Re: All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:18:45AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 09:33:00PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Cool. Didn't know that. Then again, I've only been using MySQL since a
> > few years, so maybe it's normal that I didn't know.
> 
> Which documentation did you use?

The one on the website, containing user-provided comments and a search
function. There are certain kinds of documentation that are better used
online than in a package, IMO.

(in fairness, I don't use MySQL as often as I used to anymore -- prefer
PostgreSQL these days)

-- 
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: FTBFS for illegal archs

[Nico Golde]

Hello Wouter,

* Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-16 11:56]:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 09:04:34PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
> > Hi,
> > does anyone knows a solution to let packages FTBFS on
> > buildd's which architecure are not supported by the
> > software?
> 
> You want to read Policy. Really.
> 
> (specifically, section 5.6.7)

I read the policy, I know what it says.

I only ask because Jeroen asked me this (Jeroen I hope
posting it is ok, I doesn't want that someone thinks I
haven't read the policy :)

P-a-s maintainers: Please add yacpi as above:

%yacpi: i386 amd64 ia64 # acpi is i386/amd64/ia64 specific

%On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 06:11:22PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
> can you please remove the old package yacpi-1.0 so the
> package can migrate to testing?

You mean dropping the architectures no longer built because
acpi isn't
supported on those archs, I assume.

Please also try to make your package actually FTBFS on
systems not
supporting acpi, if that's possible, besides limiting the
Architecture
line as you've already done.

Regards Nico
-- 
Nico Golde - [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: 1024D/73647CFF
http://www.ngolde.de | http://www.muttng.org | http://grml.org 
VIM has two modes - the one in which it beeps 
and the one in which it doesn't -- encrypted mail preferred


pgpfCdtoLH0SR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: FTBFS for illegal archs

[Nico Golde]

Hello Gergely,

* Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-16 11:56]:
> > does anyone knows a solution to let packages FTBFS on
> > buildd's which architecure are not supported by the
> > software?
> 
> If the arch is not supported by the package, why is it in the packages
> Architecture: line to begin with?

It doesn't.
Regards Nico
-- 
Nico Golde - [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG: 1024D/73647CFF
http://www.ngolde.de | http://www.muttng.org | http://grml.org 
VIM has two modes - the one in which it beeps 
and the one in which it doesn't -- encrypted mail preferred


pgpYZQN5aknFO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Cartouches d'encre de la marque de votre imprimante (conseil important)

[Lionel Elie Mamane]

On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 05:19:12AM +0200, Ghislain Roggemans wrote:

> J'ai des listes de prix pour des milliers de cartouche que je vends avec
> des marges très faibles, je me propose donc de vous fournir vos
> cartouches et toners aux meilleurs prix du marché.

Wohoo! And a 1999,- USD donation for SPI!

> Ghislain Roggemans
> rue des Goujons 22
> 1070 Bruxelles
> Tel : 02/524.43.38
> GSM : 0495/83.73.07
> GSM : 0477/50.75.52

> Entreprise : 0607785865
> Dexia : 063-9255141-18Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  
> www.Roggemans.com  

-- 
Lionel


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#271428: mapping unknown timezones

[martin f krafft]

Sending to debian-devel because I would like to hear other people's
opinions. It's about #271428, as the subject says. Please keep
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on CC (I assume GOTO reads -devel).

also sprach GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.04.16.1421 +0200]:
> Exactly, the problem is strftime.  If you want to change it,
> please propose it - such new function might be GNU specific
> interface.
> 
> BTW, I think it's not buggy because it has been used for a long
> time on various unix.  It seems you're eager to have new strftime
> - why don't you work for it?

We are running in circles. Just because something has been used for
a long time does not mean it is be bug free.

If libc does not know the timezone you request, it should *not* fall
back to GMT and claim that it is rendering the requested timezone.

  cirrus:~> TZ=GOTO date
  Sat Apr 16 12:48:31 GOTO 2005

is wrong. It is not 12:48 in the GOTO timezone because the GOTO
timezone does not exist.

If you ask me, it should do either of the following, in decreasing
order of my preference:

  cirrus:~> TZ=GOTO date
  W: unknown timezone: GOTO. Using UTC instead.
  Sat Apr 16 12:48:31 UTC 2005

  cirrus:~> TZ=GOTO date
  Sat Apr 16 12:48:31 UTC 2005

  cirrus:~> TZ=GOTO date
  E: unknown timezone: GOTO.
  
Now, whether this is a strftime problem, or how to incorporate the
above into strftime is not my concern. I am a user and not willing
to figure out the libc dungeons. I just note that the current
behaviour of date is misleading, and that is what this bug is all
about.

-- 
 .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :'  :proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
 
Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
 
gentoo: for when overclocking gets unexciting.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: What do you win by moving things to non-free?

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:31:23AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 05:54:08AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > Case 1: foo = nvidia binary modules
> > Answer: Because these modules are binary-nonly and therefore
> > undebuggable for everyone except Nvidia. They give you a
> > much better 3D performance, but they sometimes lead to
> > kernel crashes.
> > 
> > Case 2: foo = some documentation
> > Answer: Because the document contains a invariant section in which
> > the author says he dedicates this manual to his dead father.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > In the first case you might have convinced a system administrator that 
> > non-free software has serious disadvantages.
> > 
> > In the second case you'll hear a loud laugher.
> 
> Maybe, since you conspicuously omitted the "and therefore" part in
> case 2; the practical problems with invariant sections have been well
> explored.  (I'm not going to waste my time digging up discussions about
> them for you, since you'll just complain that they're not an "official
> position statement".  Find them yourself.)


It's not about a "and therefore" in the text I wrote.

You missed my main point:


Most people can't be convinced by reading a statement what Debian 
considers free and what not. But they can be convinced by technical 
arguments why free software is superior.

You can convince people that non-free software is bad if you explain 
stability problems with the nvidia binary modules or the reason why 
majordomo was removed from non-free to them.


The invariant section issues are things you can discuss inside Debian or 
with me or with the FSF. But for nearly everyone else the result if you 
explain the GFDL problem will be that he thinks that the differences 
between free and non-free software are pretty small.


> Glenn Maynard

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#271428: mapping unknown timezones

[Martin Dickopp]

martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Sending to debian-devel because I would like to hear other people's
> opinions. It's about #271428, as the subject says. Please keep
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] on CC (I assume GOTO reads -devel).
>
> also sprach GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.04.16.1421 +0200]:
>> Exactly, the problem is strftime.  If you want to change it,
>> please propose it - such new function might be GNU specific
>> interface.
>> 
>> BTW, I think it's not buggy because it has been used for a long
>> time on various unix.  It seems you're eager to have new strftime
>> - why don't you work for it?
>
> We are running in circles. Just because something has been used for
> a long time does not mean it is be bug free.
>
> If libc does not know the timezone you request, it should *not* fall
> back to GMT and claim that it is rendering the requested timezone.
>
>   cirrus:~> TZ=GOTO date
>   Sat Apr 16 12:48:31 GOTO 2005
>
> is wrong. It is not 12:48 in the GOTO timezone because the GOTO
> timezone does not exist.
>
> If you ask me, it should do either of the following, in decreasing
> order of my preference:
>
>   cirrus:~> TZ=GOTO date
>   W: unknown timezone: GOTO. Using UTC instead.
>   Sat Apr 16 12:48:31 UTC 2005
>
>   cirrus:~> TZ=GOTO date
>   Sat Apr 16 12:48:31 UTC 2005
>
>   cirrus:~> TZ=GOTO date
>   E: unknown timezone: GOTO.

According to my understanding of the POSIX 2001 standard, the behavior
is undefined if TZ is set to an invalid value. (ISO C 99 does not
specify how the timezone is determined, but some vague wording [in
section 7.23.3.5p3, description of %z and %Z] suggests that it can be
either determinable or not determinable.)

Therefore, any actual behavior (including the existing one as well as
the suggested alternatives) would be standard conforming.

>From a QoI point of view, I'd prefer if the timezone string is emitted
as "UTC". I have no opinion whether 'date' should print a warning, but
IMHO 'strftime' should /not/ write to standard output or standard error.

Martin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#271428: mapping unknown timezones

[martin f krafft]

also sprach Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.04.16.1552 +0200]:
> Therefore, any actual behavior (including the existing one as well
> as the suggested alternatives) would be standard conforming.

I don't think I was criticising standards compliance...

> >From a QoI point of view, I'd prefer if the timezone string is emitted
> as "UTC". I have no opinion whether 'date' should print a warning, but
> IMHO 'strftime' should /not/ write to standard output or standard error.

Yes, I completely agree.

-- 
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
 
 .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :'  :proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
 
Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
 
"in just seven days, i can make you a man!"
  -- the rocky horror picture show


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: What do you win by moving things to non-free?

[Daniel Burrows]

On Saturday 16 April 2005 09:28 am, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The invariant section issues are things you can discuss inside Debian or
> with me or with the FSF. But for nearly everyone else the result if you
> explain the GFDL problem will be that he thinks that the differences
> between free and non-free software are pretty small.

  A lot of people can't understand why we would consider software that comes 
with source code, is freely distributable, and may be modified in any way to 
be non-free simply because its license states that you may not use it if you 
are a business/work at a nuclear plant/are a member of a neo-Nazi group.  So, 
should we put software like that into main so that they don't "think the 
differences between free and non-free software are pretty small"?

  If not, I'm not sure I see what you're trying to say either.

  Daniel

-- 
/--- Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --\
|  "Next, consider a circle passing through infinity; that  |
|   is, a straight line.."  |
\-- (if (not (understand-this)) (go-to http://www.schemers.org)) ---/


pgpb3P83iKPYZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#271428: mapping unknown timezones

[Martin Dickopp]

martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> also sprach Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.04.16.1552 +0200]:
>> Therefore, any actual behavior (including the existing one as well
>> as the suggested alternatives) would be standard conforming.
>
> I don't think I was criticising standards compliance...

I didn't mean to say you did. But after reading the postings to the bug
report (well, to be honest, after skimming them quickly... :) ), it
seemed that nobody had yet looked up if the relevant standards do in
fact mandate any specific behavior for the case of an invalid TZ, so I
did that first. Apologies if I have missed something.

Martin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free

[Thomas Hood]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 01:10:10 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Debian's steps of moving more and more things into non-free forces many 
> users to use non-free who wouldn't do otherwise.
> 
> Is this effect really wanted?


Obviously not.  One effect that is wanted is for users to have access to
an archive that wholly conforms to the DFSG, robustly interpreted. 
Another goal is to encourage authors to license works compatible with the
DFSG, robustly interpreted.


-- 
Thomas Hood


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What do you win by moving things to non-free?

[John Hasler]

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The invariant section issues are things you can discuss inside Debian or
> with me or with the FSF. But for nearly everyone else the result if you
> explain the GFDL problem will be that he thinks that the differences
> between free and non-free software are pretty small.

For nearly everyone else software is free if you don't have to pay for it.
Should we then package everything that won't get us sued?
-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free

[Hubert Chan]

> "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Adrian> On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:58:52AM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote:
>> ...  In fact, I've never looked at the gcc documentation other than
>> to look up machine-specific options and optimization flags.  It's
>> easy to use gcc without the documentation.

Adrian> Simple usage might work, but as soon as you reach any question
Adrian> like e.g.

Adrian>   How do I pass in a additional path to the include path of gcc?
Adrian>   Which optimization levels does gcc support?

These are widely known, and can be found in many makefiles, or by asking
around.

Optimization levels is also not something that is required knowledge;
you an write a perfectly usable program without tweaking the
optimization.

Adrian>   Which optimization option is best for my CPU?

You wouldn't be able to find this in the documentation anyways.  The
"best" optimization depends on the CPU on the program characteristics.
If you want to find this out, you could run your program through
something like acovea.

Adrian> you are pretty lost without the documentation.

To make things clear, I'm _not_ saying that the documentation is
useless.  There are some things that you probably can't find out without
reading the documentation (or the source code), such as more obscure
stuff like architecture-specific flags.  *But* documentation is in a
much different class than license text.  For license text, it is
*legally required* to include it with the software.  But software is
still usable without documentation, and hence documentation is not a
dependency.

In fact, there's still quite a bit of software that doesn't even have
documentation (of free documentation).  If gcc (or MySQL, etc.) didn't
come packaged with documentation and the only documentation available
was non-free, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  We'd all just be
complaining that gcc doesn't have any good free documentation.  But
people would still be able to use gcc -- just not as well as they would
if they had access to good documentation.  Just like many completely
undocumented programs today are still usable, but not as well as they
would be if they had some form of documentation.

This doesn't mean that these undocumented programs are unsuitable for
distribution.  This just means that someone should write some (free)
documentation.  Likewise, gcc doesn't need to go into non-free just
because its documentation is DFSG non-free.  It just means that someone
should write DFSG free documentation.  (Or that we should modify the
DFSG so that the GFDL can be considered DFSG free, but I can't think of
any sane [1] definition of free that would allow that; obviously the FSF
thinks differently from me.)

[1] "sane" meaning it has to still have some semblance to free-ness.  If
you define "free" as "everything is free", then certainly the GFDL is
free, but most people would agree that such a definition is non-sane.

Yes, I agree with you that good documentation is very useful and helps
you use the software better than if you didn't have access to good
documentation.  But it is _not_ a *requirement* or *dependency*, since
it is still usable without the documentation.

I recently started looking at the GNUstep libraries, and tried my hand
at writing a program using them.  Documentation does exist, but it is
highly inadequate -- it's easier to just read through the header files.
So I ended up buying a couple of non-free books.  Does this mean that
GNUstep is non-free because I needed to buy some non-free documentation?
No, it just means that we need to improve the quality of the free
documentation.

[...]

Adrian> My point is:

Adrian> Non-free was going to contain mostly obscure things now that
Adrian> there are free replacements for Netscape and Acroread.

Adrian> Debian's steps of moving more and more things into non-free
Adrian> forces many users to use non-free who wouldn't do otherwise.

Adrian> Is this effect really wanted?

No.  Ideally, we would have documentation that was DFSG free.

But what are the alternatives to moving GFDL documentation to non-free?
It seems you are suggesting that we could move gcc et al. into non-free
as well, and I think we both agree that that would be an even worse
solution.

We could also just keep GFDL documentation in main, but that would
violate our Social Contract as it stands today (or, rather, after Sarge
is released).  We could modify our social contract again (but after GR
2004-003 [2], I doubt there would be much support for that, although
anyone is free to try).  We could keep postponing the Social Contract
changes [3] indefinitely, but I don't think that would get much support
either.  Or we could modify the DFSG so that the GFDL would be
considered free.  Again, I can't think of a sane definition of free that
would include the GFDL, but if anyone can do it, and can convince 3/4 of
the DDs of that, then they are free to propose a GR to modify the DFSG.
The DFSG already does contain some 

erivim

[Ayelen]

quywe tonctostay



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:09:08AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Different from what both I and several other people in this thread 
> stated, the GPL is DFSG-free?

In my interpretation, yes.

-- 
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#304941: ITP: gnome-art -- install GNOME themes from art.gnome.org

[Dan Korostelev]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Dan Korostelev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: gnome-art
  Version : 0.1
  Upstream Author : Michael Gebhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.miketech.net/gnome-art/
* License : GPL
  Description : install GNOME themes from art.gnome.org
   Gnome Art is a tool for downloading and installing GNOME themes
   from http://art.gnome.org/ website. It provides a nice theme list
   with options to preview, download and install them.
   .
   Homepage: http://www.miketech.net/gnome-art/
 
-=-

Preview packages are available on http://mentors.debian.net/. This source 
package also generates a gnome-splashscreen-manager package that is a splash 
screen selector for gnome-session. Any comments welcome.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-10-amd64-k8
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What do you win by moving things to non-free?

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 06:14:58AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:15:29PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 04:29:42AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > > > Is this wanted?
> > > 
> > > This may not be wanted, but what is your alternative?
> > 
> > Well, it's not that we don't want gcc's documentation to be moved to
> > non-free; rather, we don't want gcc's documentation to *be* non-free.
> > The moving to non-free is just a side-effect; Adrian seems to be
> > saying that we should eliminate the side-effect and ignore the core
> > problem.
> 
> What is the "core problem"?
> 
> Are the differences between the FSF and Debian regarding issues like 
> invariant sections in Debian really the core problem?

On this issue, yes.

> Or are things like hardware with binary-only drivers and without 
> specifications or software patents more important problems?

Those are separate issues. It's not as if we suddenly turn a blind eye
to binary-only drivers and software patents if we go on a crusade
against non-free documentation.

> As I tried to express in the "system administrator" example in the email 
> I sent a few minutes ago, I'm sure nearly everyone outside the inner 
> circle of the free software world will consider the whole GFDL 
> discussion as being absurd.

Many people outside the community consider the whole "Free Software" vs
"Open Source" discussion as being absurd, too; but the fact that this is
true doesn't mean that the discussion is pointless, or that the cause
isn't a worthy one.

> In the Qt/GPL case Debian was at least able to argue that it would
> otherwise break laws which convinces many people. 

Debian is about more than 'not breaking laws'.

> And if the FSF doesn't want to change the GFDL in a way that Debian
> wants I doubt moving GFDL'ed documentation to non-free will put much
> pressure on them.

Well, I guess that's a chance we have to take. In any case, our users
should always have the option of getting the documentation from
non-free.

-- 
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#304948: ITP: boo -- a python-like language and compiler for the CLI

[Sam Clegg]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sam Clegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


* Package name: boo
  Version : 0.5
  Upstream Author : Rodrigo B. de Oliveira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://boo.codehaus.org/
* License : Custom. DFSG Compatible.
  Description : a python-like language and compiler for the CLI

Boo is considered ready for general usage and runs fine on mono.
In fact mono its the primary target platform.  The licence is
custom but looks DFSG compatible.

My initial boo package is here:

 http://people.debian.org/~samo/experimental/

Long Description:

 Boo is an object oriented statically typed programming language
 for the Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) with a Python inspired
 syntax and a special focus on language and compiler extensibility.
 .
 This package includes the Boo libraries as well as a compiler,
 interpreter and interactive shell.  The boo compiler and the
 programs it produces are 100% CIL and can be run on any compliant
 CLI virtual machine.


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.11-1-686-smp
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What do you win by moving things to non-free?

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 05:54:08AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:35:36PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > You present some incredibly strange arguments: you're not arguing that the
> > gcc manual is Free, but instead, apparently, saying "we shouldn't move non-
> 
> I'd personally consider the gcc manual being free.
> 
> But I'm attacking another point in the chain:
> Is the effect of what you are doing really in the spirit behind it or 
> is it counter-productive?

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

If you think it is free, then try to convince people that it is so; if
you have sound arguments to that effect and are able to convince people
by those arguments, I'm sure the problem will solve itself.

If you choose not to do that, then the assumption is that you accept the
statement that the GFDL is not free. Thus, unless you have a good
argument as to why it should not be moved away from main, that is what
will happen. And I'm sorry to say so, but "it's useful to have it in
main" is not a very strong argument to that effect. It would be useful
to have Microsoft Internet Explorer in main, too -- would make it a bit
easier to look at websites created by braindead "webdesigners" -- but we
don't do that, for a very good reason.

[...]
> upgrades. If a system administrator has to choose between e.g. Gentoo 
> and Debian, the percentage of system administrators who understand or 
> want to understand the differences between the "free software" 
> definitions of the two projects will be negligible - the decision will 
> be based on technical reasons and personal preferences.

And such is their right. But that doesn't mean we should make the Debian
experience for those of our users who prefer to use only non-free
software, any harder.

> Even further many Debian installations are used as a basis for non-free 
> software - which is a configuration Debian has promised to support.

And so we do, both by providing a stable, working, computing environment
and by providing the non-free mirror archive network.

> As an example, 14 000 computers in the administration of my home town 
> will soon be based on Debian. This project will be a success for both 
[...]
> Linux. I doubt anyone will care how many percent of this solution will 
> be DFSG-free.

... and I doubt anyone will care how many percent of this solution will
have 'non-free' in /etc/apt/sources.list, too.

>   Why is $foo in non-free?
[...]
> Case 2: foo = some documentation
> Answer: Because the document contains a invariant section in which
> the author says he dedicates this manual to his dead father.

Per the GFDL, dedications are not invariant sections and can indeed be
modified, so long as the "substance and tone" of the dedications are
preserved (GFDL section 4, point K).

A more realistic example would be

Answer: Because the document contains an invariant section on the
author's opinion regarding the dangers of Software Patents in
the European Union.

Something like that simply is not free. It might be true at the time the
piece is written; However, should the situation regarding Software
Patents in the European Union ever change, then there are three
possibilities:

* The author chooses to remove the Invariant Section. This would be the
  best option; however, the fact that many Free Software projects are
  community efforts, where such Invariant Sections might be written by
  many authors together suggests to me that this is not always possible
  (contact information of some of those authors might be lost, (one of)
  the author(s) might have passed away, ...).
* The Invariant Section is retained, and nothing is done about it. As a
  result, the documentation would contain a section that is (eventually,
  severely) out-of-date. This would not only look silly, it might also
  make people not familiar with the GFDL wonder whether the
  documentation itself is completely up-to-date.
* The Invariant Section is retained, but another Invariant Section
  containing a rebuttal is added to the document. This would a) look
  silly, and b) be a beginning of Invariant Section bloat, in which a
  document could consist of 10% Invariant Sections, 60% rebuttals to
  Invariant Sections, and 30% of actual, useful, documentation.
  
> In the first case you might have convinced a system administrator that 
> non-free software has serious disadvantages.
> 
> In the second case you'll hear a loud laugher.

Only because the explanation wasn't good enough. If you explain that the
nVidia-drivers are in non-free because "you can't get the source",
without explaining why you would want that source in the first place,
and without explaining that this is Free as in Freedom, rather than Free
as in no cost, chances are high that you'll hear a loud laughter, too.

-- 
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a s

Re: FTBFS for illegal archs

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:21:36PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
> I read the policy, I know what it says.

Okay, good :)

(it would've helped if you had mentioned the following in your original
mail...)

* Jeroen:
> Please also try to make your package actually FTBFS on systems not
> supporting acpi, if that's possible, besides limiting the Architecture
> line as you've already done.

For one thing, when using dpkg-buildpackage, a package will FTBFS if the
Architecture line doesn't contain the architecture you're building on
(unless I'm mistaken, but I don't think I am).

That being said, I'm not sure this is necessary. For starters, Jeroen
included the "if that's possible" bit; but apart from that, it's not
because the ACPI interface does not exist for an architecture today that
it will never exist; it's not completely impossible that one day,
someone will make a PowerPC-based system with an ACPI interface, even if
it is unlikely. At that point, it'd be nice if the package would build
for PowerPC without /too/ much effort. And as long as it won't build on
PowerPC today, your job is done, I'd say.

-- 
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What do you win by moving things to non-free?

[Matthew Woodcraft]

Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>A more realistic example would be
>
>Answer: Because the document contains an invariant section on the
>   author's opinion regarding the dangers of Software Patents in
>   the European Union.
>
>Something like that simply is not free. It might be true at the time the
>piece is written; However, should the situation regarding Software
>Patents in the European Union ever change, then there are three
>possibilities:

[...]

>* The Invariant Section is retained, but another Invariant Section
>  containing a rebuttal is added to the document. This would a) look
>  silly, and b) be a beginning of Invariant Section bloat, in which a
>  document could consist of 10% Invariant Sections, 60% rebuttals to
>  Invariant Sections, and 30% of actual, useful, documentation.

I do not think this option is as bad as you make it sound. There is no
need for the rebuttal to be made invariant, and the rebuttal could just
be a brief note explaining that the invariant section refers to a
situation which has gone away.

-M-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Cartouches d'encre de la marque de votre imprimante (conseil important)

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2005-04-16 13:49:36, schrieb Lionel Elie Mamane:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 05:19:12AM +0200, Ghislain Roggemans wrote:
> 
> > J'ai des listes de prix pour des milliers de cartouche que je vends avec
> > des marges très faibles, je me propose donc de vous fournir vos
> > cartouches et toners aux meilleurs prix du marché.
> 
> Wohoo! And a 1999,- USD donation for SPI!

Because they are in Belgium, they can donate 1999 Euro to SPI-Europe.


Greetings
Michelle

-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature

Re: All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free

[Andrew Suffield]

On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:30:03PM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote:
> > "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> Adrian> On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:58:52AM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote:
> >> ...  In fact, I've never looked at the gcc documentation other than
> >> to look up machine-specific options and optimization flags.  It's
> >> easy to use gcc without the documentation.
> 
> Adrian> Simple usage might work, but as soon as you reach any question
> Adrian> like e.g.
> 
> Adrian>   How do I pass in a additional path to the include path of gcc?
> Adrian>   Which optimization levels does gcc support?
> 
> These are widely known, and can be found in many makefiles, or by asking
> around.

Mmph. Lots of what is widely known is mythical, and you can't find the
answers in the documentation either. The only place to learn what the
optimisation flags for gcc do, is the source code (*especially* -O; if
you think the documentation is telling you the whole story, you're
wrong).

Frankly, the gcc documentation is pretty awful. I consult the source
more often than the manual. I suggest that this is at least partially
because it's non-free - certainly that's the reason why you don't see
*me* submitting patches to fix it. I'm not working on non-free stuff
without getting paid for it.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature