I'm wading into dangerous waters here, methinks... :)
I think Branden's proposal is well-intentioned, but ultimately the
wrong approach to dealing with this problem. I think the standard
that should be applied is not about kilobytes or percentages, but
whether or not the licensing restrictions on
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 09:41:06PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> You'd rather have a quantitative rule, and the ability to occasionally
> say "Yes, it violates the numerical limits, but it's not abuse, and
> we're going to accept it." (Again, that's how I understand your
> position.) But this end
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 05:41:00PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> This is one possibility I proposed to RMS. Essentially, I proposed that
> all Invariant Sections had to be placed in debian/copyright, and that
> any duplicates of his Invariant text in the "actual" documentation would
On 28-Nov-01, 09:55 (CST), Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think you've been reading my messages.
I have. I didn't go back and re-read before I posted, so I stupidly
managed to pick a bad example.
> 2) I've said every time I've mentioned threshholds that they are numbers
>
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 05:40:46PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> No position on this question can be construed from the DFSG. The
> question is what right criterion to use in a specific part of your
> proposed guidelines. The DFSG does not say much about this whole
> area, which is why you are
This is one possibility I proposed to RMS. Essentially, I proposed that
all Invariant Sections had to be placed in debian/copyright, and that
any duplicates of his Invariant text in the "actual" documentation would
be modifiable.
That is unacceptable because it would allow modifie
> GNU Emacs comes with some auxiliary material (non-technical articles)
> that does not allow modification. I think that should be ok
> because they are non-technical.
That's a perfectly legitimate position in its own right, but it cannot
reasonably be construed from the text
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 07:52:17AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Hmm. The uncompressed GPL2 is 18k (at least in my
> /usr/share/common-licenses; YMMV). There are many programs covered by
> the GPL2 whose source code isn't even 18k, much less 360k (20*18k).
>
> So these done meet either of Brande
On 27-Nov-01, 14:53 (CST), Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 06:59:57PM +, M. Drew Streib wrote:
> > The intent, although IMO abusable, is to give the author a chance to make
> > a statement, but continue to allow derivative works of all the actual
> > relev
9 matches
Mail list logo
