> > I *hope* that this amendment is simply supposed to mean that the
Developers
> > don't believe that the DRM clause imposes such restrictions (despite the
fact
> > that reading it literally, it does). But at the moment, which of these
two
> > positions is being pushed by the amendment is n
* Nathanael Nerode [Fri, 10 Feb 2006 01:51:33 -0500]:
Hi,
> So, does this mean that if this amendment is passed, outlawing storing a copy
> of a document with non-world-readable permission is considered an acceptable,
> free restriction by the Developers? Really?
> I *hope* that this amendmen
I second Adeodato's revised amendment, as I did the earlier version.
Thanks to Adeodato and everyone who contributed...
Hamish
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> ---8<---
>
> Debian and the GNU Free Do
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - several people expressed the view that they interpreted the wording
> differently, as in "it states that some GFDL-licensed works meet
> the DFSG, and thus are suitable for main", for which a 1:1
> majority would be enough.
...
> All the relevant
"Wouter Verhelst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, Thursday, February 09, 2006
8:08 AM
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
[...]
>> For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license
>> their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the
>>
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
[...]
> Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> =
>
> This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation
> License as published by the Free Software Foundatio
Re: Adeodato Simó in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---8<---
>
> Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> =
>
> This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation
> L
I second the amendment quoted below.
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 22:26, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After my amendment to the GFDL GR was accepted, there was a bit of
> discussion about the majority requirement that should be put on it. In
> a nutshell, this is what happened:
>
>
* Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-02-09 06:26]:
> So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has
> ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from
> my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one.
seconded (again).
> D
I second the amendment quoted below.
Christopher Martin
On Thursday 09 February 2006 00:26, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> =
>
> This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free
> Documentation Licens
> So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has
> ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from
> my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one.
Seconded.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Seconded.
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After my amendment to the GFDL GR was accepted, there was a bit of
> discussion about the majority requirement that should be put on it. In
> a nutshell, this is what happened:
>
> - in what may have
Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> =
>
> This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation
> License as published by the Free Software Foundation:
>
> 1. We consider that the GNU Free Docum
seconded (again).
also sprach Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.02.09.0626 +0100]:
> Hello,
>
> After my amendment to the GFDL GR was accepted, there was a bit of
> discussion about the majority requirement that should be put on it. In
> a nutshell, this is what happened:
>
> - i
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>---8<---
>
>Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
>=
>
>This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free D
I second the Amendment fully quoted below.
On Thursday 09 February 2006 06:26, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After my amendment to the GFDL GR was accepted, there was a bit of
> discussion about the majority requirement that should be put on it. In
> a nutshell, this is what happened:
>
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has
> ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from
> my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one.
As per A.
Heya,
I second the Amendment fully quoted below.
Marc
> Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> =
>
> This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation
> License as published by the Free Software Foundation:
>
> 1. W
I second the Amendment fully quoted below, as a replacement of the
previous one Adeodato wrote.
Le Jeu 9 Février 2006 06:26, Adeodato Simó a écrit :
> ---8<
>---
>
> Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> ===
Hello,
After my amendment to the GFDL GR was accepted, there was a bit of
discussion about the majority requirement that should be put on it. In
a nutshell, this is what happened:
- in what may have been a bad decision but seemed appropriate at the
time, I wrote the amendment from
20 matches
Mail list logo
