Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like that document. Everyone concerned about the GNU FDL issue should
> read it.
Unfortunately, it makes the error of confusing the word "documentation"
with the word "document," I think. I'm not sure it was ever claimed
that a GFDL document was fr
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 04:41:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode
> Why not to use the GNU FDL:
> http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Wow. Most Apropos Sig Ever. :)
I like that document. Everyone concerned about the GNU FDL issue should
read it.
--
G. Brande
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 04:41:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Branden said:
> >We should probably go ahead with another draft of that document, yes.
>
> Right, so is anyone doing that?
I have not been. I have also been feeling guilty about not doing so.
--
G. Branden Robinson
[I am not subscribed to debian-doc; please follow-up to debian-legal.]
# Subject: Let's remove the 'draft' from the DDP Policy
# From: Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
# To: debian-doc@lists.debian.org
# Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:55:11 +0200
> Since no one has spoken against the
Branden said:
>On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 02:17:55PM -, MJ Ray wrote:
>> Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > This reminded me to ask: I haven't seen anything recently on the
>topic of
>> > what to do about GFDLed Debian packages. What's the current state
>of
>> > this discussion?
>>
>
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 04:14:56PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> anyway, I'll wait until Debian's position on the GFDL is documented
> somewhere and then address all these together.
How is that relevant?
--
Glenn Maynard
Henning Makholm writes:
> Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > gpl(7): that can be replaced with a reference to
> > /usr/share/misc/common-licenses
>
> > gfdl(7): that's included (as text, rather than a tagged manpage) in
> > /usr/share/cpp-3.3/copyright already, and is therefore re
Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> gpl(7): that can be replaced with a reference to
> /usr/share/misc/common-licenses
> gfdl(7): that's included (as text, rather than a tagged manpage) in
> /usr/share/cpp-3.3/copyright already, and is therefore redundant
And in any case, it seems to
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 09:16:41AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> gpl(7): that can be replaced with a reference to
> /usr/share/misc/common-licenses
/usr/share/common-licenses
Foo.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
`. `'
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:18:50PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
> > Package: cpp
> > Severity: serious
> >
> > The manpages fsf-funding(7), gpl(7), and gfdl(7) are included in the
> > cpp package. These are clearly non-free (non-modifiable).
>
> this doesn't make sense.
10 matches
Mail list logo
