In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> To be precise, the reference you cited (thanks!) makes it clear that
>> RMS considers the "free" in "free software" to apply only to the
>> "technical functionality" of the work, whether t
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:13:12 -0500
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As the discussion about FDL and the RFCs continues, I have seen various
> people attempt to disect the DFSG, or to redefine "software" in a highly
> loose manner, or to question DFSG's applicability to non-software items.
MJ Ray wrote:
>
> Does anyone have *NEW DATA* to bring to the discussion?
as a mostly passive observer at this point, the only data we are missing
is a clear working definition to separate out Software, Data, and
Documentation.
once we do that to our own satisfaction, then we can get on with
def
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BZZT. That is exactly the argument John just asked us not to make.
I think your buzzer is malfunctioning. John seemed to be asking us not
to stretch the DFSG to non-software. Not the same thing.
[Software/Docs distinction]
> So's this. And it's been said a
John Goerzen wrote:
> All of the arguments being made about freeness of documentation -- that
> somebody may want to develop a document based on the original -- would also
> apply to licenses (perhaps I wish to develop a license based on the GPL).
> Yet we are ignoring the problem with the license
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
>
>> DMCA 1201(a)(1)(A): No person shall circumvent a technological
>> measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under
>> this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sente
MJ Ray wrote:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As the discussion about FDL and the RFCs continues, I have seen various
> > people attempt to disect the DFSG, or to redefine "software" in a highly
> > loose manner, or to question DFSG's applicability to non-software items.
>
> If FDL-c
Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To be precise, the reference you cited (thanks!) makes it clear that
> RMS considers the "free" in "free software" to apply only to the
> "technical functionality" of the work, whether the work is a program
> or documentation: he writes
The problem is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
> DMCA 1201(a)(1)(A): No person shall circumvent a technological
> measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under
> this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall
> take effect at the end of the 2-year period
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 09:03:19PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > 2. Would removing the specifications around wich large parts of our
> > system are based benefit our users? Free Software?
>
> No. Would it harm them? Not really. Including them, or not, does not
> have a significant effect
John Goerzen said:
> Problem #2: Double Standards
>
> We have, and continue to, allow information to be distributed with
> software under even more strict terms than the FDL.
The entire debate revolves around the question of "will [we]* continue to
allow information to be distributed under non-fre
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 12:13:12PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> I think this points out to me that a "strict constructionist" approach to
> documentation does not serve us well. Speaking in a general sense, rather
> than with regard to the particulars of the FDL, it does not prove a
> significant
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 12:13:12PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> I have for some time been lurking during the discussions of the FDL, RFC
> issues, and related matters, and I am getting an increasingly uneasy feeling
> about the consensus that appears to be starting to coalesce around them.
> You
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 09:09:10AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > > This is an arbitrary distinction that has no clear basis in the law.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
> You are incorrect. The Free Software Foundation has a monopoly on the
> trade mark "GNU". As a result, no other organization may title a
> document "GNU Manifesto" without the FSF's permission.
Well, some might. :) The word is also trademarked by
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
> *ALL* of these approaches are wrong. Putting non-software items into
> the same box as a very different beast serves only to cloud the
> issue.
No one as yet has come forward with a compelling argument as to why we
should consider treating documentation
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 09:09:10AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > This is an arbitrary distinction that has no clear basis in the law.
> > > You are also circumventing CSS by playing the DVD
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray wrote:
> Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray wrote:
>>> ... Both FSF and Debian agree that FDL-covered works are not free
>>> software, ...
>> To the best of my knowledge, this is not correct: RMS seems to argue
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As the discussion about FDL and the RFCs continues, I have seen various
> people attempt to disect the DFSG, or to redefine "software" in a highly
> loose manner, or to question DFSG's applicability to non-software items.
If FDL-covered works are not softw
Hello,
I have for some time been lurking during the discussions of the FDL, RFC
issues, and related matters, and I am getting an increasingly uneasy feeling
about the consensus that appears to be starting to coalesce around them.
You may note that I am a staunch Free Software advocate as you read
Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray wrote:
>> ... Both FSF and Debian agree that FDL-covered works are not free
>> software, ...
> To the best of my knowledge, this is not correct: RMS seems to argue
> that a manual published under the FDL is free in
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray wrote:
> ... Both FSF and Debian agree that FDL-covered works are not free
> software, ...
To the best of my knowledge, this is not correct: RMS seems to argue
that a manual published under the FDL is free in the free software
sense, since you can make any f
Sergey V. Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is clear for me, why FDL appears: it is needed to help technical
> writers earn money by writing free documentation for free software and
> to help publishers of free manuals make a profit from them [1].
That may be clear to you, but should we
23 matches
Mail list logo
