ke, 2006-01-25 kello 14:54 -0800, Jeff Carr kirjoitti:
> By this argument, the GPL must be removed or authors must allow anyone
> to modify it. Clearly the intent of the Debian community and the DFSG is
> not to require abandonment of the protections of the GPL.
This argument is old, wrong, and ha
> I'm thinking of something like
> http://people.debian.org/~mjr/gr-fdl.txt (24k, only based on originals)
Uhm, this is a joke, right?
Michael
--
ban me
ban me
ban me
20:58 -!- apprentice has quit [Excess Flood]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe
On 12/31/2005 09:02 PM, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The major conflicts are:
>
> (2.1) Invariant Sections
>
> The most troublesome conflict concerns the class of invariant sections
> that, once included, may not be modified or removed from the documentation
> in future. Modifiability is, however, a f
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 10:10:22AM +0200, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> Those in favour of two separate GR's:
>
> * Read my GR proposal [0] and second it (your choice of course).
> * Read Nathanael's amendment proposal [1] to my proposal. A DD
> needs to send it as a reply to my pr
Em Qua, 2006-01-25 às 10:35 +0200, Fabian Fagerholm escreveu:
> Some people want to have one big GR with all the options on it.
> Other people (like me) think it's better to have two separate GRs:
> * one to decide if GNU FDL is free or not and
> * one to decide how we should explain ou
On 1/25/06, Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 13:04 -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > What would be the point of your proposal? I mean, if this proposal
> > won, it would be exactly the same as if the "no GFDL in main at all"
> > proposal won. So, why have ye
There seems to be a lot of views on each aspect of the proposed
statement and I think any more options will overlap with others,
but might still not allow some valid combinations to be voiced.
Is it possible to ballot the FDL position GR and its amendments
"by section" to try to find a compromise
[Bill Allombert]
> The DFSG says 'the license must not restrict ...', it does not say
> 'the program must not restrict ...'.
That's a fair point. I chose a bad example indeed.
You still haven't given a reasonable answer to the real point, though,
that being: "field of endeavor" does not mean "a
Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-25 09:54:40]:
>
>> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:55:19PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > It is not difficult to print two sheets - the invariant sectio
El martes, 24 de enero de 2006 a las 14:32:39 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escribía:
> > > >You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
> > > >reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute
> > The permissions are clearly a "technical measure".
> > They clearly
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:10:55PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Bill Allombert]
> > > > No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from
> > > > using the software.
> > >
> > > Exactly. And neither does the GFDL ban people from using the
> > > documentation if they work in a se
* Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-25 09:54:40]:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:55:19PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> >>
> >> > It is not difficult to print two sheets - the invariant sections go on
> >> > the second sheet and FSF wins more po
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:55:19PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>>
>> > It is not difficult to print two sheets - the invariant sections go on
>> > the second sheet and FSF wins more popularity. :-)
>>
>> This is just working around the issue.
>
> Yes, i
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 13:04 -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> As I understood it, Adeodato's and Fabian's proposals were there to
> allow in main certain pieces of documentation (e.g GNOME's and KDE's)
> which don't have Invariant Sections, and cannot otherwise be
> relicensed (due to the death o
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 16:05 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:09:53PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > The following is my reasoning (and similar for "control").
> > "Progress or accomplishment" means that the process that is being
> > hindered or prevented has already start
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 09:45 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think I was partially responding to aj's question about why
> we need it to be two separate GR's. At this point, we can have either
> 2 GR's -- one for deciding on the status of GFDL licensed works, with
> or without invarian
16 matches
Mail list logo
