Seconded.
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > > Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> > > =
> > >
> > > This is the position of Debian Project about the GNU Free
> > > Documentation License as published by the
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:33:36AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> And please, I don't want to see answers saying that the documentation
> can be put in non-free, because, due the the debian policy, `kde`
> meta-package (same is true for gnome) beeing in main, cannot depend
> upon the non free k
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:53:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 11:37:37AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > So, I've updated the wiki [0] in response to most of the suggestions
> > on the list so far.
> Okay, given the lack of further response (except for dato's alternate
>
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> I propose an amendment to this GR, consisting in replacing the
> existing text with the one below. I initially tried to follow
Seconded.
Hamish
> ---8<---
>
> Deb
Le Ven 13 Janvier 2006 00:09, martin f krafft a écrit :
> also sprach Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.01.10.0455
+0100]:
> > Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section
> > of its distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation
> > License that include n
martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.01.10.0455 +0100]:
>
>> Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section of
>> its distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation
>> License that include no Invariant Sections, no Co
also sprach Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.01.10.0455 +0100]:
> Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section of
> its distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation
> License that include no Invariant Sections, no Cover Texts, no
> Acknowl
Le Jeu 12 Janvier 2006 22:28, Christopher Martin a écrit :
> I second the proposal quoted below.
and I do the same.
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> > =
> >
> > This is
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 08:53:04PM +0100, Roland Mas wrote:
> Having invariant sections (or any other non-free stuff) in main could
> be seen as a betrayal of the people who chose the license.
This is not about invariant sections. This is about the other bugs in
the GFDL the FSF has not fixed (ye
I second the proposal quoted below.
I'm following debian-vote through the archives, so if you wish to reply or
comment to me specifically, CC me.
Christopher Martin
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> =
Adeodato Simó, 2006-01-12 15:10:40 +0100 :
[...]
> (Or in other words: perhaps it's only me, okay, but I can't help,
> at all, feel that ripping out of main documentation that their
> authors intended to be free, and made their best-effort to achieve
> that, like a form of betrayal. Apolo
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 03:06:49PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Anthony Towns [Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:45:19 +1000]:
>
> > What documents would this effort actually let us keep, anyway? All the
> > FSF stuff for glibc, gcc, make and so on includes invariant sections
> > anyway, no?
>
> Right, FS
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Well, that's a reason to second an amendment that says that the GFDL *is*
> DFSG-free, so that it's explicitly a choice, and so that a vote for more
> discussion is clearly not a vote for that position.
>
> However, what's kept
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060112 15:09]:
>> (Or in other words: perhaps it's only me, okay, but I can't help, at
>> all, feel that ripping out of main documentation that their authors
>>
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 03:06:49PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Anthony Towns [Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:45:19 +1000]:
> > What documents would this effort actually let us keep, anyway? All the
> > FSF stuff for glibc, gcc, make and so on includes invariant sections
> > anyway, no?
> Right, FSF stuf
* Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060112 15:09]:
> (Or in other words: perhaps it's only me, okay, but I can't help, at
> all, feel that ripping out of main documentation that their authors
> intended to be free, and made their best-effort to achieve that, like
> a form of betrayal.
It
* Anthony Towns [Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:45:19 +1000]:
> What documents would this effort actually let us keep, anyway? All the
> FSF stuff for glibc, gcc, make and so on includes invariant sections
> anyway, no?
Right, FSF stuff goes away. OTOH, I feel utterly ashamed each time I
imagine the pos
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Proposal below seconded.
It seems that my Gnus settings do not work correctly for most people
(including devotee), if I try to send out GPG'd ISO-8859-1 emails.
This should be verifiable by all.
Seconding t
* MJ Ray [Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:24:52 +]:
> Also, this fails to address the security ban and the forced
> Transparent downloads/availability.
'Cause this amendment is not about trying to engage in legal-type
discussion about whether those two can be work-arounded or not. It's:
"we regard
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 11:37:37AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> So, I've updated the wiki [0] in response to most of the suggestions
>> on the list so far.
>
> Okay, given the lack of further response (except for dato's alte
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Anthony Towns writes:
> Okay, given the lack of further response (except for dato's alternate
> proposal!), I've tweaked the wording one more time, and I think this
> is the final version. Seconds appreciated.
>
> I propose the Debian project release
21 matches
Mail list logo
