Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

2002-04-08 Thread Branden Robinson
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 02:50:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > A work licensed under GNU FDL, version 1.1, which consists entirely of > "Invariant Sections" either has no license or is wholly unmodifiable. > Most people on debian-legal agree that this renders the work DFSG-free.

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

2002-04-08 Thread Jamie Wilkinson
This one time, at band camp, Dale Scheetz wrote: >So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses >that can be used, and will be considered non-free. > >I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of >the license are not exercised. Using this lan

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

2002-04-08 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le lun 08/04/2002 à 19:12, Dale Scheetz a écrit : > So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain > clauses that can be used, and will be considered non-free. > I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of > the license are not exercised. Using thi

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

2002-04-08 Thread Alan Shutko
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of > the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary > license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are > inforced by the author... > > The lice

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

2002-04-08 Thread Branden Robinson
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:12:06PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: > So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses > that can be used, and will be considered non-free. It is software that is or is not DFSG-free, not licenses. The simple fact is, a work licensed under versio

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

2002-04-08 Thread Craig Dickson
begin Dale Scheetz quotation: > On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > As usual, this issue has been beaten to death on a list you don't read. > > > > Please review the archives of debian-legal for the past several months. > > > > In a nutshell: > > > > 1) The current version of t

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

2002-04-08 Thread Thomas Hood
Dale Scheetz wrote: > So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they > contain clauses that can be used, and will be considered > non-free. Your objection is true of the OPL, but RMS argues http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00017.html that that is not true

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

2002-04-08 Thread Dale Scheetz
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:36:28PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: > > 3. I placed my book under this license with the express understanding > > that it was considered free. Now I'm hearing noise that this is a > > non-free license. While I disa

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

2002-04-08 Thread Dale Scheetz
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Well, since there are these other issues being raised > (specificcally, the concern that GFDL may not meet the DFSG [I happen > to disagree with that statement, for what that counts for]), we > should wait for the dust to settle down before mo

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

2002-04-08 Thread Colin Watson
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:46:23AM -0700, Martin Quinson wrote: > On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote: > > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free > > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license > > into the co

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

2002-04-08 Thread Martin Quinson
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote: > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license > into the common reference area? > > Who should I talk to about this? Please check

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

2002-04-07 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:36:28PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: > 3. I placed my book under this license with the express understanding > that it was considered free. Now I'm hearing noise that this is a > non-free license. While I disagree, that is often irrelevant. > > 4. If we still

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

2002-04-07 Thread Joseph Carter
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 03:00:37PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: > > > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free > > > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license > > > into the common reference area? > > > > > > Who should I talk to about

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

2002-04-07 Thread Manoj Srivastava
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Dale> On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Dale> There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of Dale> the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to p

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

2002-04-07 Thread Dale Scheetz
On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Joseph Carter wrote: > On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote: > > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free > > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license > > into the common reference area? >

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

2002-04-07 Thread Dale Scheetz
On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Dale> There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of > Dale> the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put > Dale> a copy of this license into the common refer

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

2002-04-07 Thread Federico Di Gregorio
Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 05:06, Joseph Carter ha scritto: > On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote: > > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free > > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license > > into the common re

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

2002-04-06 Thread Manoj Srivastava
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Dale> There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of Dale> the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put Dale> a copy of this license into the common reference area? Depends. Would you say that at leas

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

2002-04-06 Thread Joseph Carter
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote: > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license > into the common reference area? > > Who should I talk to about this? Why put a bl

Re: The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

2002-04-06 Thread Richard Braakman
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote: > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license > into the common reference area? No, it would be premature. There's a draft for a

The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and /usr/share/common-licenses

2002-04-06 Thread Dale Scheetz
There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license into the common reference area? Who should I talk to about this? Waiting is, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux" _