On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 04:54:16PM -0800, Andy Tai wrote:
> Same for your attacks on the GFDL... "they have nothing
> to do on a GNOME mailing list. Please bring this on another place or in
> private mail."
Except the GFDL is part of the licensing scheme of GNOME.
But don't worry, we're moving th
On 1/8/06, Andy Tai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Same for your attacks on the GFDL... "they have nothing
> to do on a GNOME mailing list. Please bring this on another place or in
> private mail."
I respectfully disagree. There are those that feel that the GFDL is a
very poor choice and with wha
Same for your attacks on the GFDL... "they have nothing
to do on a GNOME mailing list. Please bring this on another place or in
private mail."On 1/8/06, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As for your anti-Debian crusade and false statements, they have nothingto do on a GNOME mailing list.
Le dimanche 08 janvier 2006 à 17:19 +0200, Yavor Doganov a écrit :
> The main problem is that the Debian folks are parsing the text of the
> license instead of reading it and trying to "feel" its spirit.
There is no spirit in a license text. There is only a list of things the
license allows you to
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 19:27:28 +0100, Christian Neumair wrote:
> What are the precise problem with GDFL-licensed documents, when there
> are no invariant sections?
The main problem is that the Debian folks are parsing the text of the
license instead of reading it and trying to "feel" its spirit.
Le jeudi 05 janvier 2006 à 19:27 +0100, Christian Neumair a écrit :
> What are the precise problem with GDFL-licensed documents, when there
> are no invariant sections? We can have a policy to accept any
> GDFL-licensed document if it doesn't contain any invariant section.
> Debian could have done
Am Donnerstag, den 05.01.2006, 11:11 +0100 schrieb Jordi Mallach:
> In most cases, policies were established before the voices against the
> license got strong, but I suspect that the strongest reason is that
> "if
> the FSF recommends this one for docs, it must be The Right Thing".
>
> Well, we d
