My question is: what's the right way to do this? If all contributors
agree, can I just drop the FDL from my 'legalese' paragraphs, replacing
it with a reference to the GPL, or do I have to mention the fact that
previous versions were licensed under the FDL? Do I have to wait for a
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 11:24:01PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Sorry, Wouter, I shouldn't have complained about
your approach. Your request for help actually makes sense (it's just
an ordinary relicensing question, after all).
Fear of having to switch to FreeBSD provokes some rather
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 03:08:55PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
From the perspective of the freedom the two projects
protect, only the GNU project admit commercial activity directly...
Er... what?
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpSq4ulv3x4C.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
RMS is the philosopher king of the Free Software Foundation. Whether
he is also autocratic, that is, a dictatorial ruler, I don't know
because I am not a member of the FSF.
As a GCC developer, I can tell you: He is autocratic. Sadly.
--Nathanael
Brian Calson said:
I realize (and this is a gross
generalization; please pardon me) that people that have stronger ties
to the FSF and GNU are more likely to feel that the GFDL is free than
those that have stronger ties to Debian.
This may be true overall, but my sense is that among GCC
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 03:08:55PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
From the perspective of the freedom the two projects
protect, only the GNU project admit commercial activity directly...
Er... what?
DFSG #1, Free redistribution
- free as
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Brian Calson said:
I realize (and this is a gross
generalization; please pardon me) that people that have stronger
ties to the FSF and GNU are more likely to feel that the GFDL is free
than those that have stronger ties to Debian.
This may
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
RMS is the philosopher king of the Free Software Foundation. Whether
he is also autocratic, that is, a dictatorial ruler, I don't know
because I am not a member of the FSF.
As a GCC developer, I can tell
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 05:57:17PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
The way a project is managed/directed may only be an issue for people
involved, in they can continue this project with another direction. In
the GCC case, to name it, you're completely free to continue the
project without RMS - but
Scripsit Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DFSG #1, Free redistribution
- free as freedom, what GNU cares about too
- free as beer, what GNU does not care about (but it's
frequently a consequence of the first freedom)
The French translation of the DFSG is even more
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 05:45:19PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
From the perspective of the freedom the two projects
protect, only the GNU project admit commercial activity directly...
Er... what?
DFSG #1, Free redistribution
- free as freedom, what GNU cares about too
-
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 08:06:51PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op zo 20-07-2003, om 13:06 schreef Andrew Suffield:
A monarchy is an autocracy where (under normal circumstances) the
monarch inherits their role, usually by blood relation or marriage.
Well, seen the fact that RMS has always
Mathieu Roy wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
RMS is the philosopher king of the Free Software Foundation. Whether
he is also autocratic, that is, a dictatorial ruler, I don't know
because I am not a member of the FSF.
As a GCC
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And are the gcc developers authors of this manual. If so, it's only up
to them.
Don't you mean copyright holders instead of authors? Last I knew, GCC
work required you to assign copyright to FSF, so I expect the manual
is the same.
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And are the gcc developers authors of this manual. If so, it's only up
to them.
Don't you mean copyright holders instead of authors? Last I knew, GCC
work required you to assign copyright to FSF, so I expect the manual
Mathieu Roy wrote:
My question is: what's the right way to do this? If all contributors
agree, can I just drop the FDL from my 'legalese' paragraphs, replacing
it with a reference to the GPL, or do I have to mention the fact that
previous versions were licensed under the FDL? Do I have to
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 08:50:49PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Mathieu Roy wrote:
My question is: what's the right way to do this? If all contributors
agree, can I just drop the FDL from my 'legalese' paragraphs, replacing
it with a reference to the GPL, or do I have to mention the fact
--- Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] please
note that Richard Stallman does _not_ advocate different standards of
freedom for documentation and for software, according to, for instance,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00593.html
Any two things,
To my knowledge, only a very vocal minority of Debian Developers
argues for the removal of documentation licensed under the GFDL (and
even their views are far from consistent). You guys might be putting
the future of the project at risk, without actually realizing what you
are doing.
By 'normal' writings, do you include documentation? If so, please
note that Richard Stallman does _not_ advocate different standards of
freedom for documentation and for software, according to, for instance,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00593.html
Let me
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:49:04AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Virtually every person on this list finds the GFDL non-free in some
situation.
By on this list, you mean people that subscribed to this list?
If so, you're wrong. I suscribed and it don't makes me considering the
GFDL
Op zo 20-07-2003, om 10:49 schreef Mathieu Roy:
To my knowledge, only a very vocal minority of Debian Developers
argues for the removal of documentation licensed under the GFDL (and
even their views are far from consistent). You guys might be putting
the future of the project at risk,
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:49:04AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Virtually every person on this list finds the GFDL non-free in some
situation.
By on this list, you mean people that subscribed to this list?
If so, you're wrong. I suscribed
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 11:23:12AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
And you have valid statistics that makes you think that I'm
_virtually_ the only exception?
The GFDL discussion has been going on for a long time; I'm sorry, but it's
just not reasonable to claim that there are a significant number of
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And you have valid statistics that makes you think that I'm
_virtually_ the only exception?
And you have valid statistics that make you think that you're not?
Analyse the list archive and see what you find.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:18:32AM +0100, J.D. Hood wrote:
That is not surprising, given that Debian, unlike the FSF, is not a
monarchy.
ITYM autocracy.
A monarchy is an autocracy where (under normal circumstances) the
monarch inherits their role, usually by blood relation or marriage.
--
--- Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:18:32AM +0100, J.D. Hood wrote:
That is not surprising, given that Debian, unlike the FSF, is not a
monarchy.
ITYM autocracy.
A monarchy is an autocracy where (under normal circumstances) the
monarch inherits
J.D. Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
--- Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:18:32AM +0100, J.D. Hood wrote:
That is not surprising, given that Debian, unlike the FSF, is not a
monarchy.
ITYM autocracy.
A monarchy is an autocracy where (under
--- Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the freedom the project cares about are almost the same.
[...]
This whole GNU FDL issue indeed show (minor) differences between
Debian and GNU but I'm not sure this issue allows us to say This one
is better than this other one in terms of freedom.
Op zo 20-07-2003, om 13:06 schreef Andrew Suffield:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:18:32AM +0100, J.D. Hood wrote:
That is not surprising, given that Debian, unlike the FSF, is not a
monarchy.
ITYM autocracy.
A monarchy is an autocracy where (under normal circumstances) the
monarch
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:49:04AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
To my knowledge, only a very vocal minority of Debian Developers
argues for the removal of documentation licensed under the GFDL (and
even their views are far from consistent). You guys might be putting
the future of the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mathieu Roy wrote:
... Based on this, I believe that RMS would say that a program with
an unremovable, unmodifiable, 10,000 word Ode to my goldfish and
no other restrictions would be free software, although
inconvenient. I haven't seen anyone from Debian defend
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], J.D. Hood wrote:
I believe that RMS would say that a program with an unremovable,
unmodifiable, 10,000 word Ode to my goldfish and no other
restrictions would be free software, although inconvenient. I haven't
seen anyone from Debian defend that position yet.
Hi guys,
No, this is not a mail about large-scale bugs I intend to file about
packages using the FDL. It's about 'how do I relicense stuff in non-FDL
licenses'.
In the past few years, I wrote some manpages and one larger document
which I all licensed under the FDL. Although I did not read the
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 06:26:17PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
No, this is not a mail about large-scale bugs I intend to file about
packages using the FDL. It's about 'how do I relicense stuff in non-FDL
licenses'.
In the past few years, I wrote some manpages and one larger document
which
Scripsit Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My question is: what's the right way to do this? If all contributors
agree, can I just drop the FDL from my 'legalese' paragraphs, replacing
it with a reference to the GPL,
Yes.
or do I have to mention the fact that previous versions were
licensed
My question is: what's the right way to do this? If all contributors
agree, can I just drop the FDL from my 'legalese' paragraphs, replacing
it with a reference to the GPL, or do I have to mention the fact that
previous versions were licensed under the FDL? Do I have to wait for a
new update
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, this is not a mail about large-scale bugs I intend to file about
packages using the FDL. It's about 'how do I relicense stuff in non-FDL
licenses'.
The next logical step is 'how do I rename Debian GNU/Linux' to 'Debian
Linux', I presume.
To my
--- Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To my knowledge, only a very vocal minority of Debian Developers
argues for the removal of documentation licensed under the GFDL (and
even their views are far from consistent).
No one has surveyed DDs on this question, have they?
You guys might be
Sorry, Wouter, I shouldn't have complained about
your approach. Your request for help actually makes sense (it's just
an ordinary relicensing question, after all).
Fear of having to switch to FreeBSD provokes some rather clueless
reactions on my part. I'm sorry.
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 10:40:50PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, this is not a mail about large-scale bugs I intend to file about
packages using the FDL. It's about 'how do I relicense stuff in non-FDL
licenses'.
The next logical step is
Op za 19-07-2003, om 22:40 schreef Florian Weimer:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, this is not a mail about large-scale bugs I intend to file about
packages using the FDL. It's about 'how do I relicense stuff in non-FDL
licenses'.
The next logical step is 'how do I rename
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 06:26:17PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
No, this is not a mail about large-scale bugs I intend to file about
packages using the FDL. It's about 'how do I relicense stuff in non-FDL
licenses'.
In the past few years, I wrote some manpages and one larger document
which
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wouter Verhelst wrote:
In fact, I have been considering one point the GNU project has pointed
out by creating the FDL: the fact that software on the one hand and
'normal' writings on the other hand are two completely different things.
I believe that many Debian
44 matches
Mail list logo
