmarant@xxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> Since the principal goal for the Debian project is providing free
>>> software and they can't consider GNU software free in documented
>>> form, they probably should abandon the whole GNU/Linux project and
>>> instead try packaging something like BSD/Linux, a Linux kernel
>>> with BSD utilities all around.
>>>
>>> But the current course is pure duplicity.
>>
>> Duplicity is trying to make people believe that licensing documents
>> under the GFDL makes documentation free.
>
> Can you come up with a single _actual_ example of somebody who had
> been unable to put GFDLed software to some use which would generally
> be considered part of responsible exercising of freedom?
You want to duke anecdotal stories around?[0]
When you come down to wanting to listen to practical
objections, read:
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
>> Why would restricted modifications of software be suddenly
>> acceptable, while they would not with GPL?
> Well, then _stand_ by your convictions. Remove software from the
> GNU project from Debian.
That does not logically follow. If some non-free software
enhances free software, there is no need to throw out the baby with
the bath water. Err, at least, not in my world.
> Free software with unfree documentation is a sham.
I am glad you agree. Can you see if upstream would make the
documentation free?
> If you call the documentation unfree, then the software can't be
> used like free software, and you should remove it, too.
Err, the _software_ sure can. I can use make, even if the
software documentation is non-free -- so I am not seeing where you
are coming from.
manoj
[0] The plural of anecdote is not data.
--
brokee, n: Someone who buys stocks on the advice of a broker.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@xxxxxxxxxx> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Date: March 24, 2006
From: David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx>
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87u09nn7ru.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <fc339e4a0603240947y7b4c7acu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87pskbmzip.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85d5gb7ieb.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <877j6jlf3t.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85acbf5y21.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <873bh7lbpy.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Florent Rougon <f.rougon@xxxxxxx> writes: > David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > If you don't want your software to be distributed by Debian at all, > then release it with a fully non-free license, to make things > clear. Bah. I think it a safe bet that the FSF and the GNU project do not consider Debian an upstream authority for their notion of what constitutes freedom. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Date: March 24, 2006
From: JérÎme Marant <jmarant@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<85wtej4i74.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (David Kastrup's message of "Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:59:59 +0100")
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87u09nn7ru.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <fc339e4a0603240947y7b4c7acu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87lkuz8wyo.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85veu360bf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87odzvttln.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <85wtej4i74.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> writes: > JérÃŽme Marant <jmarant@xxxxxxx> writes: > >> David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> Since the principal goal for the Debian project is providing free >>> software and they can't consider GNU software free in documented form, >>> they probably should abandon the whole GNU/Linux project and instead >>> try packaging something like BSD/Linux, a Linux kernel with BSD >>> utilities all around. >>> >>> But the current course is pure duplicity. >> >> Duplicity is trying to make people believe that licensing documents >> under the GFDL makes documentation free. > > Can you come up with a single _actual_ example of somebody who had > been unable to put GFDLed software to some use which would generally > be considered part of responsible exercising of freedom? It is irrelevant. Invariant sections restrict freedom to modify GFDL software. There is not much to be proven. >> Why would restricted modifications of software be suddenly >> acceptable, while they would not with GPL? > > Well, then _stand_ by your convictions. Remove software from the GNU > project from Debian. Free software with unfree documentation is a > sham. If you call the documentation unfree, then the software can't > be used like free software, and you should remove it, too. But documentation *is* software. As I was corrected right by Manoj in past discussions, everything that's not hardware is software. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software Hence GFDL with invariant sections is not a free *software* license. -- Jérôme Marant
Date: March 24, 2006
From: Florent Rougon <f.rougon@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<85acbf5y21.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (David Kastrup's message of "Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:32:06 +0100")
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87u09nn7ru.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <fc339e4a0603240947y7b4c7acu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87pskbmzip.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85d5gb7ieb.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <877j6jlf3t.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85acbf5y21.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Upstream does not "cooperate". Upstream delivers. This may be the case when you are upstream, but I can assure you that some upstreams do cooperate. > If Debian is unhappy with the "unfree" software made "by GNU", as they > like to say, then they should package something else. Debian nonetheless provides the most useful non-free (but still distributable) software in its non-free area. Such as GFDL-licensed manuals with invariant sections. And who are you to dictate Debian what "it" should package? > Duplicity does not become magically something else if enough people > vote for it. Despite your repeated clamis, there is no duplicity in our actions. We have a social contract that was amended by the act of voting, and we follow the principles written in that social contract. That's quite simple, actually. If you don't want your software to be distributed by Debian at all, then release it with a fully non-free license, to make things clear. Bah. -- Florent
Date: March 24, 2006
From: David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx>
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87u09nn7ru.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <fc339e4a0603240947y7b4c7acu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87lkuz8wyo.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85veu360bf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87odzvttln.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx>
JérÎme Marant <jmarant@xxxxxxx> writes: > David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> writes: > >> Since the principal goal for the Debian project is providing free >> software and they can't consider GNU software free in documented form, >> they probably should abandon the whole GNU/Linux project and instead >> try packaging something like BSD/Linux, a Linux kernel with BSD >> utilities all around. >> >> But the current course is pure duplicity. > > Duplicity is trying to make people believe that licensing documents > under the GFDL makes documentation free. Can you come up with a single _actual_ example of somebody who had been unable to put GFDLed software to some use which would generally be considered part of responsible exercising of freedom? > Why would restricted modifications of software be suddenly > acceptable, while they would not with GPL? Well, then _stand_ by your convictions. Remove software from the GNU project from Debian. Free software with unfree documentation is a sham. If you call the documentation unfree, then the software can't be used like free software, and you should remove it, too. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-emacsen-REQUEST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: March 24, 2006
From: David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx>
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87u09nn7ru.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <fc339e4a0603240947y7b4c7acu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87pskbmzip.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85d5gb7ieb.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <877j6jlf3t.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Florent Rougon <f.rougon@xxxxxxx> writes: > David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> More like that Debian packagers' views don't correspond with either >> the upstream free software authors' nor the users' views, and that > > How can you claim you know the users' views? I am a user, and my view is > that Debian did the right choice to remain consistent between writings > and actions. > >> Debian feels it has the right to teach both morals, making use of the >> means provided freely from upstream. > > This is your impression, because you are frustrated. Debian is no > person, Debian does not feel it has the right to teach morals, Debian: > > 1. has tried for a *long* time to resolve the issue with upstream; > > 2. went through a long, open and thorough debate, followed by a > democratic process whose outcome it is now rightfully following. > > I cannot see any problem here, except upstream's lack of cooperation Upstream does not "cooperate". Upstream delivers. > and your frustration. If you're unhappy with the democratic choices > made "by Debian", as you like to say, then go build your own > distribution. If Debian is unhappy with the "unfree" software made "by GNU", as they like to say, then they should package something else. > Sorry if the last sentence sounds rude, but I am shocked by your > intellectual tyranny, denying us, Debian folks, the right to make > our own choices by open and democratic processes. Duplicity does not become magically something else if enough people vote for it. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Date: March 24, 2006
From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<85veu360bf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (David Kastrup's message of "Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:43:16 +0100")
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87u09nn7ru.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <fc339e4a0603240947y7b4c7acu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87lkuz8wyo.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85veu360bf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 24 Mar 2006, David Kastrup verbalised:
> Hubert Chan <hubert@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Debian has to pick a definition of free/non-free for itself. It
>> cannot try to cater to everyone's different definition of free.
>
> Sure, but then they should be honest about it, and not keep software
> with "non-free" documentation in the main section: that's just
> encouraging people distributing crippleware with non-free
> documentation. And they'll point to Debian's treatment of GNU/GFDL
> as justification.
Actually, I fail to see the distinction here. How are these
cases truly different? Where is the dishonesty? We have programs
users find useful, which are free, but the accompanying documentation
is not free, we opt to include the free software bits, and still
package the non-free documentation (while not in Debian, it is
available to users).
While you may argue that there are degrees in non-freeness,
and some things are more non-free than others (and I would certainly
not disagree), no one has yet taken the effort to come up with a
classification scheme for non-free, and worked out a consensus
solution, nor policies how such fine distinctions of non-freeness
affect archive and release operations. I personally prefer to spend
my time working on free software and security solutions.
> As the prescribed documentation license for all GNU projects
> according to the GNU maintainer guidelines is the GFDL, it is clear
> that most GNU software should get moved to non-free, and probably
> all of it by some time.
When you are creating your distribution, and you are making
your classification, you are certainly free to do so. But your
choices, and your criteria, are not what the Debian project has
elected to follow.
> Since the principal goal for the Debian project is providing free
> software and they can't consider GNU software free in documented
> form, they probably should abandon the whole GNU/Linux project and
> instead try packaging something like BSD/Linux, a Linux kernel with
> BSD utilities all around.
Ah. You see the world in black or white. There is a whole
spectrum of finer distinctions out there that, while lost on you, is
still recognized by the Debian project.
Anyway, please stop trying to dictate how we conduct our
business. The final call lies wth the project membership, and they
have opted to act in a manner which, while it may be displeasing to
you, seems right for us.
manoj
--
"The Nazis have no sense of humor, so why should they want
television?" Philip K. Dick
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@xxxxxxxxxx> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Date: March 24, 2006
From: Hubert Chan <hubert@xxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<85d5gb7ieb.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (David Kastrup's message of "Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:27:24 +0100")
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87u09nn7ru.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <fc339e4a0603240947y7b4c7acu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87pskbmzip.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85d5gb7ieb.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:27:24 +0100, David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> said: > Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> In other words, people are complaining that Debian developers views >> do not coincide with their own? > More like that Debian packagers' views don't correspond with either > the upstream free software authors' nor the users' views, and that > Debian feels it has the right to teach both morals, making use of the > means provided freely from upstream. No matter what views you have, some people are going to disagree with you. Some people consider BSD-style licenses more free than the GPL because it gives them the freedom to incorporate the code in proprietary software. Some people consider DJB's license to be free. Some people even consider Microsoft's "Shared Source" free enough. Not everyone agrees, but some people do agree. To say that the "Debian packagers' views don't correspond with either the upstream free software author's nor the users' views" is fairly meaningless. Pick any view on software freedom, and you'll probably have some upstream and some set of users who do not agree with your view. But you'll also probably have some upstream and some set of users who *do* agree with your view. Besides, the time to debate the free-ness of the GFDL was before the vote. Not now. -- Hubert Chan - email & Jabber: hubert@xxxxxxxxx - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA (Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Date: March 24, 2006
From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<85d5gb7ieb.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (David Kastrup's message of "Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:27:24 +0100")
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87u09nn7ru.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <fc339e4a0603240947y7b4c7acu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87pskbmzip.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85d5gb7ieb.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 24 Mar 2006, David Kastrup outgrape:
> More like that Debian packagers' views don't correspond with either
> the upstream free software authors' nor the users' views, and that
And you speak for all the users?
> Debian feels it has the right to teach both morals, making use of
> the means provided freely from upstream.
Debian is teaching nothing. It is providing a free service,
and a free OS. It also provides some ancillary non-free software as
a service to our users who may want such.
If you think that classification of what we want to provide
for free, and freely, to our users is preaching, well, you are
entitled to your opinion. Ranting at the people who are providing
such a service may be boorish, but is your right. My attention is
not.
manoj
--
What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence. Wittgenstein
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@xxxxxxxxxx> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Date: March 24, 2006
From: JérÎme Marant <jmarant@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<85veu360bf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (David Kastrup's message of "Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:43:16 +0100")
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87u09nn7ru.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <fc339e4a0603240947y7b4c7acu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87lkuz8wyo.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85veu360bf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> writes: > Since the principal goal for the Debian project is providing free > software and they can't consider GNU software free in documented form, > they probably should abandon the whole GNU/Linux project and instead > try packaging something like BSD/Linux, a Linux kernel with BSD > utilities all around. > > But the current course is pure duplicity. Duplicity is trying to make people believe that licensing documents under the GFDL makes documentation free. Why would restricted modifications of software be suddenly acceptable, while they would not with GPL? -- Jérôme Marant
Date: March 24, 2006
From: David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx>
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87u09nn7ru.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <fc339e4a0603240947y7b4c7acu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87lkuz8wyo.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hubert Chan <hubert@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Debian has to pick a definition of free/non-free for itself. It > cannot try to cater to everyone's different definition of free. Sure, but then they should be honest about it, and not keep software with "non-free" documentation in the main section: that's just encouraging people distributing crippleware with non-free documentation. And they'll point to Debian's treatment of GNU/GFDL as justification. As the prescribed documentation license for all GNU projects according to the GNU maintainer guidelines is the GFDL, it is clear that most GNU software should get moved to non-free, and probably all of it by some time. Since the principal goal for the Debian project is providing free software and they can't consider GNU software free in documented form, they probably should abandon the whole GNU/Linux project and instead try packaging something like BSD/Linux, a Linux kernel with BSD utilities all around. But the current course is pure duplicity. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Date: March 24, 2006
From: Florent Rougon <f.rougon@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<85d5gb7ieb.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (David Kastrup's message of "Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:27:24 +0100")
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87u09nn7ru.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <fc339e4a0603240947y7b4c7acu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87pskbmzip.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85d5gb7ieb.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> More like that Debian packagers' views don't correspond with either
> the upstream free software authors' nor the users' views, and that
How can you claim you know the users' views? I am a user, and my view is
that Debian did the right choice to remain consistent between writings
and actions.
> Debian feels it has the right to teach both morals, making use of the
> means provided freely from upstream.
This is your impression, because you are frustrated. Debian is no
person, Debian does not feel it has the right to teach morals, Debian:
1. has tried for a *long* time to resolve the issue with upstream;
2. went through a long, open and thorough debate, followed by a
democratic process whose outcome it is now rightfully following.
I cannot see any problem here, except upstream's lack of cooperation and
your frustration. If you're unhappy with the democratic choices made "by
Debian", as you like to say, then go build your own distribution.
Sorry if the last sentence sounds rude, but I am shocked by your
intellectual tyranny, denying us, Debian folks, the right to make our
own choices by open and democratic processes.
--
Florent
Date: March 24, 2006
From: David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx>
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <85lkv0c6hu.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87u09nn7ru.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <fc339e4a0603240947y7b4c7acu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87pskbmzip.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 24 Mar 2006, Miles Bader said: > >> 2006/3/25, Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>> Well, users, and developers, who disagree with our principles can >>> still get the non-fee documentation by adding one line to their apt >>> sources list. If you, as a developer or a user, think the docs are >>> free, why should you care how debian has classified it? You can >>> still get it on your box. So the interests of users and developers >>> who disagree with debian are not being catered to is an argument >>> that does not fly. >> >> I think one complaint is that many debian users want to avoid what >> they consider non-free stuff. Previously this was simple, if their >> idea of "non-free" corresponded with Debian's: they could just not >> have non-free in their sources.list. However now, it will be >> harder, because Debian is going to group desirable "free" (from the >> user's viewpoint, not debian's) stuff together with undesirable >> "really non-free" stuff. > > In other words, people are complaining that Debian developers > views do not coincide with their own? More like that Debian packagers' views don't correspond with either the upstream free software authors' nor the users' views, and that Debian feels it has the right to teach both morals, making use of the means provided freely from upstream. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Date: March 24, 2006
From: Hubert Chan <hubert@xxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to:
<fc339e4a0603240947y7b4c7acu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Miles Bader's message of "Sat, 25 Mar 2006 02:47:28 +0900")
References:
<441676FA.3000404@xxxxxx> <buo3bhkkvj9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4422D564.4060907@xxxxxx> <87y7z1gjoj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <44230E3C.6010800@xxxxxx> <878xr0u6e9.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87zmjglmuf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874q1oty3f.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <