Branden Robinson wrote:
> Free software has become so successful that the arguments about what it can
> and cannot accomplish are being held about things that arguably aren't
> software at all. Documentation, polymodels, sound effects, fonts -- we
> need a way to separate the free wheat from the
Anthony Towns wrote:
> The problem with this is that most people aren't working from a
> "intellectual property isn't" perspective. Debian's webpages are Debian's,
> why should anyone else get any access to them? Sure, viewing them is a
> good idea, but why should they be redistributable? Well, I
Per Lundberg wrote:
> That's not what I said. They are art. Art doesn't have "source code"
> in the same way as software.
>
> TW> And programming is kind of art.
>
> Sure. But *software* is not art.
If programming is a means of artistic expression, surely software must
be an art form.
For
Per Lundberg wrote:
> TW> Why Debian's web pages are under such a licence ? It's not
> TW> DFSG-free.
>
> Web pages are not software.
Is there a sensible difference?
Terry
David Johnson wrote:
> I didn't check for every GPL application that uses Qt, only one example
> is sufficient. The package licq 0.44-4, in stable, uses the Qt library,
> along with being licensed under the GPL. It does not have any additional
> clauses at all. I looked. I didn't find any.
If tha
David Wiley wrote:
> Perhaps it has to do with a fundamental difference between code and content,
> let
> us say prose, for example. While there are almost an infinity of ways to code
> a
> program so that it fulfills a specific purpose, whether or not it fulfills its
> express purpose is a rath
Branden Robinson wrote:
> Flowery language about artistic expression and brush strokes upon the
> canvas is well and good, but these concepts are subjectively evaluated. I
That was for ldp-discuss.
Documentation licensing issues have been topics of hot debate on the LDP
mailing list for years, a
Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> I think you are overly enamored of your own analogies, so much so that
> you're asserting a slippery slope argument with a JATO engine strapped to
> your back, but I'll take the "please don't" part under advisement.
Your crossposting to ldp-discuss and debian-legal has
Branden Robinson wrote:
> It's not yet well known outside the project, but we have recently created a
> new section of our archive called "data", which comprises non-executing
> data of any format.
>
> I think it may be possible to extend the DFSG[2] a little bit to permit
> information under RMS
9 matches
Mail list logo
