Anthony DeRobertis writes:
> I believe there are essentially two reconciliations we can have for each
> problem listed in the position statement [2]: Either "that does not make
> things non-free" or "that is not the intended reading of the license,
> stop nit-picking so much."
For the "DRM" restri
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:35:55AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Moglen is a liar. And Stallman too.
*plonk*
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:34:24AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> On 1/18/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 1/18/06, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:48:11AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > >
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:48:11AM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Care to post a link to rules of New York?
It's not up to me. You charged Moglen with offenses, you back it up.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I think you're the third person to say something along those lines: "be
> thankful, it could be a lot worse". It's still endorsing an extremely
> onerous class of restriction, implying that it's acceptable, helpful,
> and that the classes of application screwed over by it is
On 1/17/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Eben had a really humorous explanation, which I will attempt to
> paraphrase from my (impressively imperfect) memory:
>
>No lawyer knows exactly why we have been shouting at eachother for
>the past 50(?) years; but since everyone
From: "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Where did the "unless that component itself accompanies the
> executable" go? Is it somewhere else?
It has been eliminated, intentionally. The rationale is to make
things like Debian GNU/Solaris legal (currently a distribution
can't contain both the
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 t
I'm pleased to see that documentation writers are trying to figure
out a way to clean up some issues with the GNU FDL. It seems,
though, that some of the commenters are getting sidetracked by side
issues.
Side issue #1: even a GFDL with exceptions is still going to be GPL
incompatible. True, bu
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 07:30:56PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> In my personal opinion, the "moral rights" idea is very disturbing. I
> know it has its defenders, ...
The issue is not whether it's right or wrong. It's more fundamental than
that. The DFSG were originally designed for software;
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not clear what "the extent practicable" means here, but it sounds
> like you may be required to purge the authors name/etc. from the work if
> the author asks you to. That sounds like another non-free point.
Careful. Is Debian attempting to push
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 08:48:17PM +0200, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
> Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free
> Documentation License?
Branden Robinson writes:
> There has been no formal statement issued by the developers, but Debian
> seldom bothers with such things. We go y
12 matches
Mail list logo
