Jerome said:
> It's time for you to start a new manual, isn't it? :-)
Yeah. :-) But I've been contenting myself with commenting the code and
documenting it within the files themselves, in --help, etc. :-)
Of which there's plenty that needs to be done.
--Nathanael
>Please note, that this could also played backward. Why should libel
>or slander be extended to the work of the authors?
Huh? It's not being extended at all. There's no right of the *work*.
It's simply the right of the *author* not to be defamed. You can do
whatever you want with the work if
Good news everyone,
Dave Turner, the FSF's ``GPL Compliance Engineer'' suggests including
the DOE text in the SAME FILE as the GPL will be sufficient to honour
the DOE's requirement while also not modifying the GPL. The text should
note that it is not part of the licence.
Below is my suggested re
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Those are our goals for wanting the GNU FDL to be widely used, but
> those are not our only goals in choosing licenses for our manuals.
The key question is: is the FSF prepared to abandon its use of
non-free licenses for manuals?
Debian stands for f
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> RMS could use his 'moral rights' to prevent someone from
>> distributing a version of Emacs which could read and write Microsoft
>> Word files (file format being reverse-engineered).
>
> No he can't.
En réponse à Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Emacs is a perfect example. The documentation can be integrated into
> emacs as context-sensitive help. We cannot then distinguish. Since
> pretty much all documentation *could* have this integration done, we
> can't usefully distinguish
En réponse à Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'd do it for GCC. Unfortunately, there's no clearly free version of
> the manual which is even remotely recent, so I'd actually have to write
>
> it from scratch, which I'm not up to doing.
>
> Actually... given that several GCC contributor
En réponse à Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jerome Marant:
> > Writing docs is something people don't like. Let's be realistic.
>
> Speak for yourself. I love writing documentation. I'd be doing massive
Speak for yourself :-)
> amounts of work on the GCC manual right now if it weren
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Does this "clear" implication extend to documentation released
>> under a Free licence? Does this "clear" implication extend to
>> literary, visual arts, or audio works released under a Free license?
>
> I'd say yes, *if* the author *voluntarily* ma
Hi,
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 12:03:56PM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I've been asked to provide the list of patents that my package
> > may/may not be possibly infriging on.
> > As you can imagine this task is way beyond my capabilities,
>
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> > Is there some policy about which patents do we ignore and which do we
> > respect?
>
> We do not ignore any patent.
Who is Branden supposed to send the royalty checks for patent #4,197,590
to again? (That's the XOR cursor patent.)
--
see shy jo
pgpIA1
Scripsit Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That's not so beyond: you should be shure that the package you are building
> is compliant to our DFSG and that is not violating any patent or
> copyright. That mean you should inspect any file in the source.
You're misunderstanding so
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 08:47:33AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 12:03:56PM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I've been asked to provide the list of patents that my package
> > may/may not be possibly infriging on.
> > As you can imagine this t
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No he can't. His placing Emacs under a free license, aside from his
> numerous writings about software freedom, clearly imply that his works
> have no intrinsic artistic character that could possibly be violated
> by any third-party modification.
This
Scripsit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm said:
> > No he can't. His placing Emacs under a free license, aside from his
> > numerous writings about software freedom, clearly imply that his works
> > have no intrinsic artistic character that could possibly be violated by
> > any third-party mo
Not consistently. The GNU FDL is a licensing initiative that is
apparently intended to be used for all FSF documentation. The
traditional GNU documentation license did not always include Invariant
Sections.
In the past, some of our manuals included invariant sections and some
did
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 12:03:56PM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
> Hello,
> I've been asked to provide the list of patents that my package
> may/may not be possibly infriging on.
> As you can imagine this task is way beyond my capabilities,
> so what should one do with this?
That's not so beyo
Henning Makholm said:
> Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> RMS could use his 'moral rights' to prevent someone from
>> distributing a version of Emacs which could read and write Microsoft
>> Word files (file format being reverse-engineered).
>
> No he can't. His placing Emacs under a
Hi Dariush Pietrzak,
> Hello,
> I've been asked to provide the list of patents that my package
> may/may not be possibly infriging on.
What package? By whom?
> As you can imagine this task is way beyond my capabilities,
> so what should one do with this?
> Are all package maintainers required
Hello,
I've been asked to provide the list of patents that my package
may/may not be possibly infriging on.
As you can imagine this task is way beyond my capabilities,
so what should one do with this?
Are all package maintainers required to do this?
Is there some policy about which patents do we
* Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030518 22:18]:
> >Why do you think the concept is bogus? In principle I think it's
> >a good idea to have something that prevents others from mutilating
> >my work. The implementation sucks greatly though.
>
> It's bogus because it impinges on free speech an
21 matches
Mail list logo
