Re: A possible GFDL compromise

2003-09-05 Thread David B Harris
Sorry folks, I CC'd: -devel instead of -legal. God I hate Reply-To:s :) On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 12:03:59 -0400 David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 21:55:07 -0400 > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This clause has a direct effect on all users, > > restr

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

2003-09-05 Thread David B Harris
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 21:55:07 -0400 Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This clause has a direct effect on all users, > restricting the use of e.g. encrypted filesystems. > > That's a new one on me. I don't think the GFDL restricts > the use of encrypted filesystems. I have ment

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

2003-08-27 Thread Wouter Verhelst
Op wo 27-08-2003, om 07:02 schreef Fedor Zuev: > c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer > to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is > allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you > -

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

2003-08-27 Thread Fedor Zuev
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, John Galt wrote: >On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Fedor Zuev wrote: >>On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >>>Lack of forced distribution is not "censorship". Get a clue, or a >>>dictionary. >> >> Heh. >> >> "Why that ugly, non-free GPL license demand from me to >>di

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

2003-08-26 Thread John Galt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Fedor Zuev wrote: >On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > >>Fedor Zuev, missing the point AGAIN, said: >>>I cannot see any connection between disagreement with anyone >>>opinion, and the right to censor somebody el

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

2003-08-25 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:33:28PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote: > On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > >Fedor Zuev, missing the point AGAIN, said: > >>I cannot see any connection between disagreement with anyone > >>opinion, and the right to censor somebody else's opinion, so > >>a

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

2003-08-25 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 23:33:28 +0900 (IRKST), Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > "Why that ugly, non-free GPL license demand from me to > distribute source code? Source would still be freely available from > the FSF website! Lack of forced distribution do not harm a freedom!" > Agree?

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

2003-08-25 Thread Fedor Zuev
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >Fedor Zuev, missing the point AGAIN, said: >>I cannot see any connection between disagreement with anyone >>opinion, and the right to censor somebody else's opinion, so >>angrily demanded by you. >There's no censorship involved. *sigh* The GNU

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

2003-08-24 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:05:55PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Fedor Zuev, missing the point AGAIN, said: > >I cannot see any connection between disagreement with anyone > >opinion, and the right to censor somebody else's opinion, so > >angrily demanded by you. > > There's no censorsh

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

2003-08-24 Thread Nathanael Nerode
Fedor Zuev, missing the point AGAIN, said: >I cannot see any connection between disagreement with anyone >opinion, and the right to censor somebody else's opinion, so >angrily demanded by you. There's no censorship involved. *sigh* The GNU Manifesto would still be freely available from t