I've been meaning to do this for some time...
For any and all works which I have licensed under the terms of the GNU
Free Documentation License, I hereby relicense under the terms of the
GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software
Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (a
Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you believe the GFDL is DFSG compliant it there are no
> Acknowledgements, Dedications, Invariant Sections or Cover Texts?
No. This part of section 2 is particularly problematic:
"You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:38:39AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> This is a DSFG-free, GPL-compatible, vaguely BSD-like license. No
> problem there.
>
> ... until and unless we learn that the author applies the obnoxious UW
> interpretation of "alter it and redistribute it". Our default
> interpr
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find such a defense of the GFDL to be the height of sophistry.
If you found that to be a defence of the GFDL, I want some of your drugs!
I think that GFDL is only called a "free documentation licence" which is
probably technically accurate, even if I
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't see how I was being inconsistent, if that's what you're saying.
>
> Acknowledgements and Dedications are not Invariant Sections or Cover
> Texts.
I overlooked the "Acknowledgements and Dedications" in the
referenced document. My bad.
Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 1) The GNU FDL does not satisfy the DFSG even if there are no Invariant
> > Sections or Cover Texts.
>
> A few minutes earlier Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > > Why not to use the GNU FDL:
> > > http:
On Sun Jul 06, 03:07am -0400, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
> I just submitted an article entitled "Which License for Free
> Documentation?" to http://advogato.org/
>
> I have several documents that are licensed under the GFDL. While I'm not
> sure I agree with your position about the GFDL, I can
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 12:06:24PM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 1) The GNU FDL does not satisfy the DFSG even if there are no Invariant
> > Sections or Cover Texts.
>
> A few minutes earlier Branden Robinson wrote:
>
[...]
>
> Will th
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 01:55:40AM -, MJ Ray wrote:
> 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
"Michael D. Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just submitted an article entitled "Which License for Free
> Documentation?" to
> http://advogato.org/
>
> I have several documents that are licensed under the GFDL. While
> I'm not sure I agree with your position about the GFDL, I can
> unders
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) The GNU FDL does not satisfy the DFSG even if there are no Invariant
> Sections or Cover Texts.
A few minutes earlier Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Why not to use the GNU FDL:
> > http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
>
> Wow. Mos
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 06:45:07PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I strongly object to this unless you're willing to mark the very
> section[1] you describe as motivating your proposal as "_very_ draft".
> I say this because it is *not* representative of current consensus on
> debian-legal.
Noti
I just submitted an article entitled "Which License for Free Documentation?" to
http://advogato.org/
I have several documents that are licensed under the GFDL. While I'm not sure I
agree with your position about the GFDL, I can understand why you feel that way,
so I posted the article to ask
13 matches
Mail list logo
