[no subject]

2002-02-18 Thread DR.MRS MIRIAM ABACHA
FROM: MRS. MARIAM ABACHA C/O SHEWU ABACHA LAGOS - NIGERIA. 19TH FEB,2002 Fax: 234-1-759-0900 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ATTN:PRESIDENT/CEO, I am Mrs. Mariam Abacha, the widow of late Gen. Sani Abacha. Former Nigeria military head of state who died mysteriouly as a result of cardiac arres

Re: could you safely rewrite the DFSG requirement?

2002-02-18 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Again, if it is going to be ignored anyway, why not remove it. Because it's a waste of time to try and make the DFSG legalistically pristinely perfect. We know what it means, our users know what it means, and once in a while, someone is confused. > BTW, if i w

Re: could you safely rewrite the DFSG requirement?

2002-02-18 Thread Sven
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 09:34:15AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > But, i will make a proposal for the DFSG to be ammended so as to remove the > > aggregation clause, or at least clearly state that we consider a null or > > almost null aggregation ok. > > It would have to be the other way around;

Re: FDL and DFSG ? what document licence should i recommend.

2002-02-18 Thread Branden Robinson
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 12:15:39PM +0100, Sven wrote: > Is the FDL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.2-draft.txt) altough in draft > form, a licence recognized free by debian ? Is it a good choice of licences > for documentation ? What are the other alternatives ? > > BTW, the FDL seems to impose

Re: could you safely rewrite the DFSG requirement?

2002-02-18 Thread Steve Langasek
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 11:43:01AM +0100, Sven wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 09:27:05AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Well, this may well fgollow the letter of what is written, but in no way > > > the > > > spirit of it. > > The "spirit" of it?

Books under the FDL (was: Problems in GNU FDL 1.2 Draft)

2002-02-18 Thread Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller
Hi On Wednesday, 13. February 2002 22:37, Walter Landry wrote: > [Excellent Analysis by Stephen Ryan omitted] > > This all begs the question, why does the FDL exist at all? > The rationale given at > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html > > is that it will encourage commercial entities t

FDL and DFSG ? what document licence should i recommend.

2002-02-18 Thread Sven
Hello, ... Having to suggest a free licence to someone having written a documentation that i want to includein a package, i was at a loss on what to do exactly. Is the FDL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.2-draft.txt) altough in draft form, a licence recognized free by debian ? Is it a good cho

Re: could you safely rewrite the DFSG requirement?

2002-02-18 Thread Sven
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 09:27:05AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Well, this may well fgollow the letter of what is written, but in no way the > > spirit of it. > > The "spirit" of it? The "spirit" of it? Puhleez. > > The DFSG's spirit is given by t