sible in TeX, however.
In any case, I agree with others in this group. Non-free is non-free.
--
Scott Dier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.ringworld.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rts is
against the license.
Could DFSG 9 be applied to the restrictions to distribution in the license?
--
Scott Dier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.ringworld.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
' behind it. But I didn't think we were packaging
the current contents.
Of course, the constitution is in the archive, but I dont think that
prevents anyone from mangling it and giving it out. It isn't a
constitution that *we* as a project will acknowledge as ours.
Get your c
this issue further; however, the Free Software Foundation
> appears to be unwilling to negotiate further on this matter (so please
> don't bother them about it).
>
> I welcome feedback on this proposal, but please read the archives of
> debian-legal as referenced above before respon
ts Free to stay
Current is also a waste of time.
So, the idea is that you either have non-free docs that dont go
electronic, or you have Free docs that are maintainable and highly
available with people buying the book because they want to either
support the author or have a nice bound typeset versi
elines, where as the
License is the focus, and not the contents.
Pehraps lots of docs in main will be affected, but do we want to
deticate space and bandwidth to non-free licensing, or does the cabal of
publishing ideas limit us to thinking of documentation as Free?
--
Scott Dier <[EMAIL PROTE
6 matches
Mail list logo
