sure that we are not pushing Debian onto the slippery path
that makes Debian divorce the free software community by rejecting
many licenses (besides GFDL) that the free software community has
always and will always accept as free licenses.
Anton Zinoviev
[1] The following is my proposal:
http
to read, to adapt, to
distribute and to improve.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for curiosity).
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the document. In our case there is no intention.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
in the copyright
notice what exactly is the document. (Optionaly you can provide the
readers with table of contents.)
(And then, of course, you would not be allowed to just give the card
away, without the rest of the booklet.)
Yes.
Anton Zinoviev
P.S. I don't want to sent a message whose entire contents
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:20:36PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:43:30 +0200, Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The interpretation that I hold is the following:
The license must give us permissions to modify the work in
order to adapt it to various needs
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 09:48:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you want your binary to use pieces from the manual for help
strings, then your binary has to read these pieces from auxiliary file
which would be (speaking in the terms of GFDL
not be considered combined work with that
file. (There are cases when it is even desirable to use the binary
without that auxiliary file, for example if you want to save disk
space.)
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
requirements on how they are packaged.
However this interpretation is not part of my proposal. My proposal
invalidates some possible interpretations of DFSG but it doesn't state
which interpretation is the correct one.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
readable format, various copyright notices, etc.
Docstrings. Useful! Not prohibited by other free licenses! Wow!
I don't understand what you mean by docstrings.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
Of course I can have nothing against the automatic overriding the
decision so if everybody thinks my proposal overrides it, I am OK with
this.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
modification, the document may
be free.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:52:33PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060210 11:36]:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:54:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It does prohibit some modifications which are useful.
Geez, reference cards. Useful!
You
into the source (for tooltips, help texts, usage examples, etc..). We
certainly couldn't do that with a GFDL manual and GPL source.
Yes, it is not possible to incorporate such parts directly into the
source so indirect way has to be used.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:33:05PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think the following is an useful test. If the license forbids some
modification that is necessary in order to adapt the document to some
need, then the document is non-free. Otherwise
them only when you want to edit the sources; it is possible to
do the combining and the separation automatically).
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
without this modification.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:07:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We all know that GFDL is incompatible with GPL, but if the sorce was
covered by BSD-like license there is no problem - you can satisfy the
requirements of the BSD license
if you use dual licensing. I showed one way to
achieve this in http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00472.html
The question is, is it an important thing to be able to do?
I think the answer is obviously yes.
Ofcourse I agree that the answer is 'yes'.
Anton Zinoviev
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:34AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If GDB were under BSD, you could:
1. Add docstrings to the sources of GDB in a way permissible by
GFDL. In particular the invariant sections should be present
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:59:59PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 01:41:42PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
I think the following is an useful test. If the license forbids some
modification that is necessary in order to adapt
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:08:54PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:34AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If GDB were under BSD, you could:
1. Add docstrings
entirely about the current
DFSG.
Second, my proposal doesn't revoke automatically the decision of the
release team to remove the GFDL-documents from main. If my proposal
wins, it is the release team who will have to change this decision
Anton Zinoviev
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
whenever I
could why GFDL doesn't obstruct us to adapt the documents or to
improve them. See for example
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00226.html
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 02:46:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The first notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
do whatever we want with it.
The second notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
adapt
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:47:21PM +0100, Laurent Fousse wrote:
Hello,
* Anton Zinoviev [Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:33:30AM +0200]:
During the the discussions in this and the previous month it became
clear there are two completely different notions of freedom among
us.
The first notion
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:43:42AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If the project secretary decides
that my proposal (for GFDL) requires 3:1 supermajority, this would
mean that the project secretary decides on behalf of the whole project
that our notion
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:19:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do not place limitations on various needs. Any modification that
is not just subjective wish but serves some practical purpose is
desirable.
So, once more, the prohibition
works.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 10:59:09AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
GFDL explicitly permits licenses that disallow any combined works.
Sorry, I wanted to say DFSG explicitly permits.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
exceptions.
The Debian developers have the right to determine which way Debian
will go and I hope our secretary will give them this right. Whatever
the developers decide, a determined Debian will be better for everyone
than the current Debian with no clear policy.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 05:16:24PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
Our discussion became too complicated and I am not sure on what we
agree and on what we disagree. I will try to explain my current
opinion in a separate message and if we have some disagreement we can
continue from there.
I
.
-
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
' means 'modification that
is necessary in order to solve some particular need' then it is not
obvious that the document is non-free as we can see from the examples
given so far [*].
Anton Zinoviev
[*] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00226.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
, of
legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:58:55AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 09:42, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
I think I could accidently or deliberately slip something nasty
into a GFDL invariant section. For example, a manual for some
application could contain a polemic on the security
not going to use any specific interpretation of DFSG. DFSG says
the license may restrict the code from being distribute in modified
form if allows the distribution of patch files with the source code
for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. This is all I
am going to use.
Anton
the software
programs. There is no disagreement between Debian and FSF for such
works, at least not yet.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:10:56PM +0100, Frank Kьster wrote:
So which is your interpretation, exactly?
It is described in my message entitled A clarification for my
interpretation of DFSG.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
of
DFSG.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:16:55PM +0100, Frank Kuster wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As it has been discussed here, having the Manifesto attached as
invariant is not only non-free, but also quite problematic when you
are trying to produce a derivative work
only to documents that are
derivatives of the initial document. This is much easier to keep
requirement and thats why FSF considers it acceptable for the GNU
project.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:23:18PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In order to make reasonably evident that this is not just my
interpretation but also interpretation that is shared by many other
Debian developers I decided to ask Richard Stallman
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 07:58:44AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 12:39:52 +0200, Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The interpretation I proposed is not a novel and unconventional. It
is not novel because it represents notion for free software that
is older
non-free license?
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
make for a
contradiction.
What contradiction?
At the very least, it would confuse a large set of readers.
It is not difficult to make the readers aware of the proper meaning of
DFSG3.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
to the public. Freedom 3 says
nothing about your needs.
What I wrote was the following: if your modifications solve some real
need, not just your whims, then your modifications are usefull and
freedom 3 gives you the right to distribute them.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
have to. There is nothing in DFSG that can make GFDL a
non-free license.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that you don't have steady notion for free
software. Nevertheless you are trying to impose on Debian your
_current_ notion for free software.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 11:22:29AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:36:09PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Can you please explain then where the DFSG contains any statement of
limitation on the concept
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 03:03:13PM -0500, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
Anton Zinoviev wrote:
The text of my proposal clearly states that it is not a proposal to
modify the DFSG. It is not even a proposal to interpret the existing
DFSG. It makes some of the existing interpretations of DFSG
the source
of the combined work (unless the combined work is merely
aggregation of independent derivatives of both works).
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that they are obstructing the users to really excercise
the rights they have acorging to GFDL. Such a document would be
non-free.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 11:59:54AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian acknowledges as free some licenses that require that the
source of all derived works is distributed in the form
original_source+patch. If you have two works covered
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 02:01:18PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
original_source+patch. If you have two works covered by such
license then there is no permissible way to distribute the source
of the combined work (unless the combined work
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:28:08PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are not allowed to distribute a patch against work A which turs it
into a patch against work B. You are not allowed to do this because
this patch would be based both on works
the distribution of
patch files with the source code for the purpose of modifying the
program at build time.
So the license may require the distribution as original_source+patch_file.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 01:07:46PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However now I see that I missed another more obvious problem. You
have to distribute the combined work in the form original_B+
+patch_file_for_B. Instead you are distributing
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 01:10:10PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 03:18:00PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From 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 source code
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 01:38:24PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any patch file for A is a work based on A. The copyright law forbids
the independent distribution of such works unless the license of A
explicitly permits it. I don't know of any
that they are obstructing the users to really
excercise the rights they have acorging to GFDL. Such a
document would be non-free.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 02:59:51PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Em Sex, 2006-02-03 às 11:43 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
If GPL didn't contain the clause we are discussing then you
would say that a license with such clause is non-free.
I still don't know why you think this GPL clause has
copies. This is obstruction of the
right to make printed copies.
Anton Zinoviev
[*] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00224.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
first post in this thread. I
received confirmation and clarification from Stallman that I will
report in separate message.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. I'd say that your interpretation
is more unconventional than mine.
So far there is absolutely _no_ decision taken by Debian project that
invalidates my interpretation.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that your
interpretation is the only one possible -- it is not.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
doesn't contain any hints about such
exceptions.
Anton Zinoviev
P.S. I mean the second interpretation from my first post in this thread.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
proposal clearly states that it is not a proposal to
modify the DFSG. It is not even a proposal to interpret the existing
DFSG. It makes some of the existing interpretations of DFSG invalid
but it doesn't suggest which interpretation is the right.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:32:00PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:22:10 +0200, Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
If you wish to extend the list of exceptions, that is fine. But
that does mean the DFSG must be clarified to add to the list.
I don't belive
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 06:32:50PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 23:28 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:11:25PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
Ok, but by being invariant they are turning the documentation into
non-free documentation. As you
are
inconvenience at most.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
modifications would render
GPL and some other free licenses to be non-free.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, which is bad.
This would mean that Debian developers decided that DFSG do not
require clarification.
Notice BTW, that the interpretation of DFSG that I proposed is not the
only one possible interpretation of DFSG that makes my proposal about
GFDL consistent with DFSG.
Anton Zinoviev
acknowledge that with respect to the so called non-functional works
the notion of Debian project for freeness is clearly different to
the notion of FSF. However here we are talking about GFDL which is a
license that applies to functional works only.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
I can say that there are developers who
accept them.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
foo
to bar or baz then this license permits at least two
different modifications.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 02:38:30PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 11:53 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
Unfortunately DFSG are not unambiguous and obviously the people
understand them in various ways.
Well, the text in DFSG3 may be not well tight. But I think we should
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 07:41:45PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 08:38:25PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:20:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I have not yet seen such an interpretation of this sort, in which
explanation and analysis
that. The point is that DFSG allow many
interpretations and the Debian developers have to decide which one is
the correct one.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to
minimize the distribution cost and I hardly see how such a rule fits
in the context of DFSG.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is necessary for the
proposed amendment.
The 3:1 requirement would be necessary only if you can prove that we
insist on modifiability of all parts.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
permission to modify
the work in order to adapt it for various tasks and to improve it.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and non-free acording to DFSG (because these essays are not
modifiable). I have no problems with that.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:40:32PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
On 2/1/06, Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This interpretation is not ad-hoc thing and I strongly belive that it
represents not only my view but also the view of FSF. I asked Richard
Stallman for confirmation
of DFSG3 is the same as yours.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 09:50:46AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 03:41:03PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 09:54:40AM +0100, Frank Kuster wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not inconvenient to distribute auctex_11.html
combine your GFDL sources and
as a result all invariant sections will be grouped in one place.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
as this doesn't obstruct the user's reading. It is probably
illegal to print the license with a small font.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that there's no way out. In
the other case, the developers deliberately chose to make the text
non-distributable in this country.
OK.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a new secondary
section (Craig Sanders).
BTW, I couldn't find the source of the quotation of Craig Sanders.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
meets the
DFSG, and which passes by a slim majority, would effectively repeal
the DFSG.
In this case the Foundation Documents effectively invalidate any part
of the resolution that contradicts with them.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
there exists no act I can control.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that. The responce by Stallman
was You can state that as more than just your belief. It's a fact.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-year requirement.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
). However
you see that my conclusion is not based only on DFSG. It can not be
based only on DFSG because DFSG say nothing about what modifications
must be allowed by the license.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
if the copy I gave to you was
protected in such a way that you could read it today but not tomorow.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:39:41AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
On Sunday 22 January 2006 16:45, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
In fact, the license says only this:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying of the copies you make
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 07:28:18AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Anton Zinoviev wrote:
Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
original software.
Notice
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
