Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As you
> noted, one problem is to figure out how to regulate copying so that
> people can print books without onerous conditions. One possible
> solution is to add to GPL section 3) a fourth method for compliance
>
> d) Accompa
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The chief obstacle you point to is that we wonder "preferred *by
> whom*?"
I agree that this is the ambiguity which should be addressed. We also
need to achieve consensus on whether a work can be free if the author's
preferred form is only eas
Dmitry Borodaenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> even to its creator, 'form preferred for modification' should be chosen
> from forms remaining in existence.
You shouldn't be choosing at all. You should provide everything that
is likely to be useful.
For example, if you automatically converted a Pascal
Dmitry Borodaenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not every piece of information has a source code, and there are cases
> where source code availability can not provide full freedom of usage,
> modification, redistribution, and credit.
Every piece of information does have a preferred form for makin
Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> License texts must be objective, fair and reasonably precisely
> worded if they are to be enforceable.
This is mostly true, but it is very important to understand that we
are talking about *legally* objective, fair, precise. Such things as
"the preferred
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 02:47:58PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> Objection #2: This definition would make it harder to produce free
> software using non-free tools.
>
> Answer: If your codebase is in a proprietary format and you work
> on this using proprietary tools, and you release binary and sour
(I apologize for the fact that this won't thread.
Future messages should thread properly.)
I agree that for the purposes of writing guidelines, it is
not necessary to be either precise or objective. Therefore my
comments below relate to the definition of 'preferred form ...'
in the context of lic
The goal:
Unified copyleft license for free information.
The problem:
Not every piece of information has a source code, and there are cases
where source code availability can not provide full freedom of usage,
modification, redistribution, and credit.
The solution:
Define information source as
On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 02:54, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > A guideline of privacy could be read as a positive obligation that
> > DFSG-free software licences protect against information disclosure.
>
> How about, instead of "information disclosure", to s
9 matches
Mail list logo
