On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:00:13 -0400, Michael Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCWhyNotGPLForManuals
Thanks. This is more or less what I was looking for.
> In particular, "[T]he GFDL has clauses that help publishers of free
> manuals make a profit from s
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The source code requirement is the only thing that you brought up as
> to why the GPL would prevent someone from printing a manual. The
> article you pointed to in another email mentioned cover texts. I
> said that I didn't find either of those to be ter
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:56:21 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The idea is that software without source code is broken, and it
> remains the duty of the redistributor to provide unbroken software.
> Not the duty of some original author who might go broke if he had, for
> example, t
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sure. You asked in a previous message: "Why should Debian be able
> to remove the way the FSF provided for printing a manual?", and
> based on what you have said, my response is: they can't unless the
> FSF also removes they way they provided for printing
*Sigh* This thread is long enough, and we seem to be going around in
circles. And the ad hominems are starting. And we're already way off
topic for this list. So I'll try to keep this (relatively) brief.
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:48:23 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> But you can
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:15:25 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:19:24 +0200, Daniel Brockman
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Maybe you should ask that question to the
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:19:24 +0200, Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Maybe you should ask that question to the publishers who refused
>>> printing GNU manuals under simpler licenses. There is a _
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:17:01 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Feel free to ask yourself at copyright-clerk at gnu dot org in
>> order to get an official statement.
>
> I will do so if I ever feel like modifying a GNU manual for my own
>
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:19:24 +0200, Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Maybe you should ask that question to the publishers who refused
>> printing GNU manuals under simpler licenses. There is a _reason_
>> that the GFDL was created.
> Why do
Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Maybe you should ask that question to the publishers who
>> refused printing GNU manuals under simpler licenses.
>> There is a _reason_ that the GFDL was created.
>
> Why doesn't the FSF ask them that ques
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:17:01 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:29:21 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>> Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In that case, what you wrote doesn't make sense
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe you should ask that question to the publishers who
> refused printing GNU manuals under simpler licenses.
> There is a _reason_ that the GFDL was created.
Why doesn't the FSF ask them that question?
--
Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
T
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If I cannot legally satisfy the conditions of the license,
> > then I cannot redistribute.
>
> But you can satisfy the conditions of the license.
His point was that following the copyright license doesn't mean that you
aren't breaching some o
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:29:21 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> In that case, what you wrote doesn't make sense to me.
>>>
>>> If I make false claims, then the FSF has to bear the consequences?
[Why is this discussion on debian-emacsen?]
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:29:21 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >>> Then add "changed outside the GNU project" after it, and nobody need
> >>> ever add another line in order to keep it true.
> >>
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:29:21 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> In that case, what you wrote doesn't make sense to me.
>>
>> If I make false claims, then the FSF has to bear the consequences?
> If they demand that you make false claims, ye
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:23:35 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 08:35:19 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>>
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:23:35 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 08:35:19 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>> Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Huh? Are you saying that it's OK to publish som
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 01:12:10 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> [...] For example, GFDL-hostile entities like Debian will be free to
>>> distribute the material GPL-only, meaning that it
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 19:58:08 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> My point, though, is that I believe that the differences between the
>> restrictions in the OpenSSL license and the GFDL license are
>> sufficient such that one cannot say that "If OpenSSL is allowed, the
>> GFDL docume
Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> [...] For example, GFDL-hostile entities like Debian will
>> be free to distribute the material GPL-only, meaning that
>> it will become impossible to reasonably create
>> printed copies.
>
> It is impossi
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...] For example, GFDL-hostile entities like Debian will
> be free to distribute the material GPL-only, meaning that
> it will become impossible to reasonably create
> printed copies.
It is impossible to reasonably create printed copies
of GPLed manual
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 08:35:19 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Huh? Are you saying that it's OK to publish some random manual,
>>> and state on the cover that it is "A GNU Manual", when it is,
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 17:09:49 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:34:13 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>>> If I were in the position of a Debian maintainer (which I am not),
>>> I would consi
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 12:24:30 +0200, Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this *
software must display the following acknowledgment:
>>>
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 12:24:30 +0200, Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this *
>>> software must display the following acknowledgment:
>>
>> This does not place any conditions on the d
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 08:35:19 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Huh? Are you saying that it's OK to publish some random manual, and
>> state on the cover that it is "A GNU Manual", when it is, in fact,
>> NOT a GNU manual? Is the FSF OK wi
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:25:52 +0300, Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> В Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:41:05 -0400, Hubert Chan написа:
>> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:54:05 +0200, Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>> I believe the license clause is annoying, but, as for OpenSSL, does
>>> not m
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:34:13 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> If I were in the position of a Debian maintainer (which I am not), I
>> would consider GFDLed documentation with the standard GNU project
>> cover texts in their _curren
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:34:13 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> If I were in the position of a Debian maintainer (which I am not), I
> would consider GFDLed documentation with the standard GNU project
> cover texts in their _current_ form sufficient for inclusion into
> main as long
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
>> * software must display the following acknowledgment:
>
> This does not place any conditions on the distribution or modification
> of the work itself. It only places conditions on aux
Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Note that during the last GFDL discussion on -vote (prior to the GR)
> Anton Zinoviev and I contacted RMS about some clarifications. He
> believes that a manual might be non-free for someone, if it contains
> a long enough list with lots of invariant se
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:16:59 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 23:09:15 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>>
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:54:05 +0200, Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> I believe the license clause is annoying, but, as for OpenSSL, does
>> not make it impossible to use the licensed material freely, and in
>> particular, should not pre
В Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:41:05 -0400, Hubert Chan написа:
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:54:05 +0200, Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I believe the license clause is annoying, but, as for OpenSSL, does
>> not make it impossible to use the licensed material freely, and in
>> particular, should
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:54:05 +0200, Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I believe the license clause is annoying, but, as for OpenSSL, does
> not make it impossible to use the licensed material freely, and in
> particular, should not prevent including it in main.
At this point, h
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:54:05 +0200, Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Further, it seems that this situation is similar to the obnoxious
> advertising clause in the old BSD license, which is still used by
> several packages that are in main, e.g., OpenSSL:
Similar, yes. But it is not th
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:16:59 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 23:09:15 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I guess that not being able to rename or remov
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The manual would make claims that are absolutely false, and which
>> the license prevents anyone from removing.
>
> You can easily say
>
> A GNU Manual
> Converted to a Microsoft share.
>
> if you deem it necessary. And this requirement becomes active
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 23:09:15 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> I guess that not being able to rename or remove "A GNU Manual" makes
>>> impossible to make a derivative manual.
>
>> Not at all.
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 23:09:15 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I guess that not being able to rename or remove "A GNU Manual" makes
>> impossible to make a derivative manual.
> Not at all. It just places a requirement on the form a deri
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le mercredi 04 octobre 2006 16:28, David Kastrup a écrit :
>
>> The text here differentiates between "invariant sections" and
>> "Invariant Sections", seemingly calling the Cover Texts, even though
>> the GFDL permits adding to them, an "invariant sectio
Le mercredi 04 octobre 2006 16:28, David Kastrup a écrit :
>
> The text here differentiates between "invariant sections" and
> "Invariant Sections", seemingly calling the Cover Texts, even though
> the GFDL permits adding to them, an "invariant section" which happens
> not to be the same as an "In
Le mercredi 04 octobre 2006 17:03, James Troup a écrit :
> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why was the gnus manual removed from the gnus package?
>
> It has cover texts. According to:
>
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001
>
> (Specifically:
>
> """This means that works that
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Why was the gnus manual removed from the gnus package?
>
> It has cover texts. According to:
>
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001
>
> (Specifically:
>
> """This means that works that don't include a
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Why was the gnus manual removed from the gnus package?
>
> According to its license, it does not have any invariant section:
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
> under the terms of the GNU
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why was the gnus manual removed from the gnus package?
It has cover texts. According to:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001
(Specifically:
"""This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections,
Cover Texts, Acknowledgements,
Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Why was the gnus manual removed from the gnus package?
>
> According to its license, it does not have any invariant section:
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
> under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License,
48 matches
Mail list logo
