Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I am sure almost no one consider FSF's manuals unfree just because
> > DSFG thinks they are,
>
> As far as I am concerned, the DFSG is the canonical litmus
> test ... so I don't see how your statement can be
> correct.
"Almost" was the key
On 14 May 2003 19:04:23 -0400, Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some of the my most cherished expressions of my creativity are
> the code that I write. I am appreciative of the mellifluous
> cadence of contributory blocks buil
On 14 May 2003 09:21:15 -0400, D Goel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I am sure almost no one consider FSF's manuals unfree just because
> DSFG thinks they are,
As far as I am concerned, the DFSG is the canonical litmus
test of what is free, and non free. Indeed, that is how free is
define
D.Goel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am sure almost no one consider FSF's manuals unfree just because
> DSFG thinks they are,
Well, judging from your email address, why am I not surprised you'd say
this without knowing the arguments.
> and that we all want to continue to u
Dan Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan> 1. (*) text/plain ( ) text/html
> Dan> and then middle mouse click on the text/html button choosing
> Dan> "View externally" it starts konqueror whereas I want to make
> Dan> this mozilla.
>
> J> Do M-x customizebrowse-url and look at the value of
>
Package: emacs-goodies-el
Version: 21.0-1
Severity: normal
I can't believe I never noticed this before, but it likely affects the
majority of Elisp package. See if my reasoning is flawed...
If I do `apt-get remove emacs-goodies-el' which is a pretty method these
days, or if I `dpkg --remove emac
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Some of the my most cherished expressions of my creativity are the
code that I write. I am appreciative of the mellifluous cadence of
contributory blocks building to the finale of the result, to the
elegant simplicity of transforming an
Dan> 1. (*) text/plain ( ) text/html
Dan> and then middle mouse click on the text/html button choosing
Dan> "View externally" it starts konqueror whereas I want to make
Dan> this mozilla.
J> Do M-x customizebrowse-url and look at the value of
J> "Browser Function".
After the first RET I am swept
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
You are confusing legal issues. Misquoting someone is a
completely different issue from copyright, which is what this
discussion is all about. (AFAICT, misquoting is more into the
realm of slander/libel, rather than copyright.)
the confusion o
On 14 May 2003 12:29:18 -0400, Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Funny. Seems to me that demanding libr=E9 documentation keeps to
> the spirit of freedom of software; rather than insisting parts
> of software be immutable and u
> "Thien-Thi" == Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Thien-Thi> fine fine. let me just re-arrange your 1's and 0's and
Thien-Thi> misquote you:
Manoj> Funny [...] that documentation keeps [...] software [...]
Manoj> immutable and unremovable.
Thien-Thi> hmmm, that's not what
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
But you loose the advantage of dependencies, don't you?
Maybe stow can handle this?
i don't know. i haven't had any problems, but then my setup is
probably atypical (for sure i have other problems ;-).
Isn't it also the users' business?
for mo
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Not being able to remove the invariant sections when I am
trying to extract a subset of the document for use in other places
(like I can with subsets of the code) seems to limit my freedom;
Please look at the archives of debian-legal for
On 14 May 2003 07:08:06 -0400, Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (if Debian decides to apply DFSG to documentation).
> that is the crux of the problem. guess i'll stick w/ debian for
> most things, but /usr/local installation for emacs
On 14 May 2003 09:21:15 -0400, D Goel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> If you *have* to do this, until the situation is resolved with FSF,
> can they atleast be put in a different section, say
> "nonfree-but-gnu" (or abbreviated as "gnu"), so we can put that
> section in our sources.list and still not
En réponse à Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> (if Debian decides to apply
> DFSG to documentation).
>
> that is the crux of the problem. guess i'll stick w/ debian for most
> things, but /usr/local installation for emacs -- this has
En réponse à "D. Goel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Hi Emacs users,
> >
> > There is an ongoing discussion on debian-legal about the license
> of
> > GNU Manuals. These manuals, an among them the GNU Emacs Manual,
> > are licenses under GDFL but have invariant sections that are
> > considered
> Hi Emacs users,
>
> There is an ongoing discussion on debian-legal about the license of
> GNU Manuals. These manuals, an among them the GNU Emacs Manual,
> are licenses under GDFL but have invariant sections that are
> considered by Debian as non-free (if Debian decides to apply
> DFSG
> a huger inconvenience.
*huge*
[...]
DG http://gnufans.net/~deego/
--
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
(if Debian decides to apply
DFSG to documentation).
that is the crux of the problem. guess i'll stick w/ debian for most
things, but /usr/local installation for emacs -- this has worked well
for awhile now. i feel there is no point arguing the
Hi Emacs users,
There is an ongoing discussion on debian-legal about the license of
GNU Manuals. These manuals, an among them the GNU Emacs Manual,
are licenses under GDFL but have invariant sections that are
considered by Debian as non-free (if Debian decides to apply
DFSG to documentat
21 matches
Mail list logo
