Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> AFAIK, ftp-masters only reject a package if inclusion and distribution
> in Debian would be illegal. This is not the case with the GFDL.
> I think in a typical case, the decision is up to the package maintainer,
> and if the maintainer doesn't agree, th
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 09:37:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:24:11 -0600, Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > The line is not as easy to draw as you might think.
>
> On the contrary, the line is not so arcane. Computer related stuff is
> either a) software, b
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 02:05:45 +0100, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Nov 18, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Since the "editorial changes" (LOL) general resolution, for
>> > Debian everything is software. Welcome to the wonderful world the
>> > DFSG-revisionist have ma
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:24:11 -0600, Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 12:10:13AM +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
>> If it is a program, it is software.
> And so my Python code that includes docstrings is what?
Software.
> What are PostScript files?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 12:10:13AM +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
> If it is a program, it is software.
And so my Python code that includes docstrings is what? What are
PostScript files? The line is not as easy to draw as you might think.
--
gram
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 01:42:57AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>
> > On Nov 17, "Brian M. Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> > I'd say that it's not obvious at all how removing crucial documentation
> >> > because some people do not like its
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian M. Carlson) writes:
>
>> 1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material;
>
> These are currently not bugs (but will be as soon as sarge is released
> and the Social Contract upgrade goes into effect);
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Nov 17, "Brian M. Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > I'd say that it's not obvious at all how removing crucial documentation
>> > because some people do not like its license will help the distribution
>> > and/or the cause of free software.
>>
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I object. Until there is "universal" consensus (either through a vote,
> leader action, whatever) that GFDL material must be purged from main,
> these bugs are wishlist at best.
Huh? Since when? Ultimately, the judge of licenses is the ftp-master
and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Nov 17, "Brian M. Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In case you are wondering about bugs in case 1), please note that the
> > GNU Free Documentation License is non-free in all its forms, according
> > to the informal survey taken by Branden Ro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian M. Carlson) writes:
> The sentence was meant to stress to certain maintainers (who shall
> remain nameless) that like to ignore debian-legal or licensing
> issues that I would that pursue these bugs as vigorously as any
> others and that I expected them to be fixed, time a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian M. Carlson) writes:
> 1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material;
These are currently not bugs (but will be as soon as sarge is released
and the Social Contract upgrade goes into effect); and indeed, I think
packages with GFDL material already h
On Nov 17, "Brian M. Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd say that it's not obvious at all how removing crucial documentation
> > because some people do not like its license will help the distribution
> > and/or the cause of free software.
> I don't like a lot of licenses, specifically thos
On Nov 18, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Since the "editorial changes" (LOL) general resolution, for Debian
> > everything is software. Welcome to the wonderful world the
> > DFSG-revisionist have made for all of us.
> You are the one revising history. When we voted on the
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 22:44:59 +, Brian M Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> El mié, 17-11-2004 a las 19:27 +, Brian M. Carlson escribió:
>>
>> [...]
>>> > Without wishing to start/take part in a huge flamewar didn't
>>> > we have
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:20:42 +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> El mié, 17-11-2004 a las 19:27 +, Brian M. Carlson escribió:
> [...]
>> > Without wishing to start/take part in a huge flamewar didn't we
>> > have
>> > a vote and agree to leave such documentation i
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:26:29 +0100, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Nov 17, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And documentation is not software.
> Since the "editorial changes" (LOL) general resolution, for Debian
> everything is software. Welcome to the wonderful
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:49:21 +, Brian M Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This is an intent to mass-file bugs as required per custom. Bugs
> will be filed:
And shall be promptly closed on the packages singled out
below.
> gnus make message pgg
> 1) on packages that include GN
El miÃ, 17-11-2004 a las 22:44 +, Brian M. Carlson escribiÃ:
> Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > El miÃ, 17-11-2004 a las 19:27 +, Brian M. Carlson escribiÃ:
> >
> > [...]
> >> > Without wishing to start/take part in a huge flamewar didn't we have
> >> > a vote a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Nov 17, "Brian M. Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This is of course understood. But one could always upload to
>> unstable, AIUI. I am trying to *improve* the quality of the
>> distribution, not decrease it. The sentence was meant to stress
El miÃ, 17-11-2004 a las 23:26 +0100, Marco d'Itri escribiÃ:
> On Nov 17, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > And documentation is not software.
> Since the "editorial changes" (LOL) general resolution, for Debian
> everything is software. Welcome to the wonderful world the
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> El miÃ, 17-11-2004 a las 19:27 +, Brian M. Carlson escribiÃ:
>
> [...]
>> > Without wishing to start/take part in a huge flamewar didn't we have
>> > a vote and agree to leave such documentation issues until after
>> > Sarge's release?
On Nov 17, "Brian M. Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is of course understood. But one could always upload to
> unstable, AIUI. I am trying to *improve* the quality of the
> distribution, not decrease it. The sentence was meant to stress to
I'd say that it's not obvious at all how rem
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:49:21PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
>> Bugs will be filed:
>>
>> 1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material;
>
> I recommend not filing bugs on documentation until after sarge. The
> project agreed
On Nov 17, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And documentation is not software.
Since the "editorial changes" (LOL) general resolution, for Debian
everything is software. Welcome to the wonderful world the
DFSG-revisionist have made for all of us.
--
ciao, |
Marco | [9258 fi
El miÃ, 17-11-2004 a las 19:27 +, Brian M. Carlson escribiÃ:
[...]
> > Without wishing to start/take part in a huge flamewar didn't we have
> > a vote and agree to leave such documentation issues until after
> > Sarge's release?
> >
> > Here's the result I'm thinking of:
> >
> > http
On Nov 17, Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I object. Until there is "universal" consensus (either through a vote,
> leader action, whatever) that GFDL material must be purged from main,
> these bugs are wishlist at best.
>
> debian-legal consensus alone is not grounds for removal.
Agre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian M. Carlson) writes:
> This is an intent to mass-file bugs as required per custom.
>
> Bugs will be filed:
>
> 1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material;
> 2) on packages in 1) that do not include the copyright or license of
> the material i
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 07:31:51PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:49:21PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > Two bugs will be filed on packages that meet criteria in both 1) and
> > 2). If the release managers would like, I will be happy to auto-tag
> > the bugs in 1) sarg
On Nov 17, "Brian M. Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In case you are wondering about bugs in case 1), please note that the
> GNU Free Documentation License is non-free in all its forms, according
> to the informal survey taken by Branden Robinson of the debian-legal
> denizens and by my unde
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:49:21PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> Bugs will be filed:
>
> 1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material;
I recommend not filing bugs on documentation until after sarge. The
project agreed by vote that it was not to be considered release-cr
Steve Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:49:21PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
>> This is an intent to mass-file bugs as required per custom.
>>
>> Bugs will be filed:
>>
>> 1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material;
>> 2) on packages in 1
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:49:21PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> This is an intent to mass-file bugs as required per custom.
>
> Bugs will be filed:
>
> 1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material;
> 2) on packages in 1) that do not include the copyright or license o
33 matches
Mail list logo
