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
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 of free software differs from the notion of FSF.
This is not correct.
Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
The current opinion of FSF, at least. In the past, RMS has
worked against advertising clauses far less obnoxious than
the FDL ones. [...]
Er, we consider the 4 clause BSD license a free license.
I know. Did you just not read
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 04:31:18AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
The current opinion of FSF, at least.
I know the policies of FSF well enough to be confident that this is
not just current opinion. This has always been the opinion of FSF.
In the past, RMS has worked against advertising clauses far
This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
The current opinion of FSF, at least. In the past, RMS has
worked against advertising clauses far less obnoxious than
the FDL ones. You could summarise what's happening today with
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html and doing s/BSD/FDL/g;
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 11:38:21AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 04:31:18AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
The current opinion of FSF, at least.
I know the policies of FSF well enough to be confident that this is
not just current opinion. This has always been the opinion of
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:22:02AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
And the DFSG:
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.
In reply to Manoj I
[Anton Zinoviev]
This was the answer by Stallman:
[...]
The license must give us permissions to modify the work in
order to adapt it to various needs or to improve it, with no
substantive limits on the nature of these changes, but there
can be superficial
Anton Zinoviev write:
Can you confirm that the second interpretation expresses properly
what modifications must be allowed about a particular software
program or documentation for it to be considered free by FSF.
Notice that I intentionaly mentioned both software program and
9 matches
Mail list logo
