--- Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But the freedom the project cares about are almost the same.
[...]
> This whole GNU FDL issue indeed show (minor) differences between
> Debian and GNU but I'm not sure this issue allows us to say "This one
> is better than this other one in terms of fr
--- Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:18:32AM +0100, J.D. Hood wrote:
> > That is not surprising, given that Debian, unlike the FSF, is not a
> > monarchy.
>
> ITYM "autocracy".
>
> A monarchy is an autoc
--- Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] please
> note that Richard Stallman does _not_ advocate different standards of
> freedom for documentation and for software, according to, for instance,
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00593.html
Any two thi
--- Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To my knowledge, only a very vocal minority of Debian Developers
> argues for the removal of documentation licensed under the GFDL (and
> even their views are far from consistent).
No one has surveyed DDs on this question, have they?
> You guys mig
I suggest that the definition of 'preferred form for
making modifications' be information-theoretical.
When source code is compiled into binary code there is a
loss of information, as indicated by the fact that you
cannot get the original source back, given only the binary
code.
On the other hand
The idea of writing a single license for both software and
documentation (i.e., for "content") is a good one. Perhaps
this could be done in GPL version 4. I would hope that in
extending it, the beauty of the current GPL is preserved.
What is beautiful about the GPL is that it grants the licensee
6 matches
Mail list logo
