Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>A more realistic example would be
>
>Answer: Because the document contains an invariant section on the
> author's opinion regarding the dangers of Software Patents in
> the European Union.
>
>Something like that simply is not free. It might be true at the time th
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 05:54:08AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:35:36PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > You present some incredibly strange arguments: you're not arguing that the
> > gcc manual is Free, but instead, apparently, saying "we shouldn't move non-
>
> I'd perso
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The invariant section issues are things you can discuss inside Debian or
> with me or with the FSF. But for nearly everyone else the result if you
> explain the GFDL problem will be that he thinks that the differences
> between free and non-free software are pretty small.
For
On Saturday 16 April 2005 09:28 am, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The invariant section issues are things you can discuss inside Debian or
> with me or with the FSF. But for nearly everyone else the result if you
> explain the GFDL problem will be that he thinks that the differences
> between free and non-f
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:31:23AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 05:54:08AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > Case 1: foo = nvidia binary modules
> > Answer: Because these modules are binary-nonly and therefore
> > undebuggable for everyone except Nvidia. They give
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-13 14:21]:
> > Anyway, before we can enforce our trademark, we actually need an
> > updated and coherent trademark policy.
>
> I'm disappointed by your inaction. The current permission statement
> does not permit any use which seems to cover this case.
> http:
6 matches
Mail list logo
