On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:22:07PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> indeed, I would not like to see people modifying my points of view and
> redistributing saying that's what I think, you see
So if I rewrite charsets (7) (which I'm considering), I should make sure
that it's under an invarian
begin Gustavo Noronha Silva quotation:
> Em Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:26:39 +0300, Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> escreveu:
>
> > If the GFDL were a "free to use and modify" license, then we would not
> > be having this discussion. The problem is that the GFDL specifies
> > parts that we are
Em Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:26:39 +0300, Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
escreveu:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:02:47PM -0400, Thomas Hood wrote:
> > While I don't regard the DFSG as already applying to
> > documentation, the spirit of it is naturally extended to cover
> > documentation. I would
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:51:27PM -0400, Thomas Hood wrote:
> Richard Braakman wrote:
> > What you're advocating is the evil twin of censorship,
> > namely forced speech.
>
> I don't think that placing restrictions on an otherwise
> completely liberal license amounts to using any kind of
> "force
Joey Hess wrote:
>> Protecting the freedom of this form of speech requires a somewhat
>> different strategy from the one used to protect the freedom to copy
>> source code.
> Freedom of software and freedom of speech are two entirely
> different animals, and attempting to confuse them as you do
>
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:02:47PM -0400, Thomas Hood wrote:
> While I don't regard the DFSG as already applying to
> documentation, the spirit of it is naturally extended to cover
> documentation. I would suggest that the GFDL is a reasonable
> license to use for free documentation --- free as in
Thomas Hood wrote:
> Several people said that they didn't want Debian documentation to be
> full of political rants. They would like to reserve the right to
> delete the parts they don't like from the manuals they package. But
> what is this but censorship? And how is censorship compatible with
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg7.html
> Off to read about 100 messages ...
... and a tedious experience it was.
I would like to make the following points which I didn't
see mentioned in the hundreds of messages (many of them
snipes and flames).
1. Document
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 04:17:28PM -0400, Thomas Hood wrote:
> I asked:
> > Were there any other important debates about the GFDL
> > that should be read?
>
> To answer my own question:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg7.html
>
> Off to read about 100 message
I asked:
> Were there any other important debates about the GFDL
> that should be read?
To answer my own question:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg7.html
Off to read about 100 messages ...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
10 matches
Mail list logo
