Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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 just the invariant sections.
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
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 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
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
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 Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 12:24:27AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:24:23PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:52:41PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
An other example is a reference sheet to be printed on the front- and
backside of a sheet of paper
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
alternatively, print a single link to either the full documentation
(containing the invariant sections) or to just the invariant sections.
This might be a reasonable thing, but it is not what the GFDL requires.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
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 just the invariant sections.
This might be a reasonable thing, but it
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 05:22:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
That's exactly why it's not similar to the things allowed by the
patch clause. FDL is more a licence that requires later programmers
to add a function that adds to or clarifies or subverts the original
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:25:40AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 05:22:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
That's exactly why it's not similar to the things allowed by the
patch clause. FDL is more a licence that requires later programmers
to add a
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 08:59:08PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
That makes more than 20 pages of invariant sections, or less than 13% of
interesting material. Do you agree that the GNU Emacs Manual is non-free?
It is free. 20 pages do not
craig
the DFSG does not require convenience. it requires freedom. lack of
convenience DOES NOT equate to non-free.
case in point - it is inconvenient (for both the distributor and the
user) to distribute modified software in the form of original work +
patch file. very inconvenient. in
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 09:50:46AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
It is not inconvenient to distribute auctex_11.html together
with the invariant sections.
Of course it is - imagine that my documentation contains parts
from 10 documents, all under GFDL, all using lots of invariant
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
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 11:19:34AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
craig
the DFSG does not require convenience. it requires freedom. lack of
convenience DOES NOT equate to non-free.
case in point - it is inconvenient (for both the distributor and the
user) to distribute modified software in the
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 09:50:46AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
It is not inconvenient to distribute auctex_11.html together
with the invariant sections.
Of course it is - imagine that my documentation contains parts
from 10 documents, all
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 02:37:18PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
We are not talking about software licenses here, but documentation.
Since Debian has decided to treat both types equally, but the FSF has
not, you shouldn't mix things up when claiming to present the FSF's
view.
So do you
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As formulated at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html, the four
software freedoms can not be applied directly to works that are not
programs and in particular they can not be applied directly to
documentation. Run the program and study how the
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would that be inconvenient to Frank? -- Yes. Does this
inconvenience obstruct the software freedoms somehow? -- Certainly
not, the users get the file Frank wants to give them.
No, many won't download the file if they know they have to download 10
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...]
the patch to the opinions/rants/whatever in an invariant section does
not change that invariant section (it can't change, it's *INVARIANT*).
It adds a NEW invariant section which makes whatever point the 'patcher'
wants to make. the new section may add to
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 02:37:18PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
We are not talking about software licenses here, but documentation.
Since Debian has decided to treat both types equally, but the FSF has
not, you shouldn't mix things up when claiming to
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 04:34:19PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
May I ask you to please read the mails you answer to? If you do, you'll
know.
If I did something wrong, that was not intentional. You wrote about
some document with 9MB invariant sections.
That makes more than 20 pages of
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 04:59:45PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Debian consideres _everything_ to be under the same guidelines and
there should be no difference between a program, a manual or a
specification. FSF does not agree with us on this,
FSF never claimed that it is principly
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 04:34:19PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
May I ask you to please read the mails you answer to? If you do, you'll
know.
If I did something wrong, that was not intentional. You wrote about
some document with 9MB invariant
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 05:22:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...]
the patch to the opinions/rants/whatever in an invariant section
does not change that invariant section (it can't change, it's
*INVARIANT*). It adds a NEW invariant section which makes whatever
Em Ter, 2006-01-31 às 16:53 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
invariant sections with offensive material give us a similar example
-- documents that contain such invariant section would also be
non-free.
The problem is using one thing as media for unrelated stuff. As most
people would just
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 08:59:08PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
That makes more than 20 pages of invariant sections, or less than 13% of
interesting material. Do you agree that the GNU Emacs Manual is non-free?
It is free. 20 pages do not obstruct the users to exercise their
freedoms.
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, I won't, because it's actually a very good argument as to why
invariant sections could be seen as less of a problem: if we allow
unmodifiable-but-patcheable programs, it is not unreasonable to say that
we should allow documents that are (in part)
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Acording to Stallman more or less the same freedoms should apply to
all so called functional works.
However, Debian only distributes things that have such freedoms,
whether functional works or not. RMS may say that non-functional
things do not
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 09:54:40AM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let the sheet instead be a coffee cup; in Germany Lehmann's sell
cups with Emacs or vi commands on them. You can't add a second cup
for the invariant sections, even if they fit on it,
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:55:19PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
It is not difficult to print two sheets - the invariant sections go on
the second sheet and FSF wins more popularity. :-)
This is just working around the issue.
Yes, it is.
Let
* Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-25 09:54:40]:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:55:19PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
It is not difficult to print two sheets - the invariant sections go on
the second sheet and FSF wins more popularity. :-)
Andreas Schuldei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-25 09:54:40]:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:55:19PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
It is not difficult to print two sheets - the invariant sections go on
the second
[In order not to write twice same thing and because this can be of
interest to many developers, I will reply to some of the comments of
Wouter Verhelst and Anthony Towns in this separate thread.]
My thesis is that the invariant sections do not contradict DFSG.
Notice that in this particular email
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
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:52:41PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
An other example is a reference sheet to be printed on the front- and
backside of a sheet of paper (autogenerated to always match the current
version) that contains the most important commands, functions or
whatever of the software
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:52:41PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
An other example is a reference sheet to be printed on the front- and
backside of a sheet of paper (autogenerated to always match the current
version) that contains the most important
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:55:19PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
It is not difficult to print two sheets - the invariant sections go on
the second sheet and FSF wins more popularity. :-)
This is just working around the issue.
Yes, it is.
Let the sheet instead be a coffee cup; in Germany
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:24:23PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:52:41PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
An other example is a reference sheet to be printed on the front- and
backside of a sheet of paper (autogenerated to always match the current
version) that contains
43 matches
Mail list logo
