take me off your list!! i don't ur mail Re: debian-devel-digest Digest V98 #1115
---debian-devel-digest-request@lists.debian.org wrote:
> ATTACHMENT part 1 message/rfc822
>
> debian-devel-digest Digest Volume 98 : Issue 1115
>
> Today's Topics:
> Re: Draft new DFSG [ Marcus Brinkmann
<Marcus.Brinkmann@ ]
> Re: Fixes (in terms of bugs) [ jdg@maths.qmw.ac.uk
(Julian Gilbey) ]
> Re: Calendar dates for 1999 [ jdg@maths.qmw.ac.uk
(Julian Gilbey) ]
> Re: Future of the `Open Source' trad [ Sourcerer
<vagans@icubed.com> ]
> Re: Intent to package rcs-latex [ jdg@maths.qmw.ac.uk
(Julian Gilbey) ]
> Re: Fixes (in terms of bugs) [ Richard Braakman
<dark@xs4all.nl> ]
> Re: Fixes (in terms of bugs) [ Wichert Akkerman
<wakkerma@cs.leide ]
> Re: Intent to package some benchmark [ Wichert Akkerman
<wakkerma@cs.leide ]
> Re: Wrong placing of ..bin/dirname [ Wichert Akkerman
<wakkerma@cs.leide ]
> Re: extreme ghosts [ Wichert Akkerman
<wakkerma@cs.leide ]
> Re: Debian (and RedHat) source packa [ Wichert Akkerman
<wakkerma@cs.leide ]
>
> ATTACHMENT part 2 message/rfc822
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 04:21:51PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >
> > > As I've said before, most recently in a posting to -private, and
> > > before that in various fora, I think the DFSG has some serious
> > > problems due to loose wording. I also strongly dislike the patch
> > > clause.
> >
> > I have heard this from you before, and I don't think you
understand just
> > what is at stake here. Let me see if I can explain.
>
> [explanation snipped --- I really just seek an entry point for my
NSHO :)]
>
> > We should not declare a license non-free which only requires that
the
> > original source be propogated unchanged. I would argue that this
provides
> > more freedom to the "end user" since it should then be a simple
matter for
> > the "current owner" of the sofware to refert to the original
author's
> > work.
>
> What I dislike about "patch only" distribution is twofold:
>
> * Companies like to enforce different copyrights on patches than on
the
> original work (see NPL, see QPL, the latter is even worse, because
you
> give up almost all rights on your patches. This is bad, because the
> patches are not any longer protected like GPL software or the Qt
source if
> that matters.).
>
> * In the long run, you end up with a long upstream source and even
more
> patches. This is at least uncomfortable (I speak of cases in which
the
> source is not maintained by the original copyright holder anymor).
>
> If you can suggest a wording that solves at least the first problem,
this
> would be great.
>
> > Demanding mutable source does nothing to advance the cause of Free
> > Software, has nothing to do with distribution freedoms, and may
ultimately
> > lead to the defeat of DFSG compliant licenses.
>
> See above. I think the reverse can be true (naturally, this depends
on the
> exact wording). For the QPL, the patch copyright subverts the
copyleft.
>
> > I don't think this strengthens the free software license. Freedom
isn't
> > about "easy use" but about unrestricted use without compromizing the
> > author's work.
>
> Again, I see serious problems with companies finding a way how they
can
> enforce very weak copyrights on patches although the original
software is
> strong protected by copyleft. Compromizing the authors (of the
patches) work
> is exactly what I see happening there.
>
> > The current rewrite states a number of new concepts while dropping
some of
> > the old ones. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water ;-)
>
> It's sad how it becomes more and more difficult to define what we
consider
> as free. However, I support a strong stance for free software. If
this means
> that we have to cut out some border-licenses, I am all for it.
Everything
> that is simple helps.
>
> Free Software has become very strong. It is not the time to move the
border
> line. (someone else said this in another thread a while ago).
>
> Troll tech for example (I only pick this because of actuality, I could
> choose any other example like Netscape etc) is not the first company
trying
> to be clever in the copyright. It will not be the last. If we lend
them a
> finger, they will take the whole hand.
>
> Just my little $0.02 rant :)
>
> Marcus
>
> --
> "Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger
brinkmd@
> Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org
master.debian.org
> Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for
public PGP Key
> http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key
ID 36E7CD09
>
> ATTACHMENT part 3 message/rfc822
>
> > I put a bunch of lines like:
> >
> > * Fixes #28676.
> >
> > in a changelog for a particular program, thinking it would kill the
> > relevant bugs. This has not happened. Did I do evil unto the
regexp
> > gods of Perl which govern the bug tracking system? I would be
able to
> > work a lot better if I could sort out which bugs I've actually
fixed,
> > using the bug tracking system.
>
> If you use the 'release --to master' command, you will be asked
> whether you want to close the bugs mentioned in the latest changelog
> after the new version has been uploaded. In the meantime, for every
> bug you've fixed, just send an email to nnnn-done@bugs.debian.org with
> a subject like "Fixed in version XXX-YYY", and they will be cleared
> from the bug tracking system.
>
> Julian
>
>
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> Julian Gilbey Email: J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk
> Dept of Mathematical Sciences, Queen Mary & Westfield College,
> Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, ENGLAND
> -*- Finger jdg@goedel.maths.qmw.ac.uk for my PGP public key. -*-
>
> ATTACHMENT part 4 message/rfc822
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm updating the files `calendar' uses for 1999. I've found data on
> > most of next year's dates[1], but I haven't found anything about
these
> > ones (dates are from the 1998 calendar files):
> >
> > Judaic:
>
> An almost complete calendar for 1999 (including all the ones you had
> queries about):
>
> 02/01 Tu Bishvat (New Year for Trees)
> 03/01 Fast of Esther
> 03/02 Purim (Jews rescued from decrees of Haman)
> 03/03 Shushan Purim (Purim in Jerusalem)
> 04/01-04/08 Pesach (Passover)
> 04/14 Yom HaShoah (Holocaust Memorial Day)
> 04/20 Yom HaZikaron (Israeli Fallen Soldiers Remembrance Day)
> 04/21 Yom HaAtzmaut (Israel Independence Day)
> 05/04 Lag Ba`omer (Commemoration of the Great Rebellion)
> 05/14 Yom Yerushalayim (Reunification of Jerusalem)
> 05/21-05/22 Shavuot (Pentecost)
> 07/01 Fast of Shiv'a Asar B'Tammuz (Romans breach Wall of
> Jerusalem; fast day)
> 07/22 Fast of Tish'a B'Av (Babylon/Rome destroys Holy Temple; fast
> day)
> 07/28 Tu B'Av (Festival of Fifteenth of Av)
> 09/11-12 Rosh Hashanah (New Year)
> 09/13 Fast of Tzom Gedaliah (Fast commemorating assassination of
> Gedaliah, the head of the Jewish community in Israel during
> the Babylonian exile)
> 09/20 Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement; fast day)
> 09/25-10/01 Sukkot (Tabernacles)
> 10/01 Hoshana Rabbah (Day of final appeal for a good judgement; part
> of Sukkot)
> 10/02 Shmini Atzeret (Eighth day of Festival)
> 10/03 Simchat Torah (Rejoicing of the Law)
> 12/04-12/11 Chanukah (Festival of Lights)
> 12/19 Fast of Asara B'Tevet (Babylonians put siege on Jerusalem;
> fast day)
> (Also, it's on 12/29/98 this year, and not as in the current calendar,
> but never mind.)
>
> Finally, I've used the Orthodox dates for Diaspora Jewry (i.e.,
> outside of Israel). In Israel and outside according to the Reform
> (and possibly Conservative) practice, Pesach is one day shorter,
> Shavuot is only one day, and Shmini Atzeret and Simchat Torah become
> one day (10/02).
>
> HTH,
>
> Julian
>
>
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> Julian Gilbey Email: J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk
> Dept of Mathematical Sciences, Queen Mary & Westfield College,
> Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, ENGLAND
> -*- Finger jdg@goedel.maths.qmw.ac.uk for my PGP public key. -*-
>
> ATTACHMENT part 5 message/rfc822
>
> On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Software in the Public Interest wrote:
>
> > I have just posted the message below to spi-announce. It will
> > hopefully be appearing in various free software related forums; I've
> > submitted it to col.announce, gnu.announce and two freebsd groups,
and
> > I have a volunteer who is going to put it on slashdot.
> >
> > Apologies for the lack of communication from us while we were
drafting
> > this, but it has all had to be done in a terrible hurry to avoid the
> > damage being done by Bruce et al spindoctoring.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ian.
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> > Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
> > Statement, and Request for Comments, regarding the
> >
> > Future of the `Open Source' trademark
> >
> >
> > There is currently some dispute about the status of the `Open
Source'
> > trademark. The SPI board feel that it is important that the
future of
> > the mark be decided in an open and transparent manner. Therefore,
we
> > are making this announcement, which has three purposes:
> >
> > 1. To explain our view of the current situation.
> > 2. To explain some of the background as we see it.
> > 3. To consult the wider free software community about the future of
> > the `Open Source' trademark.
> >
> > The rest of this announcement will go into these areas in more
detail.
> >
> >
> > 1. THE CURRENT SITUATION
> >
> > Software in the Public Interest, Inc (SPI) is a non-profit
> > organisation whose aims are to help the development and distribution
> > of open software and hardware. Currently SPI's associated projects
> > include the Debian GNU/Linux distribution, the Berlin windowing
> > system, the Gnome desktop, and others.
> >
> > The SPI board believes that the Open Source trademark is currently
> > owned by SPI; however, Bruce Perens and other former board members
of
> > SPI are in the process of setting up another organisation, the Open
> > Source Initiative, and claim that they own the mark (while
repeatedly
> > demanding of the SPI board that they immediately transfer
ownership of
> > the mark to OSI).
> >
> > The SPI board feels that the Open Source trademark is an important
> > public asset which should be owned and managed for the benefit of
the
> > free software community. We feel that the mark should be owned by
an
> > open and accountable organisation, preferably an organisation
> > controlled by a membership consisting of free software developers.
> >
> > Furthermore, we feel that any transfer of the mark to another
> > organisation should be carried out with due care and thoughtfulness,
> > and after a public consultation.
> >
> > An online discussion between the SPI and OSI boards has failed to
> > reach consensus. The OSI board continues to demand immediate
transfer
> > of the mark, and has stated to us an intent to take immediate and we
> > believe possibly fraudulent unilateral action with the trademark
> > office to achieve this.
> >
> > The SPI board continues to maintain that any transfer should take
> > place with due consideration, and in particular, that a public
> > consultation should take place before any transfer. Relations
having
> > broken down, we are now therefore acting unilaterally in
distributing
> > this announcement and request for comments.
> >
> > Furthermore, the SPI board hopes that the community will give due
> > consideration to their belief that the mark should be managed by an
> > open and transparent organisation.
> >
> >
> > 2. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY - GORY DETAILS
> >
> > (a) SOFTWARE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST http://www.spi-inc.org/
> >
> > SPI was incorporated in June 1997 by Bruce Perens, Ian Murdock and
Tim
> > Sailer, originally as a legal vehicle for the Debian project. Ian
> > Jackson was appointed to the board shortly thereafter.
> >
> > Following various discussions about the subject amongst board
members
> > and members of the Debian Project, by mid-March 1998 the board
members
> > had all agreed that SPI should broaden its scope to more than just
> > Debian; since then, various other projects have become associated
with
> > SPI as it continues to broaden its scope. The new SPI board are
> > anxious to continue this process.
> >
> > Up until August 1998, there had been continuous rumblings about lack
> > of openness on the part of SPI. (Ian Jackson had attempted to
improve
> > matters, for example by scanning in and publishing the bylaws, which
> > had previously not even been available to the supposed members of
the
> > organisation.) On the 4th and 5th of August, matters came to a
head,
> > and the three board members apart from Ian Jackson resigned
> > simultaneously, apparently due to criticism about the closed
nature of
> > the organisation.
> >
> > As required by the bylaws, Ian Jackson appointed a new board,
> > including Dale Scheetz, Nils Lohner and Martin Schulze. Since then
> > the new board has been working to put the affairs of the
organisation
> > in order. For example, there do not appear to be any board meeting
> > minutes, resolution minutes or membership records, and we believe
that
> > some trademark documents (including some for the Open Source
> > trademark) are still with former board members.
> >
> > The new board have set up the SPI web site, giving details of the
> > organisation's bylaws and articles of incorporation, board meeting
> > minutes and resolutions, and so forth. We have just approved two
key
> > resolutions regarding our relationship with our associated projects
> > and assets we hold - the Framework for Associated Projects, and the
> > Statement and Promises on Intellectual Property, and these are now
> > published on our site.
> >
> > The board plan to revise the bylaws appropriate to the wider role
for
> > the organisation which was agreed informally by the previous board.
> > In particular, the board will establish new rules for membership
which
> > will allow free software developers to become members of the
> > organisation.
> >
> >
> > (b) THE `OPEN SOURCE' TRADEMARK
> >
> > The `Open Source' trademark was registered in SPI's name by Bruce
> > Perens in February 1998, anticipating the wider role that would be
> > agreed for SPI. Since then the mark has been managed by Eric
Raymond.
> >
> > According to Bruce and Eric, on the 20th of March 1998 Bruce sent
Eric
> > an email which claimed that `SPI hereby transfers' all interest in
the
> > Open Source trademark to Eric. This message did not follow a board
> > resolution to this effect, and indeed at least one other board
member
> > was not aware of its existence until it was forwarded back to the
> > current board by Eric during the current dispute ! It is not the
view
> > of the current board that this email has any legal validity, as it
was
> > sent without approval of the board.
> >
> > Shortly following their resignation from the board of SPI, the
former
> > board members moved to set up a new organisation, the `Open Source
> > Initiative', which they are currently in the process of
incorporating.
> >
> > Since this time Bruce Perens has repeatedly demanded the immediate
> > transfer of the Open Source trademark to this new organisation.
> >
> > The SPI board engaged in discussions with Eric Raymond regarding the
> > future of the mark. After some discussion, during which the new SPI
> > board stated that we don't believe we have all the paperwork, and
> > expressed our reservations about the new OSI organisation, Eric
became
> > convinced that SPI was failing to honour its promise (as evidenced
by
> > Bruce's 20th of March email) to transfer the mark to him, and also
> > demanded its immediate transfer to OSI.
> >
> > The SPI and OSI boards met online to discuss the matter. There was
> > much discussion of procedural niceities. When substantive matters
> > were reached, Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond insisted that OSI or
Eric
> > already own the mark; Eric Raymond expressed the view that he
> > personally should decide on the mark's future, and denied that there
> > was such a thing as a `public asset'; the OSI board members present
> > accused SPI of footdragging.
> >
> > The SPI board maintained that an open and accountable organisation,
> > preferably a membership organisation, should manage the mark. We
> > stated that we wished to consult a public consultation exercise
> > regarding the mark's future. We expressed a willingness to transfer
> > the mark to another open organisation. We expressed reservations
> > about certain current OSI board members, Bruce Perens in particular.
> >
> > The SPI board maintained that at least at the moment, SPI is a more
> > open, accountable and transparent organisation than OSI.
> >
> >
> > 3. PUBLIC CONSULTATION
> >
> > In accordance with SPI's Statement and Promises about Intellectual
> > Property, the SPI board are conducting a public consultation
exercise
> > to determine the future of the Open Source trademark.
> >
> > Broadly speaking, we can see four options:
> >
> > (a) Retain the mark, managed by Eric Raymond if he is willing.
> >
> > (b) Turn the mark over to another free software organisation.
> > Which one ?
> >
> > (c) Turn the mark over to the Open Source Initiative, which is in
the
> > process of being set up by Bruce Perens and others.
> >
> > (d) Retain the mark, and appoint new manager(s). Who ?
> >
> > We would be grateful if members of the free software development
> > community would let us know their thoughts on the matters we've
raised
> > here.
> >
> > Please mail us at <opensource-consult@spi-inc.org>, giving your
views
> > and reasoning. If you feel we might not know who you are, please
also
> > state your association with, and contribution to, the free software
> > community.
>
=== message truncated ===
> ATTACHMENT part 6 message/rfc822
>
> > PS: Are you talking about Joachim Schrod's rcs.sty? It looks plain
GPL to
> > me, but I'm having a local copy installed:
>
> Yes, but in the cweb-latex upstream package, he has a
> documentation-stripped version of it with this restrictive (very
> non-GPL) license on it. I was thinking of packaging rcs.sty (which is
> GPL) and removing the stripped non-GPL version from the cweb-latex
> one.
>
> Julian
>
>
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> Julian Gilbey Email: J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk
> Dept of Mathematical Sciences, Queen Mary & Westfield College,
> Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, ENGLAND
> -*- Finger jdg@goedel.maths.qmw.ac.uk for my PGP public key. -*-
>
> ATTACHMENT part 7 message/rfc822
>
> Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > If you use the 'release --to master' command, you will be asked
> > whether you want to close the bugs mentioned in the latest changelog
> > after the new version has been uploaded.
>
> Please don't. This closes them far too early. I've seen enough
packages
> get rejected from Incoming. Don't close the bugs until your package
> is actually in the archive.
>
> Richard Braakman
>
> ATTACHMENT part 8 message/rfc822
>
> Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > If you use the 'release --to master' command, you will be asked
> > whether you want to close the bugs mentioned in the latest changelog
> > after the new version has been uploaded. In the meantime, for every
> > bug you've fixed, just send an email to nnnn-done@bugs.debian.org
with
> > a subject like "Fixed in version XXX-YYY", and they will be cleared
> > from the bug tracking system.
>
> Please please please DO NOT DO THAT! You may only close a bug when the
> package is installed in the archive (ie when you get a message from
> dinstall that has happened). Closing bugs while the fix is still in
> Incoming is *evil*.
>
> Wichert.
>
> --
>
==============================================================================
> This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert
Akkerman.
> E-Mail: wakkerma@cs.leidenuniv.nl
> WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/
>
> ATTACHMENT part 8.2 application/pgp-signature
> ATTACHMENT part 9 message/rfc822
>
> Previously Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > In that case, pack SPEC*95, but I don't think it's even non-free.
>
> SpecInt 95 doesn't even come close to compiling on Linux.
>
> Wichert.
>
> --
>
==============================================================================
> This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert
Akkerman.
> E-Mail: wakkerma@cs.leidenuniv.nl
> WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/
>
> ATTACHMENT part 9.2 application/pgp-signature
> ATTACHMENT part 10 message/rfc822
>
> Previously Yann Dirson wrote:
> > ... which is now fixed.
>
> And which I just changed to fixed in the BTS. It has already
disappeared
> from the online release-critical bugreport. For the curious, we're
> at 72 release-critical bugs now.
>
> Wichert.
>
> --
>
==============================================================================
> This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert
Akkerman.
> E-Mail: wakkerma@cs.leidenuniv.nl
> WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/
>
> ATTACHMENT part 10.2 application/pgp-signature
> ATTACHMENT part 11 message/rfc822
>
> Previously Raul Miller wrote:
> > I just got some junk mail from Symantec about a utility they have
for
> > mass installation of software:
>
> I've seen it in action, it's definitely cool, and very
network-friendly.
>
> > Anyways, it occurs to me that some variant on this concept [perhaps,
> > in essence, a bootp client that reformats and rewrites the hard
drive --
> > though taking advantage of multicast would be Real Nice] would be
just
> > the thing for extreme linux.
>
> It surely would be nice. I have no idea how to do multicasting though.
> You need to do things like monitoring how far each computer is and
> synch with the slowest one, but that should not be that hard to do.
> We still need the configuration-management first though :)
>
> Wichert.
>
> --
>
==============================================================================
> This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert
Akkerman.
> E-Mail: wakkerma@cs.leidenuniv.nl
> WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/
>
> ATTACHMENT part 11.2 application/pgp-signature
> ATTACHMENT part 12 message/rfc822
>
> Previously lim@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU wrote:
> > What packages would make use of this?
>
> Kernel modules, like the PCMCIA and ALSA packages. checker, probably
> others as well.
>
> Wichert.
>
> --
>
==============================================================================
> This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert
Akkerman.
> E-Mail: wakkerma@cs.leidenuniv.nl
> WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/
>
> ATTACHMENT part 12.2 application/pgp-signature
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Reply to: