Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If you feel your trust has been betrayed, I think you should say so.
Insisting that your text be removed from the CPP manual is not the only
tactic at your disposal.
Certainly. If Zack were to ask for his own work (whose copyright is
assigned to the FSF) to
Hi Zack,
On Sonntag 20 April 2003 03:19, Zack Weinberg wrote:
I am not a Debian developer, but I am one of the upstream
developers of a piece of software (GCC) that would be affected
by this proposal, and so I would like to say that I
wholeheartedly support it. I wrote a lot of the text in
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 11:36:28PM -0400, Zack Weinberg wrote:
I pulled it out of my files and reread it; the FSF's side of the
agreement is a lot weaker than I remembered. The actual text is
[...]
Not one word about redistribution of modifications. I don't think
I have a leg to stand on
Zack Weinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(I suppose I could sue the FSF for violating its end of the copyright
assignment contract, but that would be totally counterproductive).
I think it might well be productive to point to the assignment
contract, and insist that your content be removed.
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
I think it might well be productive to point to the assignment
contract, and insist that your content be removed.
I pulled it out of my files and reread it; the FSF's side of the
agreement is a lot weaker than I remembered. The actual text is
FSF agrees that
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 01:27:05PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
I am seeking seconds for this proposal.
I think this proposal is the right thing to do, especially the hard work
of creating the documents before filing bugs. Unfortunately, I am
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 03:09:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I propose that we:
* draft a comprehensive critique of the GNU FDL 1.2, detailing
section-by-section our problems with the license
* draft a FAQ regarding why we differ with FSF orthodoxy on this
Branden Robinson wrote:
Well, I've been too cowardly to raise this issue of late, but given that
the temperature of debian-legal has been taken a few times over the past
several months, and there seems to be a steady or growing feeling that
Invariant Sections are not something we can live
On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 15:09, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 08:12:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Anyway, to answer your original question, GFDL = non-free is not an
official Debian position simply because we haven't written up a proper
explanation of why, and haven't gone
Well, listening to Georg Greve it sounded like the FSF wanted an
official statement from Debian regarding the problems with
non-removability of invariant sections. In my very humble opinion,
Debian should try giving them that before taking (what would appear to
be) the more hostile actions
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 12:44:32PM +0200, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
Well, listening to Georg Greve it sounded like the FSF wanted an
official statement from Debian regarding the problems with
non-removability of invariant sections. In my very humble opinion,
Debian should try giving them
Scripsit Sunnanvind Fenderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, listening to Georg Greve it sounded like the FSF wanted an
official statement from Debian regarding the problems with
non-removability of invariant sections.
I don't think the FSF is prepared to change their licensing practise
no matter
On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
This is the stuff of which nasty flamewars and misspelled Slashdot
headlines are made, hence my unwillingness to do it, but it is clear to
me that letting this issue languish in ambiguity isn't good for us or
our users.
I agree both with your
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 03:09:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I propose that we:
* draft a comprehensive critique of the GNU FDL 1.2, detailing
section-by-section our problems with the license
(Branden, didn't you construct such a critique a while ago?
I remember reading
Scripsit Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think this proposal is the right thing to do, especially the hard work
of creating the documents before filing bugs. Unfortunately, I am
unwilling to take on the task myself, though I'm happy to provide feedback
and sections of text where I can.
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 08:12:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Anyway, to answer your original question, GFDL = non-free is not an
official Debian position simply because we haven't written up a proper
explanation of why, and haven't gone through the GFDL documents in main
to see which ones
16 matches
Mail list logo
