Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 02:38:36PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote: > > I believe this comment is a mischaracterisation of the consensus that > > has developed on this list. Recently explained by Nathanael Nerode on > > the glibc mailing list: > >

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:14:45 -0400 (EDT), Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > said: > > The .orig.tar.gz files only have to be > > purged of non-free stuff if that stuff can't be distributed at all. > > AIUI, it is perfectly acceptable to have non-fre

Re: Should our documentation be free? (Was Re: Inconsistencies in our approach)

Don Armstrong wrote: However, you still have not brought forward a definition that adequately draws a bright line to distinguish between software and documentation. That is, at what point does software stop being software and become documentation, and vice versa? I see no need (but it is still

MHOA

Your request has been received and when prosessed you will be notified by email which reads: "Done". These are autoresponders, please do not reply.

Re: Should our documentation be free? (Was Re: Inconsistencies in our approach)

First off, sorry for starting off an old discussion. I've been away for the past two weeks. [If any one cares, there are pictures available on my website.] On Wed, 06 Aug 2003, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: > So, if you find a definition which makes no difference between > software and documentation

Re: Advice on DFSG status of this licence

On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 10:13:18PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hi, > > > > I'm considering packaging up RIPE's whois server, and the closest thing I > > can find to a licence in the source tarball is the contents of the COPYING > > file, at t

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:14:45 -0400 (EDT), Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 15:00, Peter S Galbraith wrote: >> > I'd rather we stick to our principles, but clearly there isn't a >> > consensus on that. >> >> That's a low blo

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Anthony Towns wrote: > My next post to -devel-announce will discuss some of these finer details. > In short, some members of the FSF have asked for us to give them some > more time to come up with a GFDL that's DFSG-free before we go all > gung-ho about putting it in non-free and having bigger co

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 02:38:36PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote: > I believe this comment is a mischaracterisation of the consensus that > has developed on this list. Recently explained by Nathanael Nerode on > the glibc mailing list: >

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 15:00, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > I'd rather we stick to our principles, but clearly there isn't a > > consensus on that. > > That's a low blow. > > So what's your timeline for migration? Move Emacs into non-free today? > The .orig.

Re: Advice on DFSG status of this licence

Le mer 20/08/2003 à 04:13, Brian T. Sniffen a écrit : > > The only bit I'm unsure of is the last sentence. Does it mean we can't > > refer to it as the "RIPE whois server"? > The last sentence just means that "Install Debian GNU/Hurd, with the > RIPE Whois Server!" shouldn't show up on our poster

Re: FFII-online-protest against patents

On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 12:54:12PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 06:38:16PM +0200, Felix E. Klee wrote: > > > > I guess that most of you are informed about software patents and > > > > know that they are incompatible with most, if not all, free software > > > > licenses(if n

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 15:00, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > I believe this comment is a mischaracterisation of the consensus that > > has developed on this list. Recently explained by Nathanael Nerode on > > the glibc mailing list: > >