uitable
for main.
It probably holds for GFDLv1.3 too, since GFDLv1.3 does not seem to be
any more restrictive than GFDLv1.2.
On the other hand, a nitpicker like me could point out that the winning
option of GR-2006-001 explicitly speaks about the "GNU Free
Documentation License version 1.2&qu
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Karl Goetz wrote:
> This is not a strong feeling, simply a comment:
> I find it strange to add a licence that was created with a very specific
> goal in mind (relicencing wikipedia) which will expire in 9 months
> (August next year).
Ok. A good reason not to do it is enough. I
On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 17:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Hello.
>
> If the consensus is that GFDL 1.3 is as DFSG-compliant as it 1.2 was,
> then I would like to include it in common-licenses in base-files for lenny
> (in addition to 1.2, that is) as a "bonus".
>
> Reasons:
>
> * The symlink GFD
Hello.
If the consensus is that GFDL 1.3 is as DFSG-compliant as it 1.2 was,
then I would like to include it in common-licenses in base-files for lenny
(in addition to 1.2, that is) as a "bonus".
Reasons:
* The symlink GFDL is supposed to point to the latest version available.
* Works under GFDL
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:01 PM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My web browser is an IceWeasel with NoScript
I guess that would be the problem. Unfortunately Web 2.0 exists and
seems to be here to stay. I would guess that letting the gplv3 site
run JavaScript would fix your issues.
--
bye,
"Paul Wise" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> If your web browser cannot add comments for some reason (sounds pretty
> broken if it cannot), you might want to use the contact form:
[...]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] looks like the appropriate email address for
> addressing your browser issues and [EMAIL PR
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:55 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> stet is still broken and the Google Summer of Code work is MIA, so
> where should comments be sent?
Commenting works for me and others:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?Query=%20%27CF.NoteUrl%27%20LIKE%20%27gfdl-dra
"Paul Wise" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] they are still taking comments toward the draft, so make
> sure all relevant comments are sent to the FSF. GFDL 1.3 FAQ, GFDL 2.0
> draft:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html
> http://gplv3.fsf.org/fdl-draft-2006-09-22.html
stet is still br
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder how we should consider the fact they did not remove nor
> rephrase this obnoxious clause. Back in the FDL discussions, it was
> commonly accepted that this was a honest mistake and that it was going
> to be fix
Le lundi 03 novembre 2008 à 18:28 +0100, Simon Josefsson a écrit :
> 2. VERBATIM COPYING
> You may not use
> technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further
> copying of the copies you make or distribute.
I wonder how we should consider the fact they did not remove nor
rephrase t
"Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 03 November 2008 10:28:39 Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html
>
> According to the FSF FAQ, the main change is that it allows certain
> GFDL-licensed wiki's to relicense. It otherwise isn't really any diffe
On Monday 03 November 2008 10:28:39 Simon Josefsson wrote:
> I expect the GFDLv1.3 license will be used by several projects soon.
> Thoughts on its DFSG-status?
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html
According to the FSF FAQ, the main change is that it allows certain
GFDL-licensed wiki's to
I expect the GFDLv1.3 license will be used by several projects soon.
Thoughts on its DFSG-status?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html
License quoted below for easy commenting.
/Simon
GNU Free Documentation License
Version 1.3, 3 November 2008
Copyright
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:51:25 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:05:44 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
> > [...]
> > > The FSF has a draft license named the "Simpler Free Documentation
> > > Lice
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:05:44 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
> [...]
> > The FSF has a draft license named the "Simpler Free Documentation
> > License" http://gplv3.fsf.org/doclic-dd1-guide.html>; that
> > page says t
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:05:44 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
> Howdy all,
Hi!
[...]
> The FSF has a draft license named the "Simpler Free Documentation
> License" http://gplv3.fsf.org/doclic-dd1-guide.html>; that page
> says that the SFDL was published in draft form on 2006-09
Howdy all,
The 'debian-legal' forum is not an ideal place to discuss licenses in
the absence of a work to which the license is applied. Nevertheless,
one license that has caused considerable fuss is the GNU "Free
Documentation License", or FDL.
The FSF has a draft license nam
Manoj Srivastava dijo [Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 03:42:02PM -0500]:
> Hi folks,
>
>It's been a few days since my last message. I have added a print
> style sheet, so one can use a free Browser (mozilla) to print the
> position statement. I have added a couple of new examples, an
> inchoate softw
Hi folks,
It's been a few days since my last message. I have added a print
style sheet, so one can use a free Browser (mozilla) to print the
position statement. I have added a couple of new examples, an
inchoate software documentation freedoms list, and I have started an
outline of the form
hi all,
i am not subscribed to debian-legal and i know that the argument
has been already submitted, but i want to make some comments of the gnu
fdl. imho, nothing in it can design a document released under fdl as
non-free. we had a discussion about the fact that maybe dfsg are not
applic
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 08:30:08PM -0400, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> I think we have a problem here. The DFSG clearly does not apply to
> documentation, just like the GPL. As the FSF created a new license, we need
> to create guidelines to what we consider a "free documentation", as in free
> spe
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 08:30:08PM -0400, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> > Personally, I have to wonder if this type of thing is DFSG-free:
>
> I think we have a problem here. The DFSG clearly does not apply to
> documentation, just like the GPL. As the FSF created a new license, we need
> to create
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 12:45:13AM +, Jules Bean wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:12:13PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Jules Bean wrote:
> > >
> > > Since it doesn't apply to software, that's a non-issue.
> >
> > I'm very tempted to go package up, say, the quake1 level files and try to
>
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:12:13PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Jules Bean wrote:
> >
> > Since it doesn't apply to software, that's a non-issue.
>
> I'm very tempted to go package up, say, the quake1 level files and try to
> upload them to main. After all, they're not software, so who gives a hoot
> Personally, I have to wonder if this type of thing is DFSG-free:
I think we have a problem here. The DFSG clearly does not apply to
documentation, just like the GPL. As the FSF created a new license, we need
to create guidelines to what we consider a "free documentation", as in free
speech.. =)
Jules Bean wrote:
>
> Since it doesn't apply to software, that's a non-issue.
I'm very tempted to go package up, say, the quake1 level files and try to
upload them to main. After all, they're not software, so who gives a hoot
if they violate the DFSG?
> It does, once again, re-raise the issue of
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:54:20AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Jordi wrote:
> > Should this new license be included in base-files?
>
> That seems very premature. Best wait until
>
> 1) It is a common-license
> 2) debian-legal has vetted it
>
> Personally, I have to wonder if this type of thing is
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:54:20AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Personally, I have to wonder if this type of thing is DFSG-free:
>
> If you publish printed copies of the Document numbering more than 100,
> and the Document's license notice requires Cover Texts, you must enclose
> the copies in
Jordi wrote:
> Should this new license be included in base-files?
That seems very premature. Best wait until
1) It is a common-license
2) debian-legal has vetted it
Personally, I have to wonder if this type of thing is DFSG-free:
If you publish printed copies of the Document numbering more th
29 matches
Mail list logo
