On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:23:40AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 04:30:11PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Please catch up on the archives of this list for the past year or so. > > Which is unfortunately not, to me, a very helpful suggestion, as I do not > have the days or weeks to spare to do that. Perhaps you could summarize the > main points?
It would take far less than a day. If you have the time to keep up with this mailing list, you can spend a few hours to read portions of the web archives of this mailing list. Some relevant threads include: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200110/threads.html # xfig-doc has license problems in examples http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/threads.html # Date licenses [he meant "data", and this features an appearance by RMS] # The old DFSG-lemma again... [features me attempting to hammer out a compromise with RMS] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/threads.html # GFDL is a DFSG-compliant license [by Bruce Perens, espousing a position he no longer holds] # existing FDL documentation won't hurt # PROPOSED: interpretive guidelines regarding DFSG 3, modifiability, and invariant text [the first of a two attempts by me to -- gasp -- let the FSF's GNU FDLed manuals stay in main] # FWD: Bug#121916: analog should be in non-free # REVISED PROPOSAL regarding DFSG 3 and 4, licenses, and modifiable text [my second attempt; it's interesting to note who was fighting my proposal tooth-and-nail back then and yet today insists that we keep GNU FDLed manuals in main :)] [1] # How about a new section "[partially free]"? # Re: LDP in main? # LDP licences # Final Draft: Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3 (the actual "proposed" part of this describes how we actually operate as far as I can tell, except for GNU FDLed manuals from the FSF, but the impact statement is no longer understood to be correct) # An attempt to narrow the issues # A concrete proposal # GDB manual # [summary] Interpretive Guideline regarding DFSG clause 3 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200201/threads.html # GDB manuals # license requirements for a book to be in free section http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200202/threads.html # FSF seeks comments on draft 1.2 of the FDL # Comments on GNU FDL 1.2 Draft # Problems in GNU FDL 1.2 Draft http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200203/threads.html # Re: distributable but non-free documents # I want doc-rfc in Woody! (license issues) # Preprints/Reprints of Academic Papers in Packages There's six months' worth to get you started. It's only the beginning, but for whatever reason[2] we seem to be retreading the basics lately. Note that if you wish to summarize the above threads (plus perhaps some others that catch your fancy), your efforts would likely be valued and appreciated. [1] I freely admit that my proposal was always vendor-neutral; that is, GNU FDLed works from the FSF would not be held to a different standard than GNU FDLed works from anyone else, which is the present status quo. [2] Well, I okay, I can think of three reasons: Sergey Spiridonov, Fedor Zuev, and John Goerzen. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | Ab abusu ad usum non valet [EMAIL PROTECTED] | consequentia. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
pgpjZ9C4LQtky.pgp
Description: PGP signature
