On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:40:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 03:42:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > And what? If someone tries to bring through a GR stating that
> > > MS office warez can be distributed in main since it meets the DFSG,
> > > one mi
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 03:42:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > And what? If someone tries to bring through a GR stating that
> > MS office warez can be distributed in main since it meets the DFSG,
> > one might rule that as frivolous and a waste of time.
>
> I'm not convinced the c
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Q1.1) Are GFDL licensed works without invariant texts non-free?
>
>Well, according to the RM team, and some developers (full
>disclosure: myself included), yes, they are, even if there is no
>explicit infraction of specific portions of ou
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 12:53:00PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> And what? If someone tries to bring through a GR stating that
> MS office warez can be distributed in main since it meets the DFSG,
> one might rule that as frivolous and a waste of time.
One answer to this would be to l
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 12:53:00PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:25:58 +0100, David N Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:59:15 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >>> 1. debian-legal is wro
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 10:57 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> If you do not see closed source software as incontrovertibly
> non-free, I have no desire to discuss this issue with you.
You are exaggerating my point into ridicule.
> Under some (extreme) viewpoints, there are no facts
> (you, sir,
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:21:13 -0700, Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Saturday 21 January 2006 13:52, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> So, I am seeking arguments and guidance from the developer body
>> whether issue 1 can, and should, be decidable by a general
>> resolution, or whether t
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:59:15 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
>>1. debian-legal is wrong, the GFDL is compatable with the DFSG and
>> thus should be included in main.
>
>
> Looking over the arguments for and against it in -legal,
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 02:52:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> I am, at this point, unclear whether I hold GFDL licensed
> works without invariant texts non-free as a matter of opinion, or of
> fact.
Fact 1: The GFDL include this:
"You may not use technical measures to obstruct
On Sunday 22 January 2006 11:59, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:21:13 -0700, Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> > On Saturday 21 January 2006 13:52, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> So, I am seeking arguments and guidance from the developer body
> >> whether issue 1 can, a
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:36:05 -0300, Margarita Manterola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On 1/21/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> So, I am seeking arguments and guidance from the developer body
>> whether issue 1 can, and should, be decidable by a general
>> resolution, or wheth
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:59:15 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 1. debian-legal is wrong, the GFDL is compatable with the DFSG and
>thus should be included in main.
Looking over the arguments for and against it in -legal, I am
trying to ascertain if this stan
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 12:48:05 +0100 (CET), Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Sat, January 21, 2006 21:52, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> So, can the developers dispute this? Obviously, the developer body
>> can dispute any delegated action. But a GR can't overturn something
>> seen as fa
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:25:58 +0100, David N Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:59:15 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>
>>> 1. debian-legal is wrong, the GFDL is compatable with the DFSG and
>>> thus should be inclu
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
2006/1/22, Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
This goes even further here, because the DFSG is not even a strict set of
rules but are guidelines. As we all know, guidelines are subject to
interpretation on a case-by-case basis, that's what distinguishes them
f
2006/1/22, Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This goes even further here, because the DFSG is not even a strict set of
> rules but are guidelines. As we all know, guidelines are subject to
> interpretation on a case-by-case basis, that's what distinguishes them
> from rules. Therefore, I think
On Sat, January 21, 2006 21:52, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> So, can the developers dispute this? Obviously, the developer
> body can dispute any delegated action. But a GR can't overturn something
> seen as fact (so no GR stating PI=exacly 3.14 or 22/7).
Could you please explain how you arrive at th
17 matches
Mail list logo
