I think Henning was referring to the case where one wants to use small
portions of a GNU Manual verbatim.
This is not a very serious issue, since it isn't hard to rewrite a
small amount of text. You can also refer to it with a hypertext link
instead of copying it.
I don't think there is
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System)
> has caused the Debian Bug report #121916,
> regarding analog should be in non-free
> to be marked as having been forwarded to the upstream software
> author(s) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Huh? When did debian-legal become the upstream authors of any
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think Henning was referring to the case where one wants to use small
> portions of a GNU Manual verbatim.
>
> This is not a very serious issue, since it isn't hard to rewrite a
> small amount of text. You can also refer to it with a hypert
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> That requirement imposes a maximum price that can be charged for a
> copy of the program. Whether it blocks Debian or not isn't the point;
> if I make a CD with only analog, and charge $20,000 for it, then I'm
> violating the license, and that makes analog a non-DFSG-
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > That requirement imposes a maximum price that can be charged for a
> > copy of the program. Whether it blocks Debian or not isn't the point;
> > if I make a CD with only analog, and charge $20,000 for it, then I'm
> > violati
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 03:24:00AM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> This is not a very serious issue, since it isn't hard to rewrite a
> small amount of text. You can also refer to it with a hypertext link
> instead of copying it.
s/\/code/
Would you still feel the same way?
Perhaps the GNU FDL
[Debian Policy group: I am not sure if the Debian Policy Manual is an
appropriate forum for any of the following material. I invite your
opinions.]
[Debian GNU Emacsen maintainers: I'd appreciate your assistance in some
fact-finding; see particularly the end of this mail.]
Summary:
Per recent d
> "Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joey> Moving on to the other objection, does "you may not charge
Joey> for the program itself, only for reasonable costs of
Joey> distributing the program" violate the DFSG? The DFSG
Joey> requires that a program's license not p
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 06:52:06PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Joey> Moving on to the other objection, does "you may not charge
> Joey> for the program itself, only for reasonable costs of
> Joey> distributing the program" viola
Hi, Debian people!
I think that maybe manuals that only fail DFSG 2, 3 or 6 -- such
as the Emacs Manual -- should not be classified as "[non-free]",
but as something new, between [main] and [non-free], because,
although they are not entirely free, they are at least freely
redistributable by ev
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not sure how meaningful that statement (""you may not charge
> for the program itself, only for reasonable costs of distributing the
> program") even is.
What it certainly means, at least, is that you can't charge more than
is "reasonable"--which
I thought there was general agreement that a proportional limit was
better than a simple number. One disadvantage to a simple per-package
limit is that you can defeat it by splitting something up into more
packages. A proportional limit seems more sensible to me.
Also, I think it should be a co
Hi Thomas!
On Sunday, 2. December 2001 04:05, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I thought there was general agreement that a proportional
> limit was better than a simple number. One disadvantage to a
> simple per-package limit is that you can defeat it by
> splitting something up into more packages.
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 12:53:29PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Could you quote me the paragraph of the DFSG that says anything at all
> about selling a CD with a single package on it?
(More evidence, if any was needed, that the DFSG might need to be
rewritten to be a little more legalistic, rather
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 05:51:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [Debian Policy group: I am not sure if the Debian Policy Manual is an
> appropriate forum for any of the following material. I invite your
> opinions.]
-policy is traditionally for technical policy, which the DFSG isn't. A
-legal
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 06:59:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> What it certainly means, at least, is that you can't charge more than
> is "reasonable"--which is a limitation.
Historically, the Perl guys have finessed this point by defining
"reasonable" as "whatever the market will bear"
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 02:14:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 05:51:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > [Debian Policy group: I am not sure if the Debian Policy Manual is an
> > appropriate forum for any of the following material. I invite your
> > opinions.]
>
> -p
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 07:05:10PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I thought there was general agreement that a proportional limit was
> better than a simple number.
Maybe this is how you feel, but I so far haven't seen general agreement
on anything. Especially now that Anthony Towns has spo
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 03:36:07AM +0100, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote:
> I think that maybe manuals that only fail DFSG 2, 3 or 6 -- such
> as the Emacs Manual -- should not be classified as "[non-free]",
> but as something new, between [main] and [non-free], because,
> although they are not
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think that the requirement "you may not charge for distributing
> a modified version of the program unless the source code [...] is publicly
> and freely available" violates the DFSG. It's not much different from
> the GPL's requirements that the sou
20 matches
Mail list logo
