Scripsit Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I think this proposal is the right thing to do, especially the hard work
> of creating the documents before filing bugs. Unfortunately, I am
> unwilling to take on the task myself, though I'm happy to provide feedback
> and sections of text where I can. B
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 03:09:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I propose that we:
> * draft a comprehensive critique of the GNU FDL 1.2, detailing
> section-by-section our problems with the license
(Branden, didn't you construct such a critique a while ago?
I remember reading
Walter Landry writes:
> 5a1 is not a free alternative. 5a2 approaches that, but it has to
> cover _every_ occasion where 5a1 fails, not just most of them.
I don't think it is acceptable that you take a list of "or"s, judge each of
them individually and conclude that each of them is not 100% the
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 01:59:37PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> If the manifesto marked as invariant? I didn't know that!
It doesn't seem to be in the "visible" info text, but the top of
each of the info files has a GFDL blurb.
I grepped for Invariant in my emacs-21 info files. The main ma
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
> > Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Note that above we also addressed the concern by (I think Walter)
> > > concerning 5a2 so that it now only requires run-time identification
> > > if the original used runtim
Walter Landry writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Note that above we also addressed the concern by (I think Walter)
> > concerning 5a2 so that it now only requires run-time identification
> > if the original used runtime identification
>
> Thank you. It is extremely cl
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note that above we also addressed the concern by (I think Walter)
> concerning 5a2 so that it now only requires run-time identification
> if the original used runtime identification
Thank you. It is extremely close. It doesn't quite allow me to take
On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> This is the stuff of which nasty flamewars and misspelled Slashdot
> headlines are made, hence my unwillingness to do it, but it is clear to
> me that letting this issue languish in ambiguity isn't good for us or
> our users.
I agree both with your r
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> mr> I hope it's not terribly much longer, as the current
> mr> semi-consensus is likely to congeal into an actual necessity to
> mr> remove un-free emacs documentation from Debian.
>
> Are you referring to documentation under the GFDL? Why would
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
>>
>> Thi
"Georg C. F. Greve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> || On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 10:37:57 -0400
> || [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
>
> bts> You've heard all this before, but I haven't seen you answer it.
> bts> Why does the GFDL prohibit me from making an emacs reference
> bts> card fr
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 04:16:57AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 02:34:36PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > Debian can't legally distribute such an info document. Because the
> > GFDL is incompatible with the GPL, it is prohibited to even
> > create an info document from
|| On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 09:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
|| Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
mr> Indeed. Ensuring that Debian remains free is the primary reason
mr> for this list's existence, and it can be an emotional topic.
True. All of us are probably feeling strongly about freedom.
The fact tha
|| On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 10:37:57 -0400
|| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
bts> You've heard all this before, but I haven't seen you answer it.
bts> Why does the GFDL prohibit me from making an emacs reference
bts> card from the manual? Sure, I could make a one-sided card where
b
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 10:53:30AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 addresse
Scripsit Sunnanvind Fenderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, listening to Georg Greve it sounded like the FSF wanted an
> official statement from Debian regarding the problems with
> non-removability of invariant sections.
I don't think the FSF is prepared to change their licensing practise
no matte
Scripsit Joerg Wendland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sure, but I did not say "recommend a license" but having a license that
> does not only fit the DFSG but reflects the DFSG and Debian's sense of
> free software in general.
I think it would be stretching the truth to say that Debian, as a
project, has
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And what if this new section listing reasons _not_ to use this license
> were made... invariant!
I think writing such a new section is a reasonable thing, but of
course, we can't make in invariant without violating our own
principles.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 02:34:36PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> Debian can't legally distribute such an info document. Because the
> GFDL is incompatible with the GPL, it is prohibited to even
> create an info document from GFDL'd texinfo source. See #183860.
Hrm, if that's the case, we can't
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 it *
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 02:47:20PM +0200, Joerg Wendland wrote:
> is there anything like a Debian Free Software License? A license that is
> modelled after the DFSG? For me as free software developer, that would be a
> nice to have. I couldn't find a discussion about something similar in the
> list
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 09:10:00AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
> Good luck with that, and I look forward to hearing from you and/or other
> FSF representatives soon. I hope it's not terribly much longer, as the
> current semi-consensus is likely to congeal into an actual necessity to
> remove un-free
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 12:44:32PM +0200, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
> Well, listening to Georg Greve it sounded like the FSF wanted an
> official statement from Debian regarding the problems with
> non-removability of invariant sections. In my very humble opinion,
> Debian should try giving them
Branden Robinson writes:
> > > Are you gravely opposed to external changelogs, as might be generated
> > > by, say, cvs2cl -- even if those changelogs have to be distributed along
> > > with the modified files of the Derived Work?
> >
> > yes, we are. This is not how the LaTeX world works
--- James Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> からのメッセー
ジ：
> I have been teaching an information law course for a
[...]
I wanted to add that I would be glad to welcome other free
and open source software developers to the course. I
didn't intend to limit this section just to debian core or
other developers
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS, on 2003-04-17, 14:41, you wrote:
> It might undermine the DFSG if Debian were to recommend its own
> licences.
Sure, but I did not say "recommend a license" but having a license that
does not only fit the DFSG but reflects the DFSG and Debian's sense of
free software in gener
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 20030416T094049-0400, 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!
>
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
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Wendland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > is there anything like a Debian Free Software License? A license that is
> > modelled after the DFSG? For me as free software developer, that would be a
> > nice to have. I couldn't find a discussion about
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I propose that we:
> * draft a comprehensive critique of the GNU FDL 1.2, detailing
> section-by-section our problems with the license
> * draft a FAQ regarding why we differ with FSF orthodoxy on this
> issue
> * draf
On 20030416T094049-0400, 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 we were to add to each GFDL'd document a section (invaria
Joerg Wendland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> is there anything like a Debian Free Software License? A license that is
> modelled after the DFSG? For me as free software developer, that would be a
> nice to have. I couldn't find a discussion about something similar in the
> list archives. Is this worth a
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 02:47:20PM +0200, Joerg Wendland wrote:
> Hi fellows,
>
> is there anything like a Debian Free Software License? A license that is
> modelled after the DFSG? For me as free software developer, that would be a
> nice to have. I couldn't find a discussion about something simi
Hi fellows,
is there anything like a Debian Free Software License? A license that is
modelled after the DFSG? For me as free software developer, that would be a
nice to have. I couldn't find a discussion about something similar in the
list archives. Is this worth a discussion? Regarding the latest
Well, listening to Georg Greve it sounded like the FSF wanted an
official statement from Debian regarding the problems with
non-removability of invariant sections. In my very humble opinion,
Debian should try giving them that before taking (what would appear to
be) the more hostile actions suggeste
35 matches
Mail list logo
