On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 09:40:49AM -0400,
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 25 lines which said:
* Why you shouldn't use the GFDL:: Debian doesn't recommend using this
license.
Can you actually write this section and post it here? Because I have a
practical problem:
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 09:40:49AM -0400,
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 25 lines which said:
* Why you shouldn't use the GFDL:: Debian doesn't recommend using this
license.
Can you actually write this section and
* Brian T. Sniffen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The MIT/X11 license and the GPL would both work, depending on whether
you want a copyleft. The MIT license can probably be used just by
itself. To use the GPL, though, you should probably put in a section
which explains how your document can be
iain d broadfoot [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Brian T. Sniffen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The MIT/X11 license and the GPL would both work, depending on whether
you want a copyleft. The MIT license can probably be used just by
itself. To use the GPL, though, you should probably put in a
* Brian T. Sniffen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
iain d broadfoot [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Brian T. Sniffen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The MIT/X11 license and the GPL would both work, depending on whether
you want a copyleft. The MIT license can probably be used just by
itself. To use
iain d broadfoot [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
and possibly avoid referring directly to MSWord as well - a reference to
'binary, closed file formats' would probably do the same job.
Yes, that might be better. I'd avoid the words closed and binary,
as MS is already trying to redefine both.
A Microsoft Word document is probably source code rather than
object code: people do edit Microsoft Word documents, and people
don't usually do automatic translations into Microsoft Word format
(though they do sometimes, for example when exporting from another
word processor).
Anyway, I don't
iain d broadfoot [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
plain text would simply mean that i can type `vim something`, and have
the text appear in front of me. presumably, those strange foreign chaps
already have their systems set up to handle those strange foreign chars.
But *I* don't. So it's not a
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, iain d broadfoot wrote:
but that allows MSWord docs, since i can edit them with Abiword, OOo
etc...
maybe request a plain text version alongside any other formats? or
must be editable with free software and must be saved in a Free format?
I'm not sure where this
* Mark Rafn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, iain d broadfoot wrote:
but that allows MSWord docs, since i can edit them with Abiword, OOo
etc...
maybe request a plain text version alongside any other formats? or
must be editable with free software and must be saved
On 20030416T094049-0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
* Why you shouldn't use the GFDL:: Debian doesn't recommend using this
license.
And what if this new section listing reasons _not_ to use this license
were made... invariant!
If we were to add to each GFDL'd document a section (invariant
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 09:40:49AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Consider this a suggestion to maintainers of packages that contain
documentation that are under the GFDL, especially if it contains
invariant sections. Imagine if an Emacs user visited Info and saw this:
* Menu:
*
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 20030416T094049-0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
* Why you shouldn't use the GFDL:: Debian doesn't recommend using this
license.
And what if this new section listing reasons _not_ to use this license
were made... invariant!
If we
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 02:34:36PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Debian can't legally distribute such an info document. Because the
GFDL is incompatible with the GPL, it is prohibited to even
create an info document from GFDL'd texinfo source. See #183860.
Hrm, if that's the case, we can't
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And what if this new section listing reasons _not_ to use this license
were made... invariant!
I think writing such a new section is a reasonable thing, but of
course, we can't make in invariant without violating our own
principles.
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 04:16:57AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 02:34:36PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Debian can't legally distribute such an info document. Because the
GFDL is incompatible with the GPL, it is prohibited to even
create an info document from GFDL'd
Consider this a suggestion to maintainers of packages that contain
documentation that are under the GFDL, especially if it contains
invariant sections. Imagine if an Emacs user visited Info and saw this:
* Menu:
* Distrib:: How to get the latest Emacs distribution.
* Copying::
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 09:40:49AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
* Why you shouldn't use the GFDL:: Debian doesn't recommend using this
license.
And what if this new section listing reasons _not_ to use this license
were made... invariant!
If the FSF wants to give redistributors a
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 09:40:49AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
* Why you shouldn't use the GFDL:: Debian doesn't recommend using this
license.
And what if this new section listing reasons _not_ to use this license
were made... invariant!
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 09:40:49AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Consider this a suggestion to maintainers of packages that contain
documentation that are under the GFDL, especially if it contains
invariant sections. Imagine if an Emacs user visited Info and saw this:
* Menu:
*
Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 09:40:49AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Consider this a suggestion to maintainers of packages that contain
documentation that are under the GFDL, especially if it contains
invariant sections. Imagine if an Emacs user visited
21 matches
Mail list logo
