On Mon, Jun 08, 1998 at 11:39:38AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Sat, Jun 06, 1998 at 08:42:14PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Jun 06, Santiago Vila wrote:
Documentation may be included in main so
On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 07:56:31PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Hello Fabien!
Hello Marcus!
On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 10:41:38AM -0500, Fabien Ninoles wrote:
I'm not sure I understand you well but here is my opinions about freeness
of Documentation:
Documentation describing the
On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 06:41:25PM -0500, Fabien Ninoles wrote:
On Mon, Jun 08, 1998 at 11:39:38AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Sat, Jun 06, 1998 at 08:42:14PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Jun 06,
On Mon, Jun 08, 1998 at 01:22:33AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Sat, Jun 06, 1998 at 08:42:14PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Jun 06, Santiago Vila wrote:
Documentation may be included in main so long as there are no restrictions
on the unmodified use of the documentation and no
Hello Fabien!
On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 10:41:38AM -0500, Fabien Ninoles wrote:
I'm not sure I understand you well but here is my opinions about freeness
of Documentation:
Documentation describing the functionnality of a software are dependant
of the software. Then, they should be considered
On Sat, Jun 06, 1998 at 08:42:14PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Jun 06, Santiago Vila wrote:
Documentation may be included in main so long as there are no restrictions
on the unmodified use of the documentation and no restrictions on
translating the documentation to another format,
On Jun 08, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
I can't imagine why people are afraid that other people will change the
standards. Why should anybody try to apply essential changes to, for
example, the FSSTND?
Dunno. But a lot of people have a copyright restriction in the document to
make sure that the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Sat, Jun 06, 1998 at 08:42:14PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Jun 06, Santiago Vila wrote:
Documentation may be included in main so long as there are no restrictions
on the unmodified use of the
Chris Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dunno. But a lot of people have a copyright restriction in the document to
make sure that the actual integrity of the standard remains intact (see, for
example, the W3C's standards for HTTP and HTML).
This need is met by a label is sacred sort of
Chris Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(including the Linux/m68k FAQ, which isn't in Debian because it's
not DFSG-free and I have no intention of making it DFSG-free),
Great Chris, but what happens if, God forbid, you (and Jörg) were to
be run over by a bus tomorrow? Your FAQ becomes worse
On Mon, Jun 08, 1998 at 11:39:38AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Sat, Jun 06, 1998 at 08:42:14PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Jun 06, Santiago Vila wrote:
Documentation may be included in main so long as there are no restrictions
on the
On Jun 06, Santiago Vila wrote:
This could be more than what is really needed.
I think we should just add a paragraph to the DFSG saying that although
the DFSG applies to *software*, modifying the documentation for such
software should be also allowed, in general, because otherwise the
Chris Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[RMS article omitted because it may only be distributed verbatim; my
quoting would violate his copyright]
No, fair use allows quotes.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Santiago Vila Doncel, in an immanent manifestation of deity, wrote:
- From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jun 2 21:45:40 1998
Date: 28 May 1998 22:02:52 -0400
Once upon a time, I thought I would learn Perl. I got a copy of a
free manual, but I found it simply
--On Fri, Jun 5, 1998 3:26 pm +0200 Marcus Brinkmann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello!
This is thereply I got from RMS about the copyright freeness issue.
I think it is clear that we should lay the license freeness issue ad acta.
Debian should include all licenses in whole, and the dfsg
On Sat, Jun 06, 1998 at 11:54:26AM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
--On Fri, Jun 5, 1998 3:26 pm +0200 Marcus Brinkmann
[Marcus asked:]
It seems to imply, that I'm not allowed to derive a new license, using
portions of the GPL (even when changing the name). Is that correct?
[RMS
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
I think:
* We should treat documentation under the same terms as software, as we need
it to use the software successfully and we'll have the same benefits of free
documentation as we have of free software.
This
Hello!
This is thereply I got from RMS about the copyright freeness issue.
I think it is clear that we should lay the license freeness issue ad acta.
Debian should include all licenses in whole, and the dfsg should not exactly
apply to them.
Note that we require the dfsg-freeness for the
On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Hello!
This is thereply I got from RMS about the copyright freeness issue.
I think it is clear that we should lay the license freeness issue ad acta.
Debian should include all licenses in whole, and the dfsg should not exactly
apply to them.
19 matches
Mail list logo
