Hi.
I normally don't read this list (so don't shout at me if I'm dumb ;)
but as an affected maintainer I have read the interpretation
of this licence and have a question.
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
--- Debian-legal summary ---
The OPL (Open Publication
Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
Hi.
.. stuff ...
- The person who makes any modifications must be identified, which
violates the dissident test.
Hmm, a question about this: Wouldn't make this the GPL DFSG-nonfree? It
states
You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
that
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:56:11PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
- The person who makes any modifications must be identified, which
violates the dissident test.
Hmm, a question about this: Wouldn't make this the GPL DFSG-nonfree? It states
You must cause the modified files to carry
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:56:11PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
- The person who makes any modifications must be identified, which
violates the dissident test.
Hmm, a question about this: Wouldn't make this the GPL DFSG-nonfree? It states
You must cause the modified files to carry
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 12:07:18AM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Here's a summary, since it doesn't seem like anyone has anything more to
say on the subject:
Hmm... I hate to seem authoritarian, but I'd like to see a
little
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 10:00:44AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I think we should take it on a case-by-case basis. For many cases, I'm
afraid, this would simply end up taking up most of our time following
the forms of producing summaries. My judgement was that there is no
real controversy on
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 10:08:56AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 03:09:15PM -0500, Oleksandr Moskalenko wrote:
I'd like to package an html manual for the package I'm preparing.
However, it's covered by the Open Publication License v 1.0.
Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Here's a summary, since it doesn't seem like anyone has anything more
to say on the subject:
Hmm... I hate to seem authoritarian, but I'd like to see a little
more formality in d-l
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 10:00:44AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Here's a summary, since it doesn't seem like anyone has anything more
to say on the subject:
Hmm... I hate to seem
Oleksandr Moskalenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My understanding of how this discussion developed is that a GPL
license + a clause about allowing small non-commercial _paper_
printing runs to not have to provide sources, applied to software
documentation would be DFSG-free and is generally
By the way, where are the dissident test (or for that matter, the desert
island test) described? They don't seem to be in the definition of the DFSG
on debian.org, a search on debian.org for dissident brings up no results,
and it's not clear that an outside person who looks at a summary would
Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way, where are the dissident test (or for that matter, the
desert island test) described? They don't seem to be in the
definition of the DFSG on debian.org, a search on debian.org for
dissident brings up no results, and it's not clear that an
On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 19:41 -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way, where are the dissident test (or for that matter, the
desert island test) described? They don't seem to be in the
definition of the DFSG on debian.org, a search on debian.org for
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:08:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Here's a summary, since it doesn't seem like anyone has anything more to
say on the subject:
Hmm... I hate to seem authoritarian, but I'd like to see a
little more formality in d-l summaries.
What would be nice is
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 12:47:56AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
But as for the practical problem of distributing hardcopy versions, I
simply don't see a way to satisfy the criteria:
- DFSG free
- copyleft (i.e., can't take it proprietary)
- easy to distribute hardcopy (i.e., without
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 12:47:56AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Hrm. Punch cards come to mind. Can't say it should be computer
readable -- what about OCR? I don't know how this would properly be
worded.
A stack of paper is not the preferred form
* Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-03-01 09:18:43 -0500]:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 12:47:56AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Hrm. Punch cards come to mind. Can't say it should be computer
readable -- what about OCR? I don't know how this
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 03:09:15PM -0500, Oleksandr Moskalenko wrote:
I'd like to package an html manual for the package I'm preparing.
However, it's covered by the Open Publication License v 1.0.
http://opencontent.org/openpub/
Is it DFSG-free?
I checked the
Scripsit Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 03:09:15PM -0500, Oleksandr Moskalenko wrote:
http://opencontent.org/openpub/
Is it DFSG-free?
It is free under the same conditions (no optional clauses).
Huh? Do you not even try to address the arguments that it is
Henning Makholm wrote:
| Any publication in standard (paper) book form shall require the
| citation of the original publisher and author. The publisher and
| author's names shall appear on all outer surfaces of the book. On
| all outer surfaces of the book the original publisher's name shall
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 12:21:11PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
| Any publication in standard (paper) book form shall require the
| citation of the original publisher and author. The publisher and
| author's names shall appear on all outer surfaces of the book. On
| all outer surfaces of the
Scripsit Oleksandr Moskalenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd like to package an html manual for the package I'm preparing.
However, it's covered by the Open Publication License v 1.0.
http://opencontent.org/openpub/
Is it DFSG-free?
Hmm..
| Any publication in standard (paper) book form shall require
* Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-28 12:21:11 +]:
Scripsit Oleksandr Moskalenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd like to package an html manual for the package I'm preparing.
However, it's covered by the Open Publication License v 1.0.
http://opencontent.org/openpub/
Is it
Oleksandr Moskalenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-28 12:21:11 +]:
Scripsit Oleksandr Moskalenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Any publication in standard (paper) book form shall require the
| citation of the original publisher and author. The publisher and
Oleksander Moskalenko wrote:
* Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-28 12:21:11 +]:
Scripsit Oleksandr Moskalenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd like to package an html manual for the package I'm preparing.
However, it's covered by the Open Publication License v 1.0.
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:34PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Traditionally d-l has suggested to folks with this problem that they use
the GPL with explicit explanatory text explaining what they take
preferred form for modification (i.e., source) to mean for their work
(e.g., an electronic
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:34PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Traditionally d-l has suggested to folks with this problem that they
use the GPL with explicit explanatory text explaining what they take
preferred form for modification (i.e., source) to
I'd like to package an html manual for the package I'm preparing.
However, it's covered by the Open Publication License v 1.0.
http://opencontent.org/openpub/
Is it DFSG-free?
I checked the
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#DocumentationLicenses
and they consider it free if none of
28 matches
Mail list logo
