* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote:
> A lot of prose does the same -- it's written to persuade or to explain
> or to record, rather than to entertain or amaze. Conversely, substantial
> amounts of software derive its justification from aesthetics and it's
> Debian's opinion that compute
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes in reply to Mark Rafn:
> > > > - 5b. Mark, you were nervous about this, but I don't see an
> > > > alternative or clarification in the discussion. Are you satisfied, or
> > > > is there still some work to do?
> > >
> > > I
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> 5. If you are not the Current Maintainer of The Work, you may modify
> your copy of The Work, thus creating a Derived Work based on The Work,
> as long as the following conditions are met:
>
> a. You must ensure that each modified file of the Deri
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > I'm close on this one. "does not identify itself as unmodified in any
> > way" is harder for me to understand than "identifies itself as modified".
>
> Negative is better. Positive, to me, means "you must write this code,
> here" as opposed to "what
> Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm close on this one. "does not identify itself as unmodified in any
> > way" is harder for me to understand than "identifies itself as modified".
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Walter Landry wrote:
> It is just a little less restrictive. Instead of requiring
I think i answered about all of the points raised a minute ago
Jeff Licquia writes:
> > Does "This is LaTeX-format, unmodified" followed a few lines later by
> > "this is foo, modified by someguy" qualify? As written, I'd think this
> > infringes.
>
> I would say this doesn't (or should
Walter Landry writes in reply to Mark Rafn:
> > On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> >
> > > - 5.a.2. That's the Clause of Contention, so read it carefully. I
> > > seem to have at least some consensus on it, judging from the feedback so
> > > far; its provenance can be seen in this
On Sun, 2003-04-13 at 14:33, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
>
> > - 5.a.2. That's the Clause of Contention, so read it carefully. I
> > seem to have at least some consensus on it, judging from the feedback so
> > far; its provenance can be seen in this message and t
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
>
> > - 5.a.2. That's the Clause of Contention, so read it carefully. I
> > seem to have at least some consensus on it, judging from the feedback so
> > far; its provenance can be seen in this message and the follow
Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> If I have one piece of prose that I like, I usually do not have all
> the prose I need/want. The same goes for documentation or music. In
> fact hearing some piece of music usually motivates me to get more.
Huh? Invariant sections never give you more documentation. The
> -Original Message-
> From: Frank Mittelbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 10 April 2003 19:22
> To: Jeff Licquia
> Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
>
>
> Jeff Licquia writes:
>
> > Let me try to improve on Branden's versio
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> But unlike prose, most software derives its justification to exist
> From its function, not its aesthetics.
I'm not sure whether prose or software is more shortchanged by this
"distinction". Both art and software are simultaneously functional and
a
On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 06:21:11PM +0200, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> || On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:18:10 -0500
> || Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sl> The perceived goal of the GPL is to establish a creative commons
> sl> for the mutual benefit of all in the community.
> I would agr
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> If we ignore potential DMCA/EUCD/SW-patent issues, which are unrelated
> to the issue at hand, it is always okay to write a GUI that can
> display documents regardless of their license.
Sure, but it's clearly NOT ok to use some derived works of som
On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 11:00, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
...
> In the special case that you seem to be referring to, which is as
> author of a specialized help GUI, you could of course jump to the
> relevant paragraphs/parts of the documentation directly.
Um, not without the same type of "intimate kn
Georg C. F. Greve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But unlike prose, most software derives its justification to exist
> From its function, not its aesthetics.
So let's not encourage the use of this license for software manuals.
It's not an essay, it's a manual.
> The very same people who have been
On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 10:00, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> || On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:12:53 -0400
> || Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> psg> If I write a GUI front-end for some software which has
> psg> documentation under this license, can I take a few paragraphs of
> psg> the docu
At first I thought the GNU FDL was okay. And I tend to cut RMS a lot
of slack. But the more I think about it, the less I like it.
One principle of a proper free license is that it doesn't allow the
thing it is protecting to be poisoned. In the case of the GNU FDL,
despite the laudatory goals, i
|| On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:18:10 -0500
|| Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sl> The perceived goal of the GPL is to establish a creative commons
sl> for the mutual benefit of all in the community.
I would agree to the sentiment, but I must say that I have some issues
using the commo
Georg C. F. Greve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> || On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:12:53 -0400
> || Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Interpretation B -- which you probably meant -- is already
> >> included in the analysis, as cutting out parts is also
> >> modification.
>
> psg>
On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 11:50:59AM +0200, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> >> First of all: documents and software are entirely different issues
> >> and should be treated differently.
> br> The Debian Project does not, in general, appear to agree. See:
> br>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-le
|| On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:12:53 -0400
|| Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Interpretation B -- which you probably meant -- is already
>> included in the analysis, as cutting out parts is also
>> modification.
psg> If I write a GUI front-end for some software which has
psg> d
Georg C. F. Greve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> || Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> br> Your analysis ignores the fact that the GNU FDL does not permit
> br> Invariant Sections to be omitted entirely from the work when it
> br> is redistributed. If the GNU FDL did that, it would
Hi Georg C. F. Greve,
> As to the question whether or not software and documentation should be
> treated alike, I'd like to say that I am very much in favor of a more
> differentiated approach.
>
> Mixing things that are in truth very different is one of the worst
> effects of the "intellectual p
Georg C. F. Greve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> As to the question whether or not software and documentation should be
> treated alike, I'd like to say that I am very much in favor of a more
> differentiated approach.
>
> Mixing things that are in truth very different is one of the worst
> effects of th
|| On Sun, 13 Apr 2003 12:05:43 -0500
|| Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Could you please tell me where that decision has been made
>> official?
br> When the FSF released the GNU FDL 1.2, we analyzed it on the
br> debian-legal mailing list. At that time, no one was willing
26 matches
Mail list logo
