be a non-free requirement.
> You mean like the terms of the GPL?
The GPL doesn't require that anything be available for free _download_.
The GPL doesn't specify the method of distribution; you could distribute
only on a stack of backup tapes if you wanted to.
--
Hubert
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:06:09 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:07:48PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
>> You made the assertion that it was sufficient to just include a link
>> to the full document (including invariant sections) or to
ue that quotes from the GFDL. So as it
stands, as I see it, there has been no proof presented from the GFDL
that allows you to remove the invariant sections from a document and
just include a link to the originals.
--
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key:
up out of exhaustion.
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 01:42:44PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
>> 3a only says that a binary has to be *accompanied* with the source
>> code. Hence it can be on a separate medium. So you can distribute
>> your 1KB chip, stapled to a CD-ROM that contains the s
ed the program in object code or executable form with such
| an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
`
> try again. if you keep coming up with these absurd claims, the laws of
> chance says that you must get it right one day. OTOH, you've got a
> better chance of winning a big l
limit distribution to the modified binary to be "binary obtained from
original source + patch".
--
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.
iant section in documentation licensed under the GFDL
must be part of the opaque copy.
Whether this difference is significant or not can still be argued.
--
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF
alots offer proofs as well, or is this challenge only
open to zealots?
--
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred.
--
To
is only
maintained as a convenience to users. Putting something in non-free
basically means, "we can't put this into Debian proper because it
conflicts with our Social Contract, but we recognize that users may
still want to use it."
--
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - htt
ftware in the Public Interest, nor any of their
agents specifically make the same pledges as are contained in the
license. The complete text of the license follows below:
[etc.]
Is that too wordy? or unnecessary? Suggestions?
--
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/Gnu
Thanks for your analysis, Anthony.
>>>>> "Anthony" == Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Anthony> On Feb 24, 2004, at 16:02, Hubert Chan wrote:
>>
Hubert> [1] http://www.cypherspace.org/CPL
Anthony> Please paste license texts inline.
dy a free license,
then there's no real point in relicensing.
--
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred.
pgpLF9QeWB7kz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
documents are free, and was wondering if
anyone had any experience with that.
The FIPS home page is: http://www.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/
Again, please cc me as I am not subscribed.
--
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F7
ction, and on the entire license in general.
[1] http://www.cypherspace.org/CPL
Please cc me, as I am not subscribed to the list.
--
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
14 matches
Mail list logo
