On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 01:24:09AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op za 19-04-2003, om 22:51 schreef Lukas Geyer:
> > the issue seems to be the fix of #152547. If we are not allowed to
> > remove a screenful of advertising from the output of a program, then
> > this unduly restricts the freedom to
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 05:35:14AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 11:29:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > (Hrm, asking for someone to handle this results in a motion for it
> > to be handled, and lots of seconds that aren't willing to actually do
> > anything. How helpf
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 11:29:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> (Hrm, asking for someone to handle this results in a motion for it
> to be handled, and lots of seconds that aren't willing to actually do
> anything. How helpful.)
Yeesh. I'm so used to getting screamed at when I make proposals, th
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 02:34:05PM +0200, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> ege> What do you mean by a "free documentation licence"?
>
> A documentation license that will provide a good balance between the
> freedoms of the individual and the freedoms and needs of society in a
> way that it will maximiz
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 11:29:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> (Hrm, asking for someone to handle this results in a motion for it
> to be handled, and lots of seconds that aren't willing to actually do
> anything. How helpful.)
That comment was unhelpful, and just discourages people from helping
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 03:05:48PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> But the issue here is not copying or modifying an existing card, but
>> deriving a reference card from the Emacs manual.
>
> If the documentation was licensed under the BSD license, wou
Branden Robinson wrote:
> Well, I've been too cowardly to raise this issue of late, but given that
> the temperature of debian-legal has been taken a few times over the past
> several months, and there seems to be a steady or growing feeling that
> Invariant Sections are not something we can live w
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 01:24:09AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op za 19-04-2003, om 22:51 schreef Lukas Geyer:
> > the issue seems to be the fix of #152547. If we are not allowed to
> > remove a screenful of advertising from the output of a program, then
> > this unduly restricts the freedom to
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 10:52:55AM +0200, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> The GFDL offers the users and distributors such as Debian a higher
> degree of legal security, however, as someone who has not used the
> possible measure of invariant section will have a much harder time
> suing for violation of
Op za 19-04-2003, om 22:51 schreef Lukas Geyer:
> the issue seems to be the fix of #152547. If we are not allowed to
> remove a screenful of advertising from the output of a program, then
> this unduly restricts the freedom to distribute modified versions.
Uhm.
From the GPL, section 2:
c) If
On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 15:24, Anthony Towns wrote:
> [1] http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-October/000624.html
"The rule is that the invariant section can contain anything as
long as it is not the subject matter of the article. In
particular, the invariant section can
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You'll note that ReiserFS anticipated the GNU GPL V3 by including
> > clauses that forbid removal of credits in its license, and for a long
> > time I have been telling Stallman that he needs to get V3 of t
>> On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:37:28 -0500,
>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 09:10:00AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
>> Good luck with that, and I look forward to hearing from you and/or
>> other FSF representatives soon. I hope it's not terribly much
>> longer,
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 01:51:22PM +0200, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> Given that a document is under a license that permits modification,
> any redistributor could add anything and then say that removing it
> would hurt his or her moral rights.
>
> Any license trying to allow modification/removal o
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 03:05:48PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> But the issue here is not copying or modifying an existing card, but
> deriving a reference card from the Emacs manual.
If the documentation was licensed under the BSD license, wouldn't you
still have to include the full license t
"Georg C. F. Greve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) is a free documentation
> license; recommended for use in Debian without invariant
> sections.
>
> 2a) Documents without invariant sections go into main.
This seems fairly reasonable -- tho
(Hrm, asking for someone to handle this results in a motion for it
to be handled, and lots of seconds that aren't willing to actually do
anything. How helpful.)
Debian's stance on the GNU Free Documentation License
...OR NOT (completely unofficial, draft, blahblah)
20th April, 2003
In November 2
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 03:09:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I propose that we:
> * draft a comprehensive critique of the GNU FDL 1.2, detailing
> section-by-section our problems with the license
> * draft a FAQ regarding why we differ with FSF orthodoxy on this
>
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 11:30:17AM +0200, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> psg> I don't want to ship the 5MB documentation with my 100KB GUI,
> psg> just the few paragraphs that matter.
>
> That seems too genereralized to be useful.
>
> It seems hard to imagine a situation where an obviously very l
|| On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:34:17 +0100
|| Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Although I have said it before, I'll say it again: I don't
>> consider the GFDL to be perfect, but from the free documentation
>> licenses I have seen so far, it seems to be the most solid one for
>>
|| On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 15:05:48 -0400
|| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
bts> A reference card has a subset of commands, chosen for
bts> usefulness, elegance, or aesthetic appeal. It has succinct
bts> descriptions, which are a creative effort. It is definitely
bts> copyrightab
|| On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
|| Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Are you referring to documentation under the GFDL? Why would that
>> have to be removed?
mr> Not all GFDL documentation, only that which contains invariant
mr> sections which cannot be removed or modifie
|| On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 09:06:51 -0400
|| Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The GFDL deeks to do the same thing. Only this time you find
>> yourself in the position of middleman and have to take care to not
>> violate the rights of either party.
psg> Quite the opposite actuall
|| On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 09:27:43 -0400
|| Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
psg> No if it were released under the GPL. Compare to:
psg> "I'm sorry, but if somebody wrote something into SOFTWARE that
psg> was important to him and you didn't like it and removed it to
psg> distr
24 matches
Mail list logo
