On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:59:59 +0100, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Well, then _stand_ by your convictions. Remove software from the GNU
> project from Debian. Free software with unfree documentation is a
> sham. If you call the documentation unfree, then the software can't
> be used
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 24 Mar 2006, David Kastrup verbalised:
>
>> Free software with unfree documentation is a sham.
>
> I am glad you agree. Can you see if upstream would make the
> documentation free?
It has, according to its standards.
--
David Kastrup, K
On 24 Mar 2006, David Kastrup outgrape:
> Florent Rougon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> If you don't want your software to be distributed by Debian at all,
>> then release it with a fully non-free license, to make things
>> clear. Bah.
>
> I think i
Ven, 24-03-2006 alle 23:43 +0100, David Kastrup ha scritto:
> I think it a safe bet that the FSF and the GNU project do not consider
> Debian an upstream authority for their notion of what constitutes
> freedom.
This is becoming a sterile discussion, it's like "I don't want to play
with you anymor
On 24 Mar 2006, David Kastrup verbalised:
> JérÎme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Since the principal goal for the Debian project is providing free
>>> software and they can't consider GNU software free in documented
>>> form, they probab
Florent Rougon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If you don't want your software to be distributed by Debian at all,
> then release it with a fully non-free license, to make things
> clear. Bah.
I think it a safe bet that the FSF and the GNU project do not
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> JérÎme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Since the principal goal for the Debian project is providing free
>>> software and they can't consider GNU software free in documented form,
>>> they probab
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Upstream does not "cooperate". Upstream delivers.
This may be the case when you are upstream, but I can assure you that
some upstreams do cooperate.
> If Debian is unhappy with the "unfree" software made "by GNU", as they
> like to say, then they shoul
JérÎme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Since the principal goal for the Debian project is providing free
>> software and they can't consider GNU software free in documented form,
>> they probably should abandon the whole GNU/Linux project and i
Florent Rougon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> More like that Debian packagers' views don't correspond with either
>> the upstream free software authors' nor the users' views, and that
>
> How can you claim you know the users' views? I am a user, and my
On 24 Mar 2006, David Kastrup verbalised:
> Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Debian has to pick a definition of free/non-free for itself. It
>> cannot try to cater to everyone's different definition of free.
>
> Sure, but then they should be honest about it, and not keep software
> wi
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:27:24 +0100, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> In other words, people are complaining that Debian developers views
>> do not coincide with their own?
> More like that Debian packagers' views don't correspond with eithe
On 24 Mar 2006, David Kastrup outgrape:
> More like that Debian packagers' views don't correspond with either
> the upstream free software authors' nor the users' views, and that
And you speak for all the users?
> Debian feels it has the right to teach both morals, making use of
> the me
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since the principal goal for the Debian project is providing free
> software and they can't consider GNU software free in documented form,
> they probably should abandon the whole GNU/Linux project and instead
> try packaging something like BSD/Linux, a
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Debian has to pick a definition of free/non-free for itself. It
> cannot try to cater to everyone's different definition of free.
Sure, but then they should be honest about it, and not keep software
with "non-free" documentation in the main section: that
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> More like that Debian packagers' views don't correspond with either
> the upstream free software authors' nor the users' views, and that
How can you claim you know the users' views? I am a user, and my view is
that Debian did the right choice to remain c
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 24 Mar 2006, Miles Bader said:
>
>> 2006/3/25, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Well, users, and developers, who disagree with our principles can
>>> still get the non-fee documentation by adding one line to their apt
>>> sources list. If
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 02:47:28 +0900, "Miles Bader" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I think one complaint is that many debian users want to avoid what
> they consider non-free stuff. Previously this was simple, if their
> idea of "no
On 24 Mar 2006, Miles Bader said:
> 2006/3/25, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Well, users, and developers, who disagree with our principles can
>> still get the non-fee documentation by adding one line to their apt
>> sources list. If you, as a developer or a user, think the docs are
>>
2006/3/25, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Well, users, and developers, who disagree with our principles
> can still get the non-fee documentation by adding one line to their
> apt sources list. If you, as a developer or a user, think the docs
> are free, why should you care how
On 24 Mar 2006, David Kastrup outgrape:
> Whatever. The Emacs documentation is far more integrated into its
> normal operation than with other tools. It does not make sense to
> separate them.
It is certainly regrettable that they need to be separated.
> I suggest you move all of Emacs
On 24 Mar 2006, David Kastrup outgrape:
> Whatever. The Emacs documentation is far more integrated into its
> normal operation than with other tools. It does not make sense to
> separate them.
It is certainly regrettable that they need to be separated.
> I suggest you move all of Emacs
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 23 Mar 2006, Hubert Chan told this:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:45:50 -0600, Manoj Srivastava
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> The info file is a derived file; the source is make.texi. The
>>> preferred form for modification is the texi file, which
On 24 Mar 2006, Thien-Thi Nguyen verbalised:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> It also seems to be the norm for documentation that seems to
>> be coming from the GNU project, so I think my take on this is
>> correct -- _ALL_ those documents can't all have the exact same
>> overs
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It also seems to be the norm for documentation that seems to
> be coming from the GNU project, so I think my take on this is
> correct -- _ALL_ those documents can't all have the exact same
> oversight.
it's ok to posit a hypothesis. what steps
25 matches
Mail list logo
