* Anthony DeRobertis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030913 04:50]:
> On Thursday, Sep 11, 2003, at 10:08 US/Eastern, Andreas Barth wrote:
> >What if someone do want to distribute on a DRM media that is per
> >design not copyable (aka the "can't copy"-bit set by definition)?
> Now that I come to think of i
On Friday 12 September 2003 01:48, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Then, a license allowing to freely distribute a software or a modified
> version of this software in binary form only is free, but with a practical
> inconvenience.
>
> If you interpret my statements by stretching the term "practical
On Friday 12 September 2003 23:05, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I don't really believe it. In the 1980s, formalized free software was
> a new concept for almost everybody. Today, there are too many free
> software projects for the word _not_ to get out.
>
> My experience is just the opposite: ou
On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 12:16:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 08:23:23PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Thoughts on WDL:
> >
> > Is "opiniated" really a word or a smelling pistake? There's probably
> > some better name.
>
> Agreed, but "opiniated" was the best I could com
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 10:50:17PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On Thursday, Sep 11, 2003, at 14:15 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >
> >You are stretching the term "DRM media" in order to construct a straw
> >man. As such, your argument is irrelevant. My original point stands
> >unco
> I explained in a message here, a couple of months ago, that this
> difference in wording does not really lead to a difference in
> consequences.
Um, yes it does. Importantly, it allows for more flexible
distribution strategies.
They allow the same distribution strategies.
On 2003-09-12 23:16:17 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's been brought to my attention, however, that 'opiniated' is a
strange construct in the English language, and that 'opinionated'
would
be better. I'm not a native English speaker;
I am native English, but I think the n
On 2003-09-12 21:41:52 +0100 Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Really, I do not believe that you did not read FSD. All the
more so you menyioned it below.
Please, why do you even write this? I can only think that you are
trying to insult me.
I am aware what is meant by "free bee
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday, Sep 12, 2003, at 01:55 US/Eastern, Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm sorry, I was too quick. Combining the GFDL with any license
> > (whether free software or not) produces a work which, if software,
> > would not be accepted as
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I explained in a message here, a couple of months ago, that this
> > difference in wording does not really lead to a difference in
> > consequences.
>
> Um, yes it does. Importantly, it allows for more flexible
> distribution s
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 09:57:31 -0400
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I explained in a message here, a couple of months ago, that this
> > difference in wording does not really lead to a difference in
> > consequences.
>
> Um, yes it does. Importantly, it allows for m
On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 12:45:24PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I think Debian folks understand what you are trying to accomplish with
> the GFDL
Yup.
> and are sympathetic with the goal,
Nope, they can go to hell.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://ww
RMS
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 05:05:52PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I don't really believe it. In the 1980s, formalized free software was a
> new concept for almost everybody. Today, there are too many free
> software projects for the word _not_ to get out.
>
> My experience is
I'm a little concerned about merely offering a link to things. FSF has
always argued against this as regards offers of source, in particular
because there are parts of the world where 56k access speeds would be
fast, and because some are charged per minute for such access. Perhaps
documentation
14 matches
Mail list logo
