> I think "scour" is too strong a word. The invariant sections have to
> be listed in the notice that says the work is under the GFDL.
Yes, but again, you're relying on the honor system and hoping authors
will be principled.
That is always true, for any license. I explained that
I see no harm in your idea for /usr/share/doc//copyright, but
trying to exclude such material from elsewhere would cause big
problems between Debian and GNU. I will urge Debian most strongly
not to adopt this policy.
On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 09:05:43PM +, Sunnanvind wrote:
> When I read the usage terms for the Open Use Logo, it seems to me that a
> part of it "may be used to refer to Debian" (and no explicit permission
> given for ANY other usage) could be interpreted as breaking DFSG
> 8, "License can't
On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 09:05:43PM +, Sunnanvind wrote:
> I don't see any reason why Debian should strip out parts of GNU manuals
> that are about their political stance or about "Funding free software"
> and things like that. Still, I interpret DFSG 3 as if it
> said "modification of _any_
When I read the usage terms for the Open Use Logo, it seems to me that a
part of it "may be used to refer to Debian" (and no explicit permission
given for ANY other usage) could be interpreted as breaking DFSG
8, "License can't be specific to Debian". If that's a long shot, it's
relation to DFS
On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 11:06:38AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
[...]
> Which of these is a problem with DFSG? Or have I missed something?
Where did I say they were?
--
G. Branden Robinson| If God had intended for man to go
Debian GNU/Linux | about naked,
> > "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raul> Look at the situation this way: the GPL restricts the
> Raul> distribution of emacs, not that of independently written
> Raul> code. The question asked was whether it was legal to
> Raul> distribute some non-gpled el
On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 03:19:20AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The restrictions that come into force under the GNU FDL in the "Copying
> in Quantity" section, and the restrictions that are always in force for
> "standard (paper) book form" under the OPL look very, very similar to
> me.
copyin
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 10:27:23PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Not quite--because you have to check that it really IS licensed
> properly and clearly under the GPL. Sometimes the developer *says*
> this, but when you scan the source files, you see one of them was
> copied from another package
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 05:55:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> But I think this means that we should reconsider the standard you're
> proposing.
>
> I don't think there is anything inimical to the notion that author's
> works should be preserved intact; at least, nothing contrary to free
10 matches
Mail list logo
