On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 11:24:47PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >The source is defined as "The source code for a work means the
> >preferred
> >form of the work for making modifications to it."
> >
> >It's not always clear what the preferred form of modification would be
> >for a piece of media. [...]
>
On 2004-09-12 13:53:35 +0100 Kai Blin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The source is defined as "The source code for a work means the
preferred
form of the work for making modifications to it."
It's not always clear what the preferred form of modification would be
for a piece of media. [...]
So sp
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 10:03:22PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> I'm fine with recommending that people dual-license; as you say, it's
> a PITA otherwise. But incompatibility with the GPL does not cause
> GFDL non-freeness.
Assuming you meant DFSG here, I don't think anyone is suggesting that it
does.
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 09:21:43PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Side issue #1: even a GFDL with exceptions is still going to be GPL
> > incompatible. True, but that's also the case for several other
> > licenses that are considered DFSG-free, so the
4 matches
Mail list logo
