On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 03:56:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have been thinking about this (originally brought up by
> > Russ). I have also been re-reading the SC/DFSG, and the time they
> > were written. I also started with the idea
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 claus
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 something to do
with invariant sections...
GPL only says: "to pri
Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2. GPL and BSD were grandfathered into being possible licenses to
>Debian, even though they are not DFSG-free. In this case you
>obviously cannot compare other licenses to them.
During the DFSG discussion, nobody seriously argued that either the
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As am I. But we still have to accept it as a priori DFSG free unless we
> hold a 3:1 GR to change it, and we have to consider it in our thinking
> about other licenses.
As I wasn't around when the DFSG was drafted, it would be nice to hear
from those who
This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 22:16:49 +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
> >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:49:25 +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> said:
> >>
> >> > Except that th
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:07:50PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> > Except that the GPL already explicitly precludes modifications of
> > this type (not this scope, but this type, mind you), and our
> > foundation documents consider the GPL a free license.
>
> A difference in degree i
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 22:16:49 +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:49:25 +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>> > Except that the GPL already explicitly precludes modifications of
>> > this type
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 10:21:15 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:21:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> So, the DFSG are what they say they are -- guidelines. However,
>> some licenses were deemed by the project to be de-facto free, even
>> if they do con
Hi,
I knew I should not speak out loud in this forum before formly
deciding what I believe in :)
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:56:45 -0800, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I have been thinking about this (originally brought up by Russ).
This one time, at band camp, Russ Allbery said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So, the DFSG are what they say they are --
> > guidelines. However, some licenses were deemed by the project to be
> > de-facto free, even if they do contravene some of the guidelines,
>
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have been thinking about this (originally brought up by
> Russ). I have also been re-reading the SC/DFSG, and the time they
> were written. I also started with the idea that the SC/DFSG are to
> be considered to be consistent, unless str
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:21:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> So, the DFSG are what they say they are --
> guidelines. However, some licenses were deemed by the project to be
> de-facto free, even if they do contravene some of the guidelines,
> hence explicitly naming the GPL and t
This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:49:25 +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Except that the GPL already explicitly precludes modifications of
> > this type (not this scope, but this type, mind you), and our
> > foundation documents conside
This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:49:25 +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > This one time, at band camp, Daniel Ruoso said:
> >> > So, if I were to write a program, which at startup displays the
> >> > entiretity of the GNU Manifesto, and
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:49:25 +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Except that the GPL already explicitly precludes modifications of
> this type (not this scope, but this type, mind you), and our
> foundation documents consider the GPL a free license.
I have been thinking about
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:49:25 +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This one time, at band camp, Daniel Ruoso said:
>> > So, if I were to write a program, which at startup displays the
>> > entiretity of the GNU Manifesto, and wrote a license, which would
>> > be GPL with the addition tha
This one time, at band camp, Daniel Ruoso said:
> > So, if I were to write a program, which at startup displays the
> > entiretity of the GNU Manifesto, and wrote a license, which would be
> > GPL with the addition that the startup display may not be modified,
> > only amended, you would consider t
Em Qui, 2006-02-02 às 01:09 +0200, Kalle Kivimaa escreveu:
> Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As explained on http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto.html, the
> > Invariant sections serve a special purpose, which is the case of the
> > GNU Manifesto. Many users, including myself, consi
19 matches
Mail list logo
