On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 12:02:31AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 03:15:19PM -0500, Steve Langasek écrivait:
> > 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
> > of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
> > distribute such
> Scripsit Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > 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".
>
> > > It is just a little less restrictive. Instead of requiring people to
> > > ma
Branden Robinson writes:
> > > > c. In every file of the Derived Work you must ensure that any
> > > > addresses for the reporting of errors do not refer to the Current
> > > > Maintainer's addresses in any way.
> > >
> > > This is somewhat new ground for a DFSG-free license
Le Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 03:15:19PM -0500, Steve Langasek écrivait:
> 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
> of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
> distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
> above, provided t
On 2003-04-16 14:28:44 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I understand the rationale. I'm concerned about the wording. Would the
> following violate 5(c)?
>
> % LaTeX-Foobar 1.2.9, copyright 2001--2003 John A. Doe
> %
> % Please report errors to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
> %
> % MODIFIED BY Jack Smith
Branden Robinson writes:
> > > > c. In every file of the Derived Work you must ensure that any
> > > > addresses for the reporting of errors do not refer to the Current
> > > > Maintainer's addresses in any way.
> > >
> > > This is somewhat new ground for a DFSG-free license. Is
Scripsit Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 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".
> > It is just a little less restrictive. Instead of requi
Hi Raphael,
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 10:08:59PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 02:29:52PM -0500, Steve Langasek écrivait:
> > The latest version of libdbd-mysql-perl build-depends on
> > libmysqclient-dev. I'm afraid that, although this fixed the FTBFS bug,
> > it potentia
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 08:12:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Anyway, to answer your original question, "GFDL = non-free" is not an
> official Debian position simply because we haven't written up a proper
> explanation of why, and haven't gone through the GFDL documents in main
> to see which on
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 10:37:57AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> In addition, how does the FSF expect anybody other than itself to
> distribute a GPL'd emacs with a GFDL manual?
Heh; maybe they don't. Maybe they're tired of all these "Linux"
distributions that should be calling themselves "GNU
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 10:29:44PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> Branden Robinson writes:
> > Please make restrictions attach to distributions of modification, not
> > the act of modifying in and of itself.
>
> we think it is neither of users nor of people actively supporting (read: user
> su
[I've found this unsent message which I wrote yesterday]
Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You've heard all this before, but I haven't seen you answer it. Why
> does the GFDL prohibit me from making an emacs reference card from the
> manual? Sure, I could make a one-sided card where
Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 09:40:49AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > Consider this a suggestion to maintainers of packages that contain
> > documentation that are under the GFDL, especially if it contains
> > invariant sections. Imagine if an Emacs user vi
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 09:40:49AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Consider this a suggestion to maintainers of packages that contain
> documentation that are under the GFDL, especially if it contains
> invariant sections. Imagine if an Emacs user visited Info and saw this:
>
> * Menu:
>
> * D
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 09:40:49AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > * Why you shouldn't use the GFDL:: Debian doesn't recommend using this
> license.
> > And what if this new section listing reasons _not_ to use this license
> > were made... invariant!
> >
> > If the F
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 09:40:49AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> * Why you shouldn't use the GFDL:: Debian doesn't recommend using this
> license.
> And what if this new section listing reasons _not_ to use this license
> were made... invariant!
>
> If the FSF wants to give redistributors a
Consider this a suggestion to maintainers of packages that contain
documentation that are under the GFDL, especially if it contains
invariant sections. Imagine if an Emacs user visited Info and saw this:
* Menu:
* Distrib:: How to get the latest Emacs distribution.
* Copying::
Georg C. F. Greve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> || On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 09:31:26 -0400
> || Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> psg> It doesn't perserve freedom at all. It grants any redistributor
> psg> the right to add unremovable rants to the loss of the user's
> psg> freedom
Georg C. F. Greve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Especially the GPL is striking a new balance between the rights of the
> author and the freedoms of the users that puts both above the wishes
> of middlemen.
>
> The GFDL deeks to do the same thing. Only this time you find yourself
> in the position
Georg C. F. Greve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Although I have said it before, I'll say it again: I don't consider
> the GFDL to be perfect, but from the free documentation licenses I
> have seen so far, it seems to be the most solid one for the reasons
> I've described.
What do you mean by a "free doc
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 10:52:55AM +0200, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> I'm sorry, but if somebody wrote something into a document that was
> important to him and you didn't like it and removed it to distribute
> that as a newer version of the document, you'd be violating that
> persons Copyright. GNU
"Georg C. F. Greve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm sorry, but if somebody wrote something into a document that was
> important to him and you didn't like it and removed it to distribute
> that as a newer version of the document, you'd be violating that
> persons Copyright.
Err, what complete
|| On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 09:31:26 -0400
|| Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
psg> It doesn't perserve freedom at all. It grants any redistributor
psg> the right to add unremovable rants to the loss of the user's
psg> freedom.
So you are afraid of somebody adding a part that you d
On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 06:21:11PM +0200, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> But unlike prose, most software derives its justification to exist
> From its function, not its aesthetics.
> The very same people who have been lumping together totally different
> areas of law such as copyright, patents and trad
24 matches
Mail list logo
