Re: (end of) Development and documentation in Debian

Am 2006-09-30 22:06:51, schrieb Oleg Verych: > Mile stone, we are now is "man gcc": nothing found. Next mile stone > "C-h i": nothing found... man 1 gcc works fine here. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/] dpkg -S gcc.1.gz gcc: /usr/share/man/man1/gcc.1.gz gcc: /usr/share/man/man1/i386-linux-g

Re: (end of) Development and documentation in Debian

Tyler Smith wrote: This has been getting increasingly aggravating for me, as I find more and more of the documentation is either stowed out of sight in non-free, or has actually been put in some sort of package purgatory while someone decides what to do with it (ie. the elisp docs, which are

Re: (end of) Development and documentation in Debian

Yeah, I think the real problem is that the rules shouldn't be the same for documentation as they are for code. If someone is going to go to the effort of making a tutorial and then giving it away I don't have a problem with their reserving the right to attach some unrelated philosophical stuff

Re: (end of) Development and documentation in Debian

On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 04:23:36PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > Tyler Smith wrote: > > I understand there have been some situations where an author attempted > > to undermine the license by declaring an entire document to be > > invariant. This is clearly not the case here, though. > > That is i

Re: (end of) Development and documentation in Debian

On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 04:37:14PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In international copyright law, there are rights belonging to the author > > that he cannot sign away. These include the right to be considered the > > author. This means that if the document mentions him

Re: (end of) Development and documentation in Debian

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:37:14 -0700 Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sure, in both cases one can't just take the books, change the author name > and viola, have a new book. But that isn't the same as being considered the > author as neither book list the true author. Of course those a

Re: (end of) Development and documentation in Debian

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In international copyright law, there are rights belonging to the author > that he cannot sign away. These include the right to be considered the > author. This means that if the document mentions him as author (perhaps > on a title page) it is illegal to change that

Re: (end of) Development and documentation in Debian

Tyler Smith wrote: > I understand there have been some situations where an author attempted > to undermine the license by declaring an entire document to be > invariant. This is clearly not the case here, though. That is immaterial. It's like saying that if code were pretty much entirely free

Re: (end of) Development and documentation in Debian

Andrei Popescu wrote: > Imagine someone writing a piece of documentation for a software, but > after some time stops keeping it up-to-date. Is the license only for technical documents or would it also be applicable to, say, works of fiction or business/political missives which contain some tec

Re: (end of) Development and documentation in Debian

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 06:34:24PM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: > > Tyler Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > This has been getting increasingly aggravating for me, as I find more > > > and more of the documentation is either stowed out of sight in > > > non-fr

Re: (end of) Development and documentation in Debian

On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 06:34:24PM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: > Tyler Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This has been getting increasingly aggravating for me, as I find more > > and more of the documentation is either stowed out of sight in > > non-free, or has actually been put in some s

Re: (end of) Development and documentation in Debian

Regarding the status of the elisp-manual in testing: http://packages.qa.debian.org/e/elisp-manual/news/20060805T210823Z.html FYI: The status of the elisp-manual source package in Debian's testing distribution has changed. Previous version: 21-2.8-2 Current version: (not in testing) Hint:

Re: (end of) Development and documentation in Debian

Tyler Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This has been getting increasingly aggravating for me, as I find more > and more of the documentation is either stowed out of sight in > non-free, or has actually been put in some sort of package purgatory > while someone decides what to do with it (ie.

Re: (end of) Development and documentation in Debian

This has been getting increasingly aggravating for me, as I find more and more of the documentation is either stowed out of sight in non-free, or has actually been put in some sort of package purgatory while someone decides what to do with it (ie. the elisp docs, which are currently not in etch

Re: (end of) Development and documentation in Debian

Ottavio Caruso writes: > Can you imagine when all the packages containing the "any later version" > string will come into an effect... When you receive a copy of such a package you are being offered a GPL2 license. The string just means that if you redistribute you may specify GPL3 if you so choo

Re: (end of) Development and documentation in Debian

Oleg Verych wrote: > IMHO, true GPLed software is The Linux Kernel, not part of GNU project and > FSF copyright. Lovely PITA of mister RMS. Incidentally, this might be one of the reasons the FSF'ers need a GPLv3 that screws Linux over. Can you imagine when all the packages containing the "any l

Re: (end of) Development and documentation in Debian

Hallo, Kevin (using half of your's mail-followup-to, because i'm using gmane.org, and i don't know what will happen ;) On 2006-10-01, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 10:06:51PM +, Oleg Verych wrote: [-0-] >> Debian project is to provide free OS. How one can

Re: (end of) Development and documentation in Debian

On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 10:06:51PM +, Oleg Verych wrote: > Hallo, dear developers and users of Debian. > I actually didn't care to search much of www, because i fed up with > all of it, this is just my opinion. > > Mile stone, we are now is "man gcc": nothing found. Next mile stone > "C-h i":