Debian/GFDL
Nicolas Neuss
I am a long-time Emacs (12 years) and Debian (5 years) user, and I have
just discovered that Emacs is without documentation on recent Debian.
After some Google search, I also discovered the reason: the GNU Free
Documentation License (GFDL) does not comply with the Debian guidelines,
and I also found the remedy "apt-get install emacs21-common-non-dfsg".
I am uncertain about which is the right direction wrt to the GFDL. I am
relatively sure that RMS has put some thought and legal advice into it, and
I am also not sure if simple things would work in most countries (e.g. you
cannot simply give up your rights on creative works in Germany). On the
other hand, I find the GDL a very complicated license which probably leads
to maintenance problems later on.
In any case, I find the current situation extremely annoying and think that
something should be changed. However, I fear that RMS and the Debian folks
are equally stubborn. Does anyone have a good idea?
Nicolas
Eli Zaretskii
> Date: 10 Nov 2006 18:06:53 +0100
>
> I am uncertain about which is the right direction wrt to the GFDL.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. ``Right direction'' for what
purpose? If you just want the documentation for yourself, simply
download it and install it, that's it.
> I am
> relatively sure that RMS has put some thought and legal advice into it, and
> I am also not sure if simple things would work in most countries (e.g. you
> cannot simply give up your rights on creative works in Germany). On the
> other hand, I find the GDL a very complicated license which probably leads
> to maintenance problems later on.
The problem is not that GFDL is complicated, the problem is that it
includes certain restrictions on modifications to the manuals that are
covered by GFDL, and Debian opposes to those restrictions.
I don't see why private citizens should be bothered by that
controversy, though.
David Hansen
> In any case, I find the current situation extremely annoying and think that
> something should be changed. However, I fear that RMS and the Debian folks
> are equally stubborn. Does anyone have a good idea?
The GNU documentation is still available in the non-free
section. Just install this and don't care about other peoples
silly fights.
David
David Kastrup
>> From: Nicolas Neuss <last...@mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de>
>> Date: 10 Nov 2006 18:06:53 +0100
>>
>> I am uncertain about which is the right direction wrt to the GFDL.
>
> I'm not sure what you are saying here. ``Right direction'' for what
> purpose? If you just want the documentation for yourself, simply
> download it and install it, that's it.
>
>> I am
>> relatively sure that RMS has put some thought and legal advice into it, and
>> I am also not sure if simple things would work in most countries (e.g. you
>> cannot simply give up your rights on creative works in Germany). On the
>> other hand, I find the GDL a very complicated license which probably leads
>> to maintenance problems later on.
>
> The problem is not that GFDL is complicated,
But it is. That's one of the things I find off-putting with it. And
likely one of the reasons that the drafts now include a "simplified"
variant.
> the problem is that it includes certain restrictions on
> modifications to the manuals that are covered by GFDL, and Debian
> opposes to those restrictions.
>
> I don't see why private citizens should be bothered by that
> controversy, though.
Because Debian is, after all, not an uncommon distribution.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
David Hansen
> Eli Zaretskii <el...@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> I don't see why private citizens should be bothered by that
>> controversy, though.
>
> Because Debian is, after all, not an uncommon distribution.
The docs are still in non-free. Still inconvenient when you
realized that some manual just disappeared but not that much
work to reinstall it.
David
Ismael Valladolid Torres
> On 10 Nov 2006 18:06:53 +0100 Nicolas Neuss wrote:
>
> > In any case, I find the current situation extremely annoying and think that
> > something should be changed. However, I fear that RMS and the Debian folks
> > are equally stubborn. Does anyone have a good idea?
>
> section. Just install this and don't care about other peoples
> silly fights.
Debian's fights are often considered silly from outside Debian's "way
of thinking". Nevertheless this way of thinking served creating the
best operating system in the world.
Cordially, Ismael
--
Ismael Valladolid Torres "Il est vain de pleurer sur l'esprit, il suffit
de travailler pour lui." Albert Camus
http://digitrazos.info/
http://lamediahostia.blogspot.com/ OpenPGP key ID: 0xDE721AF4
http://www.hispasonic.com/foro73.html Jabber ID: ival...@jabberes.org
Juanma Barranquero
> Debian's fights are often considered silly from outside Debian's "way
> of thinking". Nevertheless this way of thinking served creating the
> best operating system in the world.
I wasn't aware that Debian developers were the designers of VAX/VMS.
/L/e/k/t/u
Ismael Valladolid Torres
I expected kind of a reply like this from some BSD derivative user. ;)
Juanma Barranquero
> I expected kind of a reply like this from some BSD derivative user. ;)
They would've been wrong, of course.
There are three great truths in software: VAX/VMS, Emacs, Lisp. Tutto
il resto è vanità.
/L/e/k/t/u
Ismael Valladolid Torres
> Tutto il resto è vanità.
Chapeau! xD
Gian Uberto Lauri
JB> On 11/13/06, Ismael Valladolid Torres <ivalla...@terra.es>
JB> wrote:
>> I expected kind of a reply like this from some BSD derivative
>> user. ;)
JB> They would've been wrong, of course.
JB> There are three great truths in software: VAX/VMS, Emacs,
JB> Lisp. Tutto il resto è vanità.
When did they found the
GNV EST NOT VNIX
roman inscription ? :)
*ducks for cover*
--
/\ ___
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_____
//--\| | \| | Integralista GNUslamico
\/ e coltivatore diretto di Software
Dieter Wilhelm
> On 11/13/06, Ismael Valladolid Torres <ivalla...@terra.es> wrote:
>> Debian's fights are often considered silly from outside Debian's "way
>> of thinking". Nevertheless this way of thinking served creating the
>> best operating system in the world.
>
> I wasn't aware that Debian developers were the designers of VAX/VMS.
>
You made curious, how could--I assume--an old, probably not further
developed OS be better than our modern OSs? I guess you've purity or
cleanliness concerning the design in mind, haven't you? Would it be
advantages even nowadays to run VAX/VMS from a user point of view?
Sorry for my total ignorance of VAX/VMS.
--
Best wishes
H. Dieter Wilhelm
Darmstadt, Germany
Juanma Barranquero
> You made curious, how could--I assume--an old, probably not further
> developed OS be better than our modern OSs?
It wasn't stable. It was rock solid. Perfect for serious applications.
Windows, GNU/Linux, MacOS... they're desktop OS (yes, I know about
Windows Server, and that GNU/Linux is used for big applications...
That only means they're stretched far beyond their optimum point).
> Would it be
> advantages even nowadays to run VAX/VMS from a user point of view?
Probably not.
/L/e/k/t/u
Will Parsons
>>>>>> "JB" == Juanma Barranquero <lek...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>JB> There are three great truths in software: VAX/VMS, Emacs,
>JB> Lisp. Tutto il resto è vanità.
>
> When did they found the
>
> GNV EST NOT VNIX
>
> roman inscription ? :)
>
> *ducks for cover*
No no - it should be:
GNV NON VNIX
- Will
Per Abrahamsen
> You made curious, how could--I assume--an old, probably not further
> developed OS be better than our modern OSs? I guess you've purity or
> cleanliness concerning the design in mind, haven't you? Would it be
> advantages even nowadays to run VAX/VMS from a user point of view?
>
> Sorry for my total ignorance of VAX/VMS.
VAX/VMS had a strongly typed file system, which made it impossible to
do any kind of generic file operations, and forced you to learn a
separate set of commands for each type of file. It also had a really
obscure syntax for file names, using []:. among other special
characters. And a zillion different kind of hardwired interacting
privileges that meant that ordinary users rarely were able to do what
they want, but hackers could do anything as there were always some
obscure path from "may use the printer privilege" to "can overwrite
system files privilege".
The editors were EDT and later TPU. They were much better than vi, I
have to give them that. You can suffer them in Emacs with M-x
edt-emulation-on <ref> or M-x tpu-edt <ret>. (TPU was really a system
for writing editors in).
Some people liked VAX/VMS, typically the same who preferred Wirth
Pascal over K&R C. For the rest of us, Ultrix was a much more
productive environment, once you had installed Emacs in it.
(There were also an Emacs port to VAX/VMS, but as EDT was never as bad
as vi, the need for it was less desperate).
Juanma Barranquero
> VAX/VMS had a strongly typed file system
This is a feature. As it was its automatic versioning of files.
> It also had a really
> obscure syntax for file names, using []:. among other special
> characters.
Obscure only from another system's mindset. There was nothing obscure
in its filename syntax from my POV.
> And a zillion different kind of hardwired interacting
> privileges that meant that ordinary users rarely were able to do what
> they want, but hackers could do anything as there were always some
> obscure path from "may use the printer privilege" to "can overwrite
> system files privilege".
As if that didn't ever happen on Unix, did it? :-)
> The editors were EDT and later TPU. They were much better than vi, I
> have to give them that. You can suffer them in Emacs with M-x
> edt-emulation-on <ref> or M-x tpu-edt <ret>. (TPU was really a system
> for writing editors in).
The usual TPU editor was called EVE (Extensible Vax Editor).
> Some people liked VAX/VMS, typically the same who preferred Wirth
> Pascal over K&R C. For the rest of us, Ultrix was a much more
> productive environment, once you had installed Emacs in it.
Thought I'm no Pascal freak, about the only language I wouldn't prefer
over K&R C is BASIC...
/L/e/k/t/u
Dieter Wilhelm
> On 11/23/06, Per Abrahamsen <abr...@dina.kvl.dk> wrote:
>
>> VAX/VMS had a strongly typed file system
Could you briefly describe what a strongly typed file system is,
sorry?
Is this analogous to a "strongly typed" programming language? Is in
this sense C a strongly typed language? One must declare the type and
can interchange--with some exceptions--only same types. Would Lisp be
a weakly typed language, because the type information is stored in the
data itself?
>
> This is a feature. As it was its automatic versioning of files.
I read Vista is going to have something similar.
>
>> It also had a really
>> obscure syntax for file names, using []:. among other special
>> characters.
>
> Obscure only from another system's mindset. There was nothing obscure
> in its filename syntax from my POV.
>
>> And a zillion different kind of hardwired interacting
>> privileges that meant that ordinary users rarely were able to do what
>> they want, but hackers could do anything as there were always some
>> obscure path from "may use the printer privilege" to "can overwrite
>> system files privilege".
>
> As if that didn't ever happen on Unix, did it? :-)
>
>> The editors were EDT and later TPU. They were much better than vi, I
>> have to give them that. You can suffer them in Emacs with M-x
>> edt-emulation-on <ref> or M-x tpu-edt <ret>. (TPU was really a system
>> for writing editors in).
I really like Emacs but I think vi(m) is not so bad, after all.
>
> The usual TPU editor was called EVE (Extensible Vax Editor).
>
>> Some people liked VAX/VMS, typically the same who preferred Wirth
>> Pascal over K&R C. For the rest of us, Ultrix was a much more
>> productive environment, once you had installed Emacs in it.
>
> Thought I'm no Pascal freak, about the only language I wouldn't prefer
> over K&R C is BASIC...
>
For what it's worth, both of you can go on indefinitely, I like to
read about these things 8-)
> /L/e/k/t/u