J?r?me Marant said:
>En r?ponse ? Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 09:37:31AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
>> > What is the best way to convince GNU people to change their
>> licenses?
>> > (without being pissed of, that is).
>>
>> I'm not sure "GNU people" need to
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A political essay is (typically) written by certain persons to
> persuade the public of a certain position. If it is modified, it does
> not do its job. So it makes sense, socially, to say that these cannot
> be modified.
This may be true of some p
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 01:45 PM, Stephen Ryan wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2003-05-23 at 09:52, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>>
>> The other option, of course, is that the kernel exec() function *is* a
>> barrier, Debian *can* be used for real work and not j
Hi Richard Stallman,
> The idea of "merging the documentation into the software" is in general
> a purely academic issue--a hoop that there is no reason to jump through.
> It is always better to keep the manual separate and have the program
> display it, as in fact Emacs already does in sophistic
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When people think that invariant sections cause a practical problem,
> they tend to be overlooking something--either the scenario is
> unrealistic anyway, or the problem can be solved.
>
> > When we make decisions in the GNU Project about what coun
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 03:51:21PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-05-20 at 05:15, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > I am uncomfortable with some of the ramifications but I am also
> > uncomfortable with totally declawing the GNU GPL by adopting and
> > interpretation of it that would le
But in more practical terms even, political speech is very functional
-- it's meant to persuade and educate. By the same token it can have
bugs (typos or poor phraseology), malware (screeds advocating racism,
or encouraging people to kill themselves), and can be improved and/or
When people think that invariant sections cause a practical problem,
they tend to be overlooking something--either the scenario is
unrealistic anyway, or the problem can be solved.
> When we make decisions in the GNU Project about what counts as free
> software, or free documentation, they
> I investigated the situation with the GDB manual. It has two
> invariant sections, entitled Free Software and Free Software Needs
> Free Documentation. Both sections are secondary.
That doesn't make the issue go away.
It addresses the issue that was raised here before.
Someone
Barak Pearlmutter said:
>Simply make the GFDL be GPL compatible, the same way the LGPL was.
>Add a clause saying that the covered materials can be construed as
>source code and used under the GPL; and that the invariant sections
>should, under such circumstances, be regarded as materials simply
>
On Tue, 2003-05-20 at 05:15, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I am uncomfortable with some of the ramifications but I am also
> uncomfortable with totally declawing the GNU GPL by adopting and
> interpretation of it that would let people wrapper and language-bind
> their way out of the copyleft commons.
John Holroyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>FWIW I think RMS is right to insist that others cannot modify his
>political comments, but I think you are right to say that unmodifiable
>comments and texts (UTs) have no place being mandatorily included in
>the functional world of Free Software.
>Person
I'm an upstream developer for swish-e. I'm trying to get some help in
understanding GPL vs.
LGPL, and in plain language.
Swish-e is currently under GPL. I've been asking around and there seems to be
debate about
if using swish-e (a GPL program) in a proprietary product would force the
propri
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030524 13:08]:
> Maybe, but giving a supported distribution system for it removes some
> of the desire, doesn't it?
I think a distribution system with an emphasis on free software, also
helping with non-free bits one can not get rid from is something useful
to many p
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] *this* is something that belongs in non-free as
> a useful service.
People could provide an RFC apt source as a useful service.
[...policy vs users?...]
> Isn't that more or less exactly what some folks have been accusing the FSF
> of recently?
I don
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 00:04, Simon Law wrote:
>> Is it an appropriate time to reconsider its mention in Section 4
>> of our Social Contract?
> No. Wait until the voting GR is over. Then propose the get rid of
> non-free GR.
Is proposing a GR you
Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] Free software sadly
> needs some time to fit in al the niches, as much too few institutions
> have adopted it, and good code just needs time.
Maybe, but giving a supported distribution system for it removes some
of the desire, doesn't it?
> [..
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, there are many cases of this apparently happening.
Such as? And was uploading to non-free a temporary measure to prepare
a package while the copyright holder deliberated?
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http:/
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Langasek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hi Howard,
Hello there
> As I understand it, the "must" requirement of your license is entirely
> GPL-compatible, as the GPL also stipulates that one may not
> misrepresent
> the origin of the work. The problem aris
19 matches
Mail list logo
