Re: {SPAM} Question about GFDL licensed works

2006-02-17 Thread Gunnar Wolf
Daniel Ruoso dijo [Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 05:17:27PM -0300]: > Hmmm... I still didn't buy this argument... But it has been argued that > it is not the intent of this license clause and that, because of that, > it would not be enforceable, as, even the text not saying that, some > other references aro

Re: {SPAM} Question about GFDL licensed works

2006-02-13 Thread Steve Greenland
On 13-Feb-06, 14:17 (CST), Daniel Ruoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hmmm... I still didn't buy this argument... But it has been argued that > it is not the intent of this license clause and that, because of that, > it would not be enforceable, as, even the text not saying that, some > other refer

Re: {SPAM} Question about GFDL licensed works

2006-02-13 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On 13 Feb 2006, Daniel Ruoso uttered the following: > Em Dom, 2006-02-12 às 09:22 -0600, Manoj Srivastava escreveu: >> If people who sponsored the second amendment can explain to me why >> something that prevents me from using SELinux when all I am doing >> is unpack and copy make sources is deeme

Re: {SPAM} Question about GFDL licensed works

2006-02-13 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 05:17:27PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote: > Em Dom, 2006-02-12 às 09:22 -0600, Manoj Srivastava escreveu: > > If people who sponsored the second amendment can explain to me > > why something that prevents me from using SELinux when all I am doing > > is unpack and copy

Re: {SPAM} Question about GFDL licensed works

2006-02-13 Thread Daniel Ruoso
Em Dom, 2006-02-12 às 09:22 -0600, Manoj Srivastava escreveu: > If people who sponsored the second amendment can explain to me > why something that prevents me from using SELinux when all I am doing > is unpack and copy make sources is deemed free, I would be, err, > grateful. Hmmm... I