On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 06:17:19PM +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:42:41PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
alternatively, print a single link to either the full documentation
(containing the invariant
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 06:21:19PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
I didn't mean one specific license, but the requirement of DFSG:
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in
modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of
patch files with the
This one time, at band camp, Mike Hommey said:
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 06:17:19PM +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:42:41PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
alternatively, print a single link to either
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 12:40:38PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 11:00:34PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Yes, I am uneasy myself on that clause. But see, I regard
removal of copyright notices as prohibited by copyright law, and if
the original program
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 12:37:00PM +, Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Mike Hommey said:
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 06:17:19PM +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:42:41PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Craig
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 08:47:54AM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
I am unconvinced that the DFSG means 'all modifications', I think that
it really does mean all reasonable modifications.
But the GFDL fails this, _entirely_.
Even by the bounds of 'reasonable modifications' the GFDL with
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 09:34:19AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 08:47:54AM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
I am unconvinced that the DFSG means 'all modifications', I think that
it really does mean all reasonable modifications.
But the GFDL fails this, _entirely_.
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 05:55:54PM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 09:34:19AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
so, your complaint is that if you delete the contents of the document,
then you can no longer change it?
are you for real? do you seriously take this as
This one time, at band camp, Mike Hommey said:
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 12:37:00PM +, Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Mike Hommey said:
You forgot something...
If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document
numbering
- Original Message -
From: Pierce Terence
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2006 7:38 AM
Subject: hey debian-vote
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 18:17:19 +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:42:41PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
alternatively, print a single link to either the full documentation
(containing the invariant sections) or to
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 14:30:40 +0100, Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 12:37:00PM +, Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Mike Hommey said:
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 06:17:19PM +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
On
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:31:38AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
[the topic is invariant sections]
i challenge any of you zealots to come up with a REAL WORLD, PRACTICAL
proof that the GFDL is non-free (and i mean actually non-free, not
merely inconvenient. the DFSG does not require
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:14:12 -0600, Richard Darst [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:31:38AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
[the topic is invariant sections]
i challenge any of you zealots to come up with a REAL WORLD, PRACTICAL
proof that the GFDL is non-free (and i mean
14 matches
Mail list logo
