David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IPv6 and C99 didn't change IPv4 or C89, did they?
Indeed, gcc 3.0 didn't automatically delete all copies of gcc 2.95
either, and MS-Windows 95 was not impacted by '98. Does that imply
that these software packages are eternally fixed and never revised?
I
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 10:01:55PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't see the distinction. Are icons metadata? The name almost certainly
is . . . but we made a special exception for name changes in the DFSG.
Icons are not metadata. The author
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 10:01:55PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
It isn't. But the DFSG don't state that every bit of a package must be
modifiable, either. I take it that every functional part must be
modifyable at least.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 05:21:41PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
(3)
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 07:04:12PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On the other hand, licenses themselves are not subject to being licensed,
thus DFSG requirements don't refer to the bogus concept of a license
about a license.
Why aren't licenses subject to being licensed? They are large copyrighted
David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The notion that
standards do not get out of date can't be meant seriously in a world of
SQL92, IPv6, C89, etc. etc.
IPv6 and C99 didn't change IPv4 or C89, did they?
When writing a new version of a standard it is often convenient to
borrow text from the
The notion that
standards do not get out of date can't be meant seriously in a world of
SQL92, IPv6, C89, etc. etc.
IPv6 and C99 didn't change IPv4 or C89, did they?
No. Modification to the content must be allowed ... certainly not
modification to the metadata.
I don't see the
[please cc me]
David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If there's an exception for non-topical chapters, then why not for
standards?
Because these are completely different things, see below.
A non-topical chapter is more likely to get out of date than a
standard, which by design is
[cc and reply-to more appropriate list]
Richard Atterer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 10:42:59AM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
[doc-html-w3]
That package is in non-free. IIRC the issue is that you can't modify
the standards. Which is somewhat understandable, but still
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 08:55:45PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
So, should the RFCs go in non-free as well?
Probably. See bug#92810, which probably needs more attention.
AIUI, the GNU Open Publication License also allows authors to restrict
the right of making modifications to parts
9 matches
Mail list logo
