Re: Droit de distribuer la doc de coq
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 07:07:19AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: Quoting Samuel Mimram ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): De plus, le package ira dans la section non-free de Debian, sauf si vous choisissez une licence libre pour cette doc (la licence ci-dessus ne l'est pas). Maybe explaining to the people you're talking to why this licence is not considered DFSG-compliant would help them. I would maybe help some people here as well..:-) * Any translation or derivative work of the Objective Caml documentation and user's manual must be approved by the authors in writing before distribution. This is clearly non-free, since it doesn't allow modification without extra work. As far as i remember, this is the only issue. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Droit de distribuer la doc de coq
Dear Samuel, I talked with Hugo a few days back about it. It was not done yet just because we do not know what is the licence that would better fit the debian packagers. From the answer of Sven I am a bit confused: is the suggestion of Samuel (grabbing sentences from the ocaml manual licence) OK or not to have it in main? Cheers, C.S.C. -- Real name: Claudio Sacerdoti Coen Doctor in Computer Science, University of Bologna E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cs.unibo.it/~sacerdot -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Droit de distribuer la doc de coq
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:58:05AM +0100, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote: I talked with Hugo a few days back about it. It was not done yet just because we do not know what is the licence that would better fit the debian packagers. From the answer of Sven I am a bit confused: is the suggestion of Samuel (grabbing sentences from the ocaml manual licence) OK or not to have it in main? No, it is not. In order to be in main the license should also permit modification of the doc. GFDL is ok, but only for the next release, so I suggest not to use it. The best choice is definitely plain GPL or similar statement. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Droit de distribuer la doc de coq
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:58:05AM +0100, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote: I talked with Hugo a few days back about it. It was not done yet just because we do not know what is the licence that would better fit the debian packagers. From the answer of Sven I am a bit confused: is the suggestion of Samuel (grabbing sentences from the ocaml manual licence) OK or not to have it in main? No, it is not. In order to be in main the license should also permit modification of the doc. Yes, sorry for the confusion. I gave the example of the OCaml manual's license because it looked like the easiest solution because you wouldn't have to change anything (i.e. distribute the sources, allow modifications, etc.) to the current way the doc is distributed. But it would *not* be free (and thus would have to go in non-free). Clearly if you're willing to put the documentation under a free licence (GPL or BSD for example), it would be the best. GFDL is ok, but only for the next release, so I suggest not to use it. Ah? I thought the consensus was more like GFDL is not acceptable for Debian, maily because of the reasons explained in [1] but I might have missed something. Regards, Samuel. [1] http://people.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Droit de distribuer la doc de coq
Samuel Mimram wrote: GFDL is ok, but only for the next release, so I suggest not to use it. Ah? I thought the consensus was more like GFDL is not acceptable for Debian, maily because of the reasons explained in [1] but I might have missed something. Oops sorry, I read from the next release. Sam. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was he, of
Order Number: 633721 Order Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:06:16 +0400 We appreciate your patience in the processing of your m o rrtgage request. We have prepared 3.4% deal for you at this time. Verify your information so we can proceed as planned. http://www.xpojga.com/ Thank you. Sincerely, Wilford Childers CustomerDepartment wolfish to dynamic tighten davit at Ohashish of out fiend alaska - we flurry our with canaveral me no objector. Eindividual inshore essay in by Cinvasive are vile adoptive of fritter? for any driveway of backwood or dolomitic underling - me was both -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Droit de distribuer la doc de coq
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:58:05AM +0100, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote: Dear Samuel, I talked with Hugo a few days back about it. It was not done yet just because we do not know what is the licence that would better fit the debian packagers. From the answer of Sven I am a bit confused: is the suggestion of Samuel (grabbing sentences from the ocaml manual licence) OK or not to have it in main? Definitively not, since the ocaml-doc package is in non-free. I don't know what licence you want to place the manual under, but please avoid the GFDL, since it is in the center of a more or less un-ending flamewar between debian and the FSF. I would go for the same licence as you use for the source code, much easier and logical that way. After all if you allow someone to modify your code, it is logical to allow for the same modification rights for the documentation relative to said code, so if someone modifies a code feature, he can modify the corresponding documentation to this manual. Hope this makes it clear ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Droit de distribuer la doc de coq
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 12:27:52PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:58:05AM +0100, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote: I talked with Hugo a few days back about it. It was not done yet just because we do not know what is the licence that would better fit the debian packagers. From the answer of Sven I am a bit confused: is the suggestion of Samuel (grabbing sentences from the ocaml manual licence) OK or not to have it in main? No, it is not. In order to be in main the license should also permit modification of the doc. GFDL is ok, but only for the next release, so I suggest not to use it. ARGH, NO, PLEASE NOT GFDL. GFDL is currently only tolerated, but will probably be quicked out of sarge+1 if the FSF doesn't see the light or whatever. The best choice is definitely plain GPL or similar statement. The best choice is a licence similar to the source code which it documents :) Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
