Manoj Srivastava dijo [Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 03:42:02PM -0500]:
> Hi folks,
>
>It's been a few days since my last message. I have added a print
> style sheet, so one can use a free Browser (mozilla) to print the
> position statement. I have added a couple of new examples, an
> inchoate softw
Hi folks,
It's been a few days since my last message. I have added a print
style sheet, so one can use a free Browser (mozilla) to print the
position statement. I have added a couple of new examples, an
inchoate software documentation freedoms list, and I have started an
outline of the form
Hi,
I have updated the position summary page with responses from
RMS to some of the concerns (thanks to Bob Hilliard for bringing them
to my attention), added a nascent Overview section (which currently
only has links deeper into the page), and general spell check and a
few typographic
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:07:04 +0200, Andreas Metzler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thanks for your patience. The URL of the document is:
>> http://people.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml>
> Great work. But if this is supposed to be read
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Beginning in 2001, concerns regarding the compatibility of the
> GNU Free Documentation License with the Debian Free Software
> Guidelines came to the attention of the debian-legal mailing list.
[...]
>Unfortuna
Hi folks,
Beginning in 2001, concerns regarding the compatibility of the
GNU Free Documentation License with the Debian Free Software
Guidelines came to the attention of the debian-legal mailing list.
In early 2002, the Free Software Foundation announced that it
would be
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 02:50:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> A work licensed under GNU FDL, version 1.1, which consists entirely of
> "Invariant Sections" either has no license or is wholly unmodifiable.
> Most people on debian-legal agree that this renders the work DFSG-free.
This one time, at band camp, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses
>that can be used, and will be considered non-free.
>
>I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
>the license are not exercised. Using this lan
Le lun 08/04/2002 à 19:12, Dale Scheetz a écrit :
> So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain
> clauses that can be used, and will be considered non-free.
> I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
> the license are not exercised. Using thi
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
> the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary
> license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are
> inforced by the author...
>
> The lice
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:12:06PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses
> that can be used, and will be considered non-free.
It is software that is or is not DFSG-free, not licenses.
The simple fact is, a work licensed under versio
begin Dale Scheetz quotation:
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > As usual, this issue has been beaten to death on a list you don't read.
> >
> > Please review the archives of debian-legal for the past several months.
> >
> > In a nutshell:
> >
> > 1) The current version of t
Dale Scheetz wrote:
> So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they
> contain clauses that can be used, and will be considered
> non-free.
Your objection is true of the OPL, but RMS argues
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00017.html
that that is not true
non-free license. While I disagree, that is often irrelevant.
> >
> > 4. If we still have no free documentation license. I'm not sure how we
> > can make demands for "good" documentation.
>
> As usual, this issue has been beaten to death on a list you do
down before moving things into an
> area designated for common, free, licenses, don't you think?
Well, if you insist ;-)
Actually, on more reflection, (asside from whether or not the GNU Free
Documentation License is "Free") the whole purpose of the common license
area was to red
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:46:23AM -0700, Martin Quinson wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
> into the common reference area?
>
> Who should I talk to
gt;
> 4. If we still have no free documentation license. I'm not sure how we
> can make demands for "good" documentation.
As usual, this issue has been beaten to death on a list you don't read.
Please review the archives of debian-legal for the past several months.
In
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 03:00:37PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> > > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
> > > into the common reference area?
&
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dale> On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dale> There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of
Dale>
On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
> > into
On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Dale> There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of
> Dale> the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put
&g
Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 05:06, Joseph Carter ha scritto:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> > Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dale> There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of
Dale> the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put
Dale> a copy of this license into the common reference area?
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
> into the common reference area?
>
> Who should I talk to ab
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
> Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
> into the common reference area?
No, it would be premature. There&#
There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
into the common reference area?
Who should I talk to about this?
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "Dwarf's Guide to D
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 08:30:08PM -0400, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> I think we have a problem here. The DFSG clearly does not apply to
> documentation, just like the GPL. As the FSF created a new license, we need
> to create guidelines to what we consider a "free documentation", as in free
> spe
> Personally, I have to wonder if this type of thing is DFSG-free:
I think we have a problem here. The DFSG clearly does not apply to
documentation, just like the GPL. As the FSF created a new license, we need
to create guidelines to what we consider a "free documentation", as in free
speech.. =)
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:54:20AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Jordi wrote:
> > Should this new license be included in base-files?
>
> That seems very premature. Best wait until
>
> 1) It is a common-license
> 2) debian-legal has vetted it
>
> Personally, I have to wonder if this type of thing is
Jordi wrote:
> Should this new license be included in base-files?
That seems very premature. Best wait until
1) It is a common-license
2) debian-legal has vetted it
Personally, I have to wonder if this type of thing is DFSG-free:
If you publish printed copies of the Document numbering more th
Should this new license be included in base-files?
--
Jordi Mallach Pérez || [EMAIL PROTECTED] || Rediscovering Freedom,
ka Oskuro in RL-MUD || [EMAIL PROTECTED]|| Using Debian GNU/Linux
http://sindominio.net GnuPG public information: pub 1024D/917A225E
telnet pusa.uv.es 23 7
32 matches
Mail list logo
