Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, Jun 11, 2003, at 09:08 US/Eastern, Stephane Bortzmeyer
> wrote:
>
> > I already asked the question
> > here and it seems there is a consensus on that mailing list that a
> > GFDL document without Invariant Sections and Cover Texts i
On Wednesday, Jun 11, 2003, at 09:08 US/Eastern, Stephane Bortzmeyer
wrote:
I already asked the question
here and it seems there is a consensus on that mailing list that a
GFDL document without Invariant Sections and Cover Texts is 100 %
free.
It was a while ago until people noticed the oth
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 07:13:41AM -0700,
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 18 lines which said:
> There are more problems with the GFDL than just the invariant
> sections. Invariant sections are just the worst problem. Since RMS
> seems unwilling to change anything, I'd sa
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Free Documentation that can only be instantiated in a non-Free Document
> is not Free.
You are in a maze of twisty frees, all different.
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 04:09:02PM -, MJ Ray wrote:
> Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] The FSF is willing to characterize a document with
> > invariant sections as "free" because this allows the FSF to use such
> > sections to promote software freedom.
>
> I'm not sure that i
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 09:06:39AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Debian should give RMS a chance to think for a while,
He's had over a year. We raised most of these concerns with the GNU FDL
1.1.
His response was the GNU FDL 1.2.
Perhaps he is counting on our continued lack of action to let
Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] The FSF is willing to characterize a document with
> invariant sections as "free" because this allows the FSF to use such
> sections to promote software freedom.
I'm not sure that is accurate. I *think* the FSF position is that free
documentation c
> ... Since RMS
> seems unwilling to change anything, I'd say that _all_ GFDL'd works
> have to go into non-free.
RMS did not say that. He listened to Debian's concerns, and
acknowledged that there were GDFL-related issues he had not previously
been aware of. He characterized them as *primarily*
Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Documents with invariant sections will go in "non-free", but this
> shouldn't prevent Debian and the FSF from continuing to work
> together.
There are more problems with the GFDL than just the invariant
sections. Invariant sections are just the worst probl
On 2 June 2003 RMS wrote:
> I've looked at the problems people have reported. Many of them are
> misunderstandings (what they believe is not allowed actually is
> allowed), many of these cases have adequate workarounds, and the rest
> are real inconveniences that shouldn't be exaggerated. [...]
RMS said:
>I've looked at the problems people have reported. Many of them are
>misunderstandings (what they believe is not allowed actually is
>allowed), many of these cases have adequate workarounds, and the rest
>are real inconveniences that shouldn't be exaggerated.
OK... but...
>I've explaine
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 12:18:37 +0200, Alexandre Dulaunoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Yes & No. For example, a Free Software author wants to warn user
> for a specific usage of the software. The classical example is a
> RFID software that can be used as a tool against privacy. He adds a
> warning
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 02:37:52PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> > > My understanding is that the FSF requires copyright assignments in
> > > order to give themselves the ability to most effectively defend the
> > > community against poachers and legal attacks.
> >
> > It seems perfectly plaus
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 16:37, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> Sure, and it's also perfectly plausible that RMS is a secret employee
> of Microsoft and Chinese double agent plotting the use of free
> software to assassinate the Dalai Lama. But this is debian-legal not
> debian-wacko-conspiracy-theory.
> > My understanding is that the FSF requires copyright assignments in
> > order to give themselves the ability to most effectively defend the
> > community against poachers and legal attacks.
>
> It seems perfectly plausible to me that the reason you cite was never
> the sole motivation for this
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 12:18:37PM +0200, Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
> The (long) debate, as usual, is a matter of terminology. Can we find a
> solution by having a DFSG for documentation ? The scope of
> documentation and software seems to not be the same.
Doesn't the GNU FDL invite c
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 09:37:50AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> My understanding is that the FSF requires copyright assignments in
> order to give themselves the ability to most effectively defend the
> community against poachers and legal attacks.
It seems perfectly plausible to me that the
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 11:37, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> My understanding is that the FSF requires copyright assignments in
> order to give themselves the ability to most effectively defend the
> community against poachers and legal attacks. It would be a drastic
> misunderstanding to think they do
My understanding is that the FSF requires copyright assignments in
order to give themselves the ability to most effectively defend the
community against poachers and legal attacks. It would be a drastic
misunderstanding to think they do it in order to give themselves an
ability to share that they'
On Sun, 2003-06-01 at 14:58, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> And even the FSF
> will be bitten by it again, should someone add some text to the GDB
> manual which the FSF incorporates back into its master copy, and then
> the FSF decides to modify the that document's invariant parts.
No, the FSF will n
Alexandre Dulaunoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The (long) debate, as usual, is a matter of terminology. Can we find a
> solution by having a DFSG for documentation ?
You would also need to amend the Social Contract to change "1. Debian
will remain 100% Free Software" which would no longer
Have you simply ignored the explanations...
An insulting question like that doesn't deserve a response,
but I will answer anyway.
I've looked at the problems people have reported. Many of them are
misunderstandings (what they believe is not allowed actually is
allowed), many of these cases h
> From: Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> This problem is unfortunate, but no worse in the case of two ways of
> using the GFDL than with a pair of two different free software
> licenses.
True, but this kind of problem never bites people who just use the
GPL, while it seems to be biting peo
On 31/05/03 18:48 -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > A political essay is (typically) written by certain persons to
> > persuade the public of a certain position. If it is modified, it does
> > not do its job. So it makes sense, socially, to s
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If they were small bits, that too would be fair use. You can use the
> manual in its entirety, and have Emacs display parts of the manual.
> That is the best approach technically if you are using a substantial
> part. Either way, there is no problem
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This isn't inconsistent--consistency does not make sense here. We all
> accept various inconveniences to achieve our ends, while rejecting
> others as not worth while. And each decision depends on the magnitude
> of the costs and benefits. To choos
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A political essay is (typically) written by certain persons to
> persuade the public of a certain position. If it is modified, it does
> not do its job. So it makes sense, socially, to say that these cannot
> be modified.
This is an argument for in
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This problem is unfortunate, but no worse in the case of two ways of
> using the GFDL than with a pair of two different free software
> licenses.
But no pair of licenses is claiming to create a shared commons.
Heretofore, the FSF has been claiming to
In order to just remove it, technically speaking they needed
permission from EVERY SINGLE CONTRIBUTOR,
That's the same as the situation for any change between licenses. For
instance, if Apache wanted to relicense under the GPL, they would need
permission from EVERY SINGLE CONTRIBUTOR. Th
On Fri, 2003-05-30 at 13:12, Richard Stallman wrote:
> There is no difficulty at all here. This collection would be an
> aggregate, and here's what the GFDL says about that:
Thank you for the correction.
Hi RMS,
On Mittwoch 28 Mai 2003 00:40, Richard Stallman wrote:
>>> A political essay is (typically) written by certain
>>> persons to persuade the public of a certain position.
>>> If it is modified, it does not do its job. So it makes
>>> sense, socially, to say that these cannot be modified.
>
At least one situation comes to mind where it might happen: If I wanted
to publish a collection of HOWTOs, e.g., from the LDP. If every one of
them included front and back cover texts, that'd be a mountain.
There is no difficulty at all here. This collection would be an
aggregate, a
On Wednesday, May 28, 2003, at 19:57 US/Eastern, Richard Stallman wrote:
In a nightmare one can imagine large numbers of
cover texts in one manual, but it isn't likely to happen. Where the
BSD advertising clause produced a mountain, the GFDL produces a
molehill.
At least one situation comes t
Of course, both the FSF and Debian regard the BSD advertising clause as
an inconvenience, not as grounds for ruling the license to be non-free;
so while RMS's reasoning may be to some degree inconsistent here
(advocating against one inconvenient license and for another),
This isn't
Perhaps the best thing to do is contact someone from the Wikipedia and
ask them to summarize the situation in a mail to RMS, and relate to him
whether or not they felt "burnt", or perceived a threat of inconvenience
large enough to cripple their project.
They can do that if they wa
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 01:20:11PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> > The Wikipedia used the GFDL because it was recommended by the FSF.
> > They used it in its natural way. And then they got burnt.
> >
> > I fetched those pages, anxious that they might have had a serious
> > problem, but
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 10:13:26AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Of course, both the FSF and Debian regard the BSD advertising clause as
> an inconvenience, not as grounds for ruling the license to be non-free;
Well, *I* don't think the forced-advertising clause is Free.
I do realize that I'm pr
Richard Braakman said:
> On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 05:57:20AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> In order to do this, I must maintain the invariant sections.
>> These invariant sections (written in English) are unreadable to the
>> Elbonians.
>> I could also translate the invariant section to Elbonia
> A political essay is (typically) written by certain persons to
> persuade the public of a certain position. If it is modified,
> it does not do its job. So it makes sense, socially, to say
> that these cannot be modified.
Then, why are there so many political essays under t
> The Wikipedia used the GFDL because it was recommended by the FSF.
> They used it in its natural way. And then they got burnt.
>
> I fetched those pages, anxious that they might have had a serious
> problem, but when I saw the contents I was relieved. They were just
> discussing whether
Richard Braakman wrote:
>Whoops, I misread the very part I quoted! Yes, I think this says
>that you may translate Invariant Sections. I was momentarily
>confused by the phrasing ("you may include translations" vs.
>"you may translate").
Of course, it then makes sense to make your translation an
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 03:29:46PM +, John Holroyd wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 12:46, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > But why, if you found the old BSD license to be so inconvenient, are you
> > promoting a license which mandates even greater inconveniences upon the
> > end user?
>
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 05:53:59PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> You're not normally allowed to translate Invariant sections. From
> GFDL 1.2, clause 8:
>
>Replacing Invariant Sections with translations requires special
>permission from their copyright holders, but you may include
>
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 05:57:20AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In order to do this, I must maintain the invariant sections.
> These invariant sections (written in English) are unreadable to the
> Elbonians.
> I could also translate the invariant section to Elbonian, but as "everyone"
> knows,
On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 12:46, Richard Stallman wrote:
> But why, if you found the old BSD license to be so inconvenient, are you
> promoting a license which mandates even greater inconveniences upon the
> end user?
>
> I think you make the inconvenience out as more than it is. To have
David B Harris said:
> On Sat, 24 May 2003 19:19:50 -0400
> Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> A political essay is (typically) written by certain persons to
>> persuade the public of a certain position. If it is modified, it does
>> not do its job. So it makes sense, socially, to say
The Wikipedia used the GFDL because it was recommended by the FSF.
They used it in its natural way. And then they got burnt.
I fetched those pages, anxious that they might have had a serious
problem, but when I saw the contents I was relieved. They were just
discussing whether they are b
But why, if you found the old BSD license to be so inconvenient, are you
promoting a license which mandates even greater inconveniences upon the
end user?
I think you make the inconvenience out as more than it is. To have an
invariant sections piled on in large quantities is a hypothe
Hi,
On Sonntag 25 Mai 2003 01:19, Richard Stallman wrote:
> A political essay is (typically) written by certain persons to
> persuade the public of a certain position. If it is modified,
> it does not do its job. So it makes sense, socially, to say
> that these cannot be modified.
Then, why are
Richard Stallman wrote:
Many examples have been given for why this is *false*, and they're
pretty much all tied to the *non-removability* rather than the
non-modifiability. Should we repeat them again?
I've looked at these reasons, and they did not convince me the first
time; repe
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A number of people have posted long lists of supposed reasons why the
> GFDL is not a free license. I have not seen one that is valid, but I
> cannot comment on each point. It takes longer to refute an attack
> than to make one, and the critics outnu
A number of people have posted long lists of supposed reasons why the
GFDL is not a free license. I have not seen one that is valid, but I
cannot comment on each point. It takes longer to refute an attack
than to make one, and the critics outnumber me. Even supposing I
could afford to spend full
Scripsit Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For instance, the GPL's clause 2c (message at an interactive prompt)
> is uncontroversial,
Not quite. I don't think it would have been accepted today by d-l in a
new license if it had not been (effectively) grandfathered in by being
part of the GPL.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Holroyd wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-05-25 at 18:03, Richard Stallman wrote:
>> There are free software licenses that have restrictions that I find
>> annoying and inconvenient. One is the old BSD license. I worked for
>> several years to convince Berkeley to remove
Oops, now posting my reply to the list as I originally intended...
On Mon, 2003-05-26 at 18:04, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 01:49:07PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> > Frankly this claim that it is "always better to keep the manual
> > separate"--as if it is always better to ke
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 10:55:22PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Well. There are several categories of "GNU People". If you mean
> contributors to FSF-copyrighted projects, then these are the views I've
> seen:
>
> 1. The FDL is repugnantly non-free. We tried to convince RMS, who runs
> t
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 10:54:13AM -, MJ Ray wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 00:04, Simon Law wrote:
> >>Is it an appropriate time to reconsider its mention in Section 4
> >> of our Social Contract?
> > No. Wait until the voting GR is over. T
On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 01:49:07PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> Frankly this claim that it is "always better to keep the manual
> separate"--as if it is always better to keep data separate from code--is a
> shocking and nonsensical claim from someone with such a distinguished Lisp
> background as yo
On Sunday, May 25, 2003, at 04:38 PM, Dylan Thurston wrote:
Actually, I'm a little unclear on the latter point.
Yes, it is at least DFSG 3 that I and many others believe invariant
sections violate.
To what extent
are non-functional restrictions OK for Debian? For instance, the
GPL's cl
On Saturday, May 24, 2003, at 06:54 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No. Wait until the voting GR is over. Then propose the get rid of
non-free GR.
Is proposing a GR your only version of "reconsider"?
In general, no. In this specific case, since it requires a
On Sat, 24 May 2003 19:19:50 -0400
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A political essay is (typically) written by certain persons to
> persuade the public of a certain position. If it is modified, it does
> not do its job. So it makes sense, socially, to say that these cannot
> be modi
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But what if I encounter an Invariant Section saying that Social
> Security is wrong and that old or diseased people should be left alone
> and not helped by a public service? If I cannot remove this political
> statement, I cannot really
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jaime E . Villate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:33:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:21:13PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> > > I would point out that the FSF has rewritten its views a
On Sun, 2003-05-25 at 18:03, Richard Stallman wrote:
> There are free software licenses that have restrictions that I find
> annoying and inconvenient. One is the old BSD license. I worked for
> several years to convince Berkeley to remove the advertising clause,
> which I called "obnoxious." I
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I am insufficiently aware of the philosophical basis for the existence
> of fair use in US copyright law to know where else might be affected -
> does the rest of Europe have general fair use provisions?
"Fair use" appears to be a US invention. European copyright laws
of c
But what if I encounter an Invariant Section saying that Social
Security is wrong and that old or diseased people should be left alone
and not helped by a public service? If I cannot remove this political
statement, I cannot really regard the manual as free. And I would not
want
Many examples have been given for why this is *false*, and they're
pretty much all tied to the *non-removability* rather than the
non-modifiability. Should we repeat them again?
I've looked at these reasons, and they did not convince me the first
time; repeating them won't convince
Richard Stallman wrote:
>But that the issue is a moot point, because a reference card would use
>so little of the text of the manual that it would be fair use. In
>fact, the very idea that a reference card is derived from the manual
>in copyright terms seems like an unrealistic idea.
UK copyrigh
J?r?me Marant said:
>En r?ponse ? Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 09:37:31AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
>> > What is the best way to convince GNU people to change their
>> licenses?
>> > (without being pissed of, that is).
>>
>> I'm not sure "GNU people" need to
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A political essay is (typically) written by certain persons to
> persuade the public of a certain position. If it is modified, it does
> not do its job. So it makes sense, socially, to say that these cannot
> be modified.
This may be true of some p
Hi Richard Stallman,
> The idea of "merging the documentation into the software" is in general
> a purely academic issue--a hoop that there is no reason to jump through.
> It is always better to keep the manual separate and have the program
> display it, as in fact Emacs already does in sophistic
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When people think that invariant sections cause a practical problem,
> they tend to be overlooking something--either the scenario is
> unrealistic anyway, or the problem can be solved.
>
> > When we make decisions in the GNU Project about what coun
But in more practical terms even, political speech is very functional
-- it's meant to persuade and educate. By the same token it can have
bugs (typos or poor phraseology), malware (screeds advocating racism,
or encouraging people to kill themselves), and can be improved and/or
When people think that invariant sections cause a practical problem,
they tend to be overlooking something--either the scenario is
unrealistic anyway, or the problem can be solved.
> When we make decisions in the GNU Project about what counts as free
> software, or free documentation, they
Barak Pearlmutter said:
>Simply make the GFDL be GPL compatible, the same way the LGPL was.
>Add a clause saying that the covered materials can be construed as
>source code and used under the GPL; and that the invariant sections
>should, under such circumstances, be regarded as materials simply
>
John Holroyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>FWIW I think RMS is right to insist that others cannot modify his
>political comments, but I think you are right to say that unmodifiable
>comments and texts (UTs) have no place being mandatorily included in
>the functional world of Free Software.
>Person
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 00:04, Simon Law wrote:
>> Is it an appropriate time to reconsider its mention in Section 4
>> of our Social Contract?
> No. Wait until the voting GR is over. Then propose the get rid of
> non-free GR.
Is proposing a GR you
A number of people have said some intemperate things in this thread,
but I really think that this comes down to a matter of 90%
miscommunication, and 10% differences in circumstances. I believe
that a meeting of minds should be possible, since we share the exact
same goal here: WHAT IS BEST FOR FR
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 03:08:36PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > So we had to search for ways to make sure that our message saying
> > non-free software is wrong would at least be present in the GNU
> > packages that they redistribute. We did this by putting invariant
> > political stateme
Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While I agree with the stance that this documentation is not, in
> fact, Free, I'd like to point out that the GFDL does not reflect any
> change in RMS's stance: the Emacs manual has always been licensed
> with invariant sections, for instance. Richard
On Fri, 2003-05-23 at 19:37, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Philosophically, that speech isn't functional is controversial claim.
>
> It's not functional for Derrida and others of his ilk.
>
> For most other people, it certainly is. You'd better hope the speech
> of, say, air traffic controllers is
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 12:01:12PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Philosophically, that speech isn't functional is controversial claim.
It's not functional for Derrida and others of his ilk.
For most other people, it certainly is. You'd better hope the speech
of, say, air traffic controllers is
Jaime E . Villate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:33:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:21:13PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > I would point out that the FSF has rewritten its views as well. For
> > > example, I protested that the
On Fri, 23 May 2003 12:01:12 -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Frankly, this whole episode saddens me tremendously. I have the
> utmost respect for you and the work you've done, but I simply can't
> agree with you on this issue. It has always been very comforting to
> know that you were out there,
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It makes no sense to apply the same standards to political and legal
> text as to technical material. Ethically they are different
> situations. Software and documentation are functional works--they
> exist to do a job. The users have a right to co
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:33:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:21:13PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I would point out that the FSF has rewritten its views as well. For
> > example, I protested that the FSF's acceptance of invariant sections
> > contradicte
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It makes no sense to apply the same standards to political and legal
> text as to technical material. Ethically they are different
> situations. Software and documentation are functional works--they
> exist to do a job. The users have a right to con
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 08:03:31AM -0400,
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 50 lines which said:
> So we had to search for ways to make sure that our message saying
> non-free software is wrong would at least be present in the GNU
> packages that they redistribute. We did
> I hope Debian won't adopt your views, but if it does, it won't be the
> first disagreement between Debian and the FSF. Debian wrote its own
> definition of free software which is different from ours. We also
> disagree about Debian's practice of distributing and recommending
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:53:25PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > The GNU FDL does many other things, but you raised the issue of
> > invariant sections, so my response focused on that issue.
>
> Just so you know, the Debian Project is also concern
On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 00:04, Simon Law wrote:
> Is it an appropriate time to reconsider its mention in Section 4
> of our Social Contract?
No. Wait until the voting GR is over. Then propose the get rid of
non-free GR.
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:53:25PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I hope Debian won't adopt your views, but if it does, it won't be the
> first disagreement between Debian and the FSF. Debian wrote its own
> definition of free software which is different from ours. We also
> disagree about Debi
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 10:54:36AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> You raised one point that I am concerned about:
>
> * Debugging with GDB; "GDB version 5 May 2000"[1]
> [1] This manual is an interesting case because it started out with no
> invariant sections at all, but later ad
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 07:29:46AM -, MJ Ray wrote:
> Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] We also
> > disagree about Debian's practice of distributing and recommending
> > non-free software.
>
> I'm sorry, but can you justify this statement, please?
That we distribute it is
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:32:25AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Well, all right, but this makes it more difficult for me to dismiss
> substantive objections from dismissive or belittling remarks.
Err, s/to dismiss/to distingush/
I apologize for the error.
--
G. Branden Robinson
RMS,
There are a few questions from previous mails that I consider important,
which you elided from your replies. I am intensely interested in your
answers to these questions, and I would greatly appreciate it if you
could take some time to answer them.
Your answers to my other questions have be
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:53:27PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Is the FSF willing to dual-license manuals that previously had no
> invariant sections at all, such as _Debugging with GDB_, under the GNU
> FDL and the traditional GNU documentation license simultaneously?
>
> I don't
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:53:25PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> The GNU FDL does many other things, but you raised the issue of
> invariant sections, so my response focused on that issue.
Just so you know, the Debian Project is also concerned about:
1) Cover Texts[1]
2) Acknowledgements and D
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:21:13PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I would point out that the FSF has rewritten its views as well. For
> example, I protested that the FSF's acceptance of invariant sections
> contradicted its own reasing in the "why free manuals are important"
> document; the
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your message repeated over and over that you think the GFDL isn't
> free, but didn't even try to justify that claim. I continue to
> believe that the GNU FDL is a free documentation license.
This is not the question. Do you believe that the GNU FDL is
1 - 100 of 213 matches
Mail list logo
