On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 11:50:45PM +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote:
> > Are you aware that there is much software
> > already in non-free which is freely redistributable but
> > non-modifiable?
>
> Then leave it there until someone starts complaining about it.
(and then continue leaving it
Hi Manoj,
On Friday 25 April 2003 10:54, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 04:57:36 +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > * Create a section 'distributable' that is between main and
> >non-free, for stuff that is not free WRT modification,
> >availabili
Hi Steve,
On Saturday 26 April 2003 06:15, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 10:49:26PM +0200, Thomas Uwe
> Gruettmueller wrote:
> > I don't think that freely distributable documents should be
> > mixed with stuff which is not [freely distributable]
> Why should Debian distinguish b
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But you're right that none of the notices you quote describe DFSG-free
> licensing terms. Feel free to join the ongoing quasiflamewar in the
> LGPL thread about the degree to which we care about that in the case
> of Stallman's essays.
If you think s
Scripsit Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Just one more comment: the versions of both of these two essays
> available on gnu.org (at http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html and
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html) have a slightly different
> license:
> Verbatim copying and distr
Scripsit Jonathan Fine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Now to the problem. Debian guideline 5 states "The
> license must not discriminate against any person or
> group of persons."
>
> The proposed LaTeX license defines the Current Maintainer.
> The license grants these person(s) privileges that are
> not
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 08:08:01PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> According to Dylan Thurston (see #154043), some files shipped
> with GNU Emacs could be considered as non-free.
>
> One of them is /usr/share/emacs/21.3/etc/LINUX-GNU.
>
> The problem seem to come from the footer which m
Hi,
According to Dylan Thurston (see #154043), some files shipped
with GNU Emacs could be considered as non-free.
One of them is /usr/share/emacs/21.3/etc/LINUX-GNU.
The problem seem to come from the footer which mentions:
Copyright 1996 Richard Stallman
Verbatim copying and redistribution
As I am new to this discussion, first here are some words
about myself and my understanding of the situation.
I'm a longstanding user of TeX, and author of TeX macros.
Some years ago I did a small amount of volunteer work
for the LaTeX-3 project. My current interests include
XML-front ends, and
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 02:40:29AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > It still contains an invariant section, though it's less severe than the
> > GFDL type, as it can be removed. I don't believe there's consensus that
> > invariant sections in general are okay as long as they can be removed,
>
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[GPL preamble]
> > It still contains an invariant section, though it's less severe than the
> > GFDL type, as it can be removed.
> It's nothing special created by the copyright license. Its the general
> rule that you aren't allowed to misrepresent
On Sat, 2003-04-26 at 01:41, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> It still contains an invariant section, though it's less severe than the
> GFDL type, as it can be removed. I don't believe there's consensus that
> invariant sections in general are okay as long as they can be removed,
> though.
It's nothing s
On Sat, 2003-04-26 at 01:17, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I am not arguing that dynamic linking creates a derivative work, and I'm
> not sure the FSF is, either. I *am* arguing that it is within the
> purview of the GPL to impose restrictions on redistribution of dependent
> works whether or not these
On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 12:34, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Of course both of these limits are
> judgement calls, and each particular Invariant-But-Removable
> section will have to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
> [Hmmm.. so I think at least, but I'm not sure that this is
>
On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 22:33, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> RFC authors do it all the time, by issuing updates to existing RFC
> documents. They say "Do it like this, except for this, this, and this".
No, that's generally only done for tiny changes: Adding a bit here or
there, etc.
For large changes,
On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 22:27, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> Except that it's typically a lot easier to work out where a program has been
> incompatibly modified ("oops, compile error, damn, the API changed") than a
> standard has been modified. The use of 'diff' notwithstanding.
Well, when you modify a
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 12:24:56AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> 1) You remove the FSF's endorsement of the license which
>is the preamble. The Debian Project has no problem with
>this; it is certainly an author's right to refuse to
>endorse arbitrary changes.
> So
On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 20:04, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> Modifying an RFC and re-releasing it is not a good thing,
And why isn't it? Is it a bad thing if I modify the TCP/IP-related RFCs
to produce a book on TCP/IP? Is it a bad thing if I copy some packet
formats, and their related descriptions, out
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 08:02:45PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > My question is, how is a package that depends on DBD::mysql materially
> > different from a compiled program that links dynamically against
> > libmysqlclient?
> A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more
>
On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 11:26, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> On one hand, the
> benefits to be gained from a free-software-like approach to purely
> artistic/aesthetic (i.e., non-functional) works aren't as obvious.
A rather ironic statement in a Bazaar-type development of the wording of
a position state
20 matches
Mail list logo
