Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 09:39:23AM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
>> D defeated by a 2.3:1 majority are option F (do nothing at all) and
>> Further Discussion, which all the voters had been told would result in
>> a further delay of the Sarge release.
> A 2
Wow, a civil discussion. I'll see if I can keep it up.
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 10:10 am, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Could anyone give a definitive answer to the following questions:
> - Did -003 contain real changes [1] or didn't it change anything?
That basically depends on who you ask and on
Le mercredi 20 avril 2005 à 16:10 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> Could anyone give a definitive answer to the following questions:
> - Did -003 contain real changes [1] or didn't it change anything?
It didn't change anything.
> - How is it possible to happen that only a small amount of the Debian
Le mercredi 20 avril 2005 à 05:06 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> I've heard three different stories describing this GR:
> 1. it contained only Editorial amendments and didn't change anything
> 2. the Debian developers decided in this GR that documentation has to
>fulfill the full DFSG guideline
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 06:24:51 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 11:52:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> ... (GR2004-004 didn't make any sense at all, nor does it make any
>> sense that Sarge can ship with non-free documentation, and at the
>> time I found th
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 09:39:23AM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
>
> Adrian,
>
> I believe that you are misrepresenting the outcome of -004. The proposal
> to
> postpone the changes till after the release, then reinstate them, defeated
> option D (rescind -003) by a 2:1 majority. The onl
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 12:24 am, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> In GR2004-004, Proposal D to revert GR2004-003 did get a 2.3:1 majority
> by the developers over the proposal to keep the changes of GR2004-003.
> That's a pretty clear statement.
Adrian,
I believe that you are misrepresenting the outc
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 01:22:06AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 06:24:51AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The nice thing about 3:1 majorities is, that once you've tricked
> > something as "Editorial amendments" into it, a 25% minority is enough to
> > block reverting it...
May be, are we talking about this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox
Daniele
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.18 - Release Date: 19/04/2005
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "un
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>Therefore, all GPL'd programs will have to go to non-free.
>
>Q.E.D.
>
>Is this a correct interpretation of what will happen after the release
>of sarge or is there any mistake in my proof?
The problem you have identified is not new, or unique to free sof
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 06:24:51AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The nice thing about 3:1 majorities is, that once you've tricked
> something as "Editorial amendments" into it, a 25% minority is enough to
> block reverting it...
Nobody was "tricked". I believe this claim so laughable, and at the
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 06:08:50AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> If it contained only editorial changes as you are saying, you've thereby
> proven that your statement the documentation licencing was "firmly
> decided" was wrong.
The SC ratified by SC2004-003 is abundantly clear: documentation must
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 11:52:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>...
> (GR2004-004 didn't make
> any sense at all, nor does it make any sense that Sarge can ship
> with non-free documentation, and at the time I found the posts of
> the RM on the topic to make no sense at all, but I was satisfied wit
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 05:06:16AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> I've heard three different stories describing this GR:
> 1. it contained only Editorial amendments and didn't change anything
> 2. the Debian developers decided in this GR that documentation has to
>fulfill the full DFSG guidelines
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 11:52:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 05:06:16AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > I've heard three different stories describing this GR:
> > 1. it contained only Editorial amendments and didn't change anything
> > 2. the Debian developers decided in t
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:13:04PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>...
> This makes it extremely clear that, as far as the Social Contract is
> concerned, everything in Debian is software, covered by the DFSG. This
> is a discussion that's done and complete, settled by GR2004-003, and
> I'm not inter
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 02:22:11PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> The fact that we can remove the documentation and still distribute the
>> software demonstrates that it isn't an unavoidable requirement.
>
> The question remains whether a gcc or MySQL wit
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-specifi
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 bananoseco
> "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
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 archi
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?
T
(Branden, I've BCC'd you on this mail since you're mentioned, as I don't
expect that you follow every thread on -devel. It's a BCC to keep people
from copying you on further mails in the thread and I won't copy you
on it further.)
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 04:17:24AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Whe
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 09:22:48PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 02:51:32AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > Please tell me where the document is I should have found that explains
> > Debian's position on this issue and then you have my publically stated
> > apology for
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 10:47:23AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Hey! In this age of extreme interpretations of licenses, why should the
> GPL be exempt from thorough review?
I honestly can't tell if you're being serious. :) I do think the GPL
should be subject to review, even though as a pract
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 02:51:32AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> I have to admit that the subject of my email lacked the question mark
> that was at the end of the email and that should have been at the end of
> the Subject, too. Is one missing question mark enough for being
> publically called a
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 07:17:08PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:05:42AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > If you call people who don't know about it a troll you should ensure
> > that it's documented at the places where you'd expect to read it.
>
> I call anyone who starts
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 07:17:08PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:05:42AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > If you call people who don't know about it a troll you should ensure
> > that it's documented at the places where you'd expect to read it.
>
> I call anyone who starts
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:05:42AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> If you call people who don't know about it a troll you should ensure
> that it's documented at the places where you'd expect to read it.
I call anyone who starts a thread on debian-devel with the subject:
"All GPL'ed programs have
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.
Simple usage might work, but as soon as you reach any
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 09:33:00PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 03:44:04PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The question remains whether a gcc or MySQL without documentation is of
> > any practical value.
>
> There are MySQL documentation packages? Or at least, there have
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 09:26:30PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 06:46:41PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett writes:
> > > In general, the law doesn't allow us to modify the license attached to a
> > > piece of software.
> >
> > That has nothing to do with cr
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 05:30:15PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> > > Adrian, you're deliberately wasting the project's time with a very old,
> > > eternity-since-debunked "argument". That's known as "trolling". Unless
> > > you have something of value to say, go away.
> > If you call me a "troll"
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 03:44:04PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The question remains whether a gcc or MySQL without documentation is of
> any practical value.
There are MySQL documentation packages? Or at least, there have been?
Cool. Didn't know that. Then again, I've only been using MySQL sinc
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:31:47PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Er, no. The GPL can only be modified if the preamble is removed, which
> means the preamble is an invariant section.
No, it's not. An invariant section, as defined by the GFDL, *cannot be
removed*. That's what's so ugly about it --
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 06:46:41PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
> > In general, the law doesn't allow us to modify the license attached to a
> > piece of software.
>
> That has nothing to do with creating a derivative of a license for use
> elsewhere.
You are allowed to do
> "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adrian> On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 02:22:11PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
[...]
>> The fact that we can remove the documentation and still distribute
>> the software dem
> > Adrian, you're deliberately wasting the project's time with a very old,
> > eternity-since-debunked "argument". That's known as "trolling". Unless
> > you have something of value to say, go away.
> If you call me a "troll", please tell me where this is documented.
http://lists.debian.org/deb
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 02:22:11PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'd also say that for a user, access to documentation is an unavoidable
> > requirement for using the software (e.g. for most non-trivial uses it
> > will be a pain to work with a gcc
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd also say that for a user, access to documentation is an unavoidable
> requirement for using the software (e.g. for most non-trivial uses it
> will be a pain to work with a gcc without any documentation of the
> available options - and even Debian dev
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:31:47PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 08:08:18PM -0400, sean finney wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:47:26PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > Therefore, all GPL'd programs will have to go to non-free.
> >
> > there's nothing that prevents us f
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 08:08:18PM -0400, sean finney wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:47:26PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Therefore, all GPL'd programs will have to go to non-free.
>
> there's nothing that prevents us from re-distributing modified copies
> of the GPL, we just can't do so and
[MFT: set to -legal again, since once more, this really has nothing to
do with -devel.]
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, John Hasler wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
> > In general, the law doesn't allow us to modify the license attached to a
> > piece of software.
>
> That has nothing to do with creating a
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:47:26PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Therefore, all GPL'd programs will have to go to non-free.
there's nothing that prevents us from re-distributing modified copies
of the GPL, we just can't do so and claim that they are the GPL. even
if you did want to nitpick that (wh
Matthew Garrett writes:
> In general, the law doesn't allow us to modify the license attached to a
> piece of software.
That has nothing to do with creating a derivative of a license for use
elsewhere.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe"
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is this a correct interpretation of what will happen after the release
> of sarge or is there any mistake in my proof?
No. In general, the law doesn't allow us to modify the license attached
to a piece of software. But I suspect you know this already.
--
[As this is not a technical discussion by any means, -devel is not the
appropriate mailing list. MFT: set to -legal. -project may also be
appropriate.]
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The following might sound absurd, but it seems to follow directly from
> Debian's current interpretati
Le jeudi 14 avril 2005 à 23:47 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> The following might sound absurd, but it seems to follow directly from
> Debian's current interpretation of the DFSG:
>
> All GPL'ed programs have to go to non-free.
>
>
> Proof:
>
> You are only allowed to distribute verbatim cop
48 matches
Mail list logo
