Richard Stallman wrote:
Can you give us an indication as to what the clarified text will look
like, or what restrictions it will contain? [Just so we're all on the
same page with regards to the sections problems.]
I've decided not to do that. The development of GNU licenses is not a
lain the
subject more comprehensible than I already did. So, if you still
can't learn the difference between "free as speech" and "free as
beer", I have not any cure to help you.
I hereby nominate Fedor Zuev to the post of Minister of Incoherent Ramblings
and Random Accusations.
-- Keith Dunwoody
examples are: Programs which have a (possibly
primary) purpose of teaching (such as "Hello World"), and files which can
either be interpreted as a program or as documentation, depending on how they
are processed.
-- Keith Dunwoody
[[ P.S. RMS isn't CC'd because I sent this to him directly, and forgot to cc
debian-legal at first. Oops. ]]
Richard Stallman wrote:
The only question I intend to discuss on this list is Debian's
decision about whether to use or not use GFDL-covered manuals.
Well, since Debian will contain only 100% Free Software, and I think most of us
(and you, if I interpret your previous emails correctly) agree
Mathieu Roy wrote:
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
* Mathieu Roy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030912 11:50]:
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
become free in the sense of Debian. And that means: free according to
the DFSG.
Hum, you mean in the sense of the Debian Free _
Mathieu Roy wrote:
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 10:15:57AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
That's really "end of discussion". If this clear wordings stands also
for the FSF, than there is nothing how the manuals can become free.
[become free _SOFTWARE_]
Mathieu Roy wrote:
It seems weird to me. Someone said that GFLed documentation without
invariant sections can be made non-free if someone getting a copy of
the documentation add invariant sections.
What does it change? Do we consider BSD software as non-free software
because they do not forbid a
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
OK. I have a copy of Emacs here, licensed to me under the GNU GPL2.
I have made some modifications to it, and updated the changelogs and
history notes. I wish to give it to a friend. Section 2b requires
that I distribute my new program, Sniffmacs, "under the terms of t
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 10:59:04AM +0200, Keith Dunwoody wrote:
I think this is the link: Some people (software companies) prefer not to
license their code under the GPL, therefore they reject using GPL'd code.
Other people prefer to not wear clothes, therefore
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 10:19:08AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
More generally, that rationale is bogus because it applies to almost *all*
restrictions in any license. The GPL discriminates against proprietary
software authors.
No, it does not. (It makes it impossible
Andreas Barth wrote:
Comment: documentation is not software, and DFSG is made with software
in mind.
Actually, the DSFG _was_ made with documentation in mind.
Bruce Perens wrote:
> I intended for the entire contents of that CD to be under the rights stated
> in the DSFG - be they software, do
/make/ or distribute. (emphisis mine)
By downloading a copy of a GFDL document you are making a copy of it -- no
redistribution required
-- Keith Dunwoody
Joerg Wendland wrote:
Matthew Garrett, on 2003-08-22, 13:09, you wrote:
If Emacs had an invarient section discussing fishing and how this had
inspired the authoring of the manual, it would be awkward for me to
use chunks in my document on an application for recording fishing
statistics. And if y
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Joerg Wendland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matthew Garrett, on 2003-08-21, 16:13, you wrote:
Oh, now, come on. The GFDL plainly /isn't/ compatible with the DFSG.
Whether or not it /has/ to be compatible with the DFSG in order to be in
Debian is an entirely separate is
Fedor Zuev wrote:
KD>Your definition seems to differ from standard usage.
What is the standard usage?
I can't exactly define a "standard" usage, but in my experience most people
would consider all binary executables as "software". What else is also
considered software is one of the s
Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
>>> FDL supporters: how a license which forbids to put the document on an
>>> encrypted filesystem can be considered free? How a license which
forbids
>>
>>
>> Is it? Are you sure? Or do you plan to distribute encrypted Debian
CD's?
>
>
>
> Thi
Fedor Zuev wrote:
But let it be:
---
If the package gets extra input information as a part of using it
_and_ a result substantially[*] varies, depending this input
information _and_ these variations at least partially controlled by
statements in package[**] - package is a softwa
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 18:38, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 22:39, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
That's an overly-expansive view of software. You would include
anything that is digital in that description -- audio CDs, DVD movies,
off-air TV signals,
(actua
Michael D. Crawford wrote:
Suppose the Manifesto were a free document. That would allow
Microsoft's PR flacks to "update" the Manifesto to exhort the user to
protect corporate rights to intellectual property, and illustrate how
respecting End User License Agreements stimulates not only the n
19 matches
Mail list logo
