On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 02:45 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> What I was trying to show is that the relevance of a copyright case
> brought against you in a jurisdiction outside of your immediate concern
> is zero, for all practical matters; that means you can simply ignore it,
> and nothing Bad will
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
>
> Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
> you're not a lawyer.
So, do you have anything to say about what Nath
Daniel Schepler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Saturday 12 August 2006 02:47 am, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Daniel Schepler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > According to the GPL, section 0:
>> >
>> > The act of running the Program is not rest
Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, I *do* believe that d-l is a cesspit, and I for one am very
> glad that in its current incarnation, it is not at all binding and has
> no value other than being a debating socity --- a debating socity that
> I am very glad that I can avoid, thank
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Sure. SPI owns many of the machines that Debian owns. If any of these
>> machines are being used to distribute this software, as I think is
>> likely, then SPI could be liable.
>
> Oh, very good point. I ha
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> once again: you *can* modify an invariant section by "patching" it. the
> GFDL does not say "you can not modify at all", it says "you can not
> delete or change these small secondary sections, but you can add your
> own comments to them".
A patched ver
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 t
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> bullshit. "freedom", as used by Debian, is explicitly defined in the
> DFSG. the DFSG has a number of clauses detailing what we consider
> free and what we don't consider free. convenience is NOT one of those
> clauses, and never was. in fact, convenienc
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> why are you obsessing with a convenience issue and pretending that it
> has ANY BEARING AT ALL on freedom issues? it doesn't.
I think if you'll look at the header you'll see that this is about "a
new practical problem". If you aren't interested in the
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the GPL says you must include the full machine-readable/editable source
> code, so if you can't do that in a given medium (say, a chip with 1KB
> capacity) then GPL software is not free in any medium.
Of course, but that isn't an imposition on changes.
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> there's nothing in the GFDL that prevents you from doing that. the
> capabilities of your medium are beyond the ability of the GFDL (or any
> license) to control.
This is hardly true. The GFDL says you must transmit the original
Japanese text in the ca
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> don't be an idiot. you only have to keep the invariant sections if you
> are DISTRIBUTING a copy. you can do whatever you want with your own
> copy.
Right, so you can't *distribute* a copy on an ASCII-only medium, even
of the English translation of a
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> It seems to me that the papers at a Debian conference are almost all
>> related to programs in Debian.
>
> You expect no contributions about release procedu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>> Personally, I'd like to read the papers. It's a shame that Debian
>> can't distribute them to me.
> Debian does not want, it's quite a different issue.
Debian does not want what? To distribute them? Hogwash. I'd be
happy to upload them.
--
To U
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Are you saying that Debian has too much documentation? What is the
>> non-computer-program which we have "too much" of?
> No, I am saying t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, I was under the impression that every package in Debian was
>> software. Are you confusing software and computer programs?
> No, I j
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I think the best reason to ask or require contributors to licenses
>> their papers in a DFSG form is so that Debian can distribute the
>> papers as part
I think the best reason to ask or require contributors to licenses
their papers in a DFSG form is so that Debian can distribute the
papers as part of Debian.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | The Covered Code is a "commercial item," as that term is defined in
> | 48 C.F.R. 2.101 (Oct. 1995), consisting of "commercial computer
> | software" and "commercial computer software documentation," as such
> | terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (Se
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[a lot of repetition that pretty much ignores what I said, and
especially where I said:]
>> So this is a tempest in a silly teapot. I'm happy to leave the thread
>> here, since the upshot is a no-relevance-to-important-issues.
So, since you ignor
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry about that; I skipped a step or two. Your "unilateral grant of
> permission" is not in fact a recognized mechanism under law for the
> conveyance of a non-exclusive copyright license.
I'm sorry, can you point me to the statute here? The
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At this point, there seem to be quite a
> few people who agree that the FSF's stance ("copyright-based license")
> and the far-from-novel one that you advance ("unilateral license /
> donee beneficiaries") are untenable in the jurisdictions with w
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Um, it is true that the rules for interpreting the meaning of licenses
>> are more or less the same as the rules for interpreting contracts. It
>> does not follow that licenses are therefore contracts.
>
> The words "license" and "contract" are
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> An action for copyright
> infringement, or any similar proceeding under droit d'auteur for
> instance, will look at the GPL (like any other license agreement) only
> through the lens of contract law. IANAL, TINLA. I don't believe you
> have succ
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The FAQ is not merely an "interesting commentary" -- it is the
> published stance of the FSF, to which its General Counsel refers all
> inquiries. Although I am not legally qualified to judge, I believe
> that he can have no reasonable basis unde
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The parsimonious explanation is that the issue wasn't thought about in
> that much detail when the social contract was written. The archives tend
> to support this. The obvious thing to do here is not to attempt to find
> a way that we can interpret th
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let's pretend that Debian actually has a significant amount of leverage
> on this sort of issue, and that vendors see their drivers appearing in
> contrib and want to do something about it. They /could/ open the
> firmware and provide a toolchain for i
"John H. Robinson, IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The only difference is in *performance*. If there are other differences,
> then there is a bug in one of the two compilers. If you are equating
> performance with functionality, then we are going to have a very hard
> time communicating.
This i
The growth of other commitments and my increasing disgust for the
anti-free positions of the FSF are causing me to reevaluate many of my
commitments.
As a consequence, I am signing off many of the Debian lists I have
been active on, most notably, debian-legal. I am still interested in
the issues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> The copyright holder can be an individual or a group, but in any case
> >> an entity recognized by the law.
> >
> > Sure. But he doesn't have to identify himself, and certainly not by
> > his actual
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The trademark restrictions could probably be written in such a way as to
> fall under the spirit of the "if you change it, don't call it foo"
> allowances.
>
> We just need to be wary of any precarious slopes in doing so.
Agreed.
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> More importantly, the DFSG talks about required freedoms. If freedoms
> for a work are actively being restricted by eg. trademark or patent law,
> then the work is just as non-free as if they were restricted by copyright.
> For example, if the Official
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > So our policy is to not fret at all unless we have real reason to
> > worry.
>
> Oh sure, but that's unrelated to the legality/illegality of infringing
> a pat
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Now, 287(a)[2] limits the damages that can be assessed against an
> >> un-notified infringer, but doesn't
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now, 287(a)[2] limits the damages that can be assessed against an
> un-notified infringer, but doesn't change the illegality of the
> infringing.
So what? We have an existing policy.
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Plagiarism and|or corruption of social, political and,
> especially religious texts was unanimously considered harmful and
> was punishable a millennia before invention of the first copyright
> law[*]. This was solely in the interest of public, withou
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 02:30, D. Starner wrote:
>
> > Okay, I have an Algol68 compiler written at Oklahoma State University
> > in 1971. (This is not a hypothetical - I have this code, and have
> > considered porting it to a more modern system, say
ams was copyrighted
> > relatively late, in 1976 year in USA, in 1991 year in Russia and
> > maybe even later in some other countries.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> > Computer Programs Political Writing
> > Sta
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the english law definition of 'illegal' is 'illegal in England' or
> 'illegal in England or your locality' then this is a useage
> restriction. Contrawise, if 'illegal' means only 'illegal in your
> locality' it isn't a useage restriction.
Right. My
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The whole point of choice-of-law is that it doesn't do anything more
> > than answer the otherwise uncertain question "whose law governs
> > this".
>
> Or more acurately: 'whose law is used to interpret the meaning of this
> license', which basically
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Such provision, IMHO, is contradicts to article 5 of Berne
> Convention, when applied to copyright matters. Therefore, such
> provision may make all license either illegal or unenforceable.
You are misreading the Berne Convention, here. The license
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > The laws of England control *interpretation* of the contract,
>
> Just interpreting the GPL according to the laws of Germany might result
> in further restrictions. For example, GPL
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The same (see above) point is not correct for political
> speech. Unlimitedly modifiable political speech is _not_ a normal
> mode of operation and never was.
Political speech has been around for about two thousand, six hundred
years, at least, in
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh, definetly. It's clearly open for interpretation, my issue is that
> it's very vague and has to be interpreted. Eg, where do the laws of
> England stop and the laws of the jurisdiction of the licensee begin?
The laws of England control *interpretatio
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The first part seems to indicate that purposes that are illegal in
> England are prohibited by the license. This is is a usage restraint,
> as England might choose to make certain useages of information
> illegal, whereas they remain legal in other count
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:35:44PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > >
> > > > The terms of use are to be construed in accordance with the Laws of
> > > > England.
>
> It would be significantly inconvinient for a foreign user to be forced
> to appe
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That doesn't mean we regard people who were born British subjects as
> eligible for the office of president today.
Some such people are, of course, since one can be a dual national.
The requirement is that you be a natural born citizen, not that you
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, I think this creates a bit of cognitive dissonance. So,
> presumably, does Bruce Perens, who has called upon us to kick non-free
> to the curb.
>
> I mean, come on. We expect people to intuitively understand
> "distribution" as something othe
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free
> software.
>
> I should have said "the GNU Project" rather than "the FSF", since the
> GNU Project led to FSF and has always been larger.
>
> When the GNU Project started, t
We've already had this survey. Can you perhaps say why you are taking
yet another, why you think the conclusions might be different, and
what you think the survey is intended to show?
Thomas
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have only criticized Debian for one thing, and that is the practice
> of distributing non-free software (programs). This is something
> Debian has done for many years, not something I imagine it might do.
I don't think you understand the distincti
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I didn't say that. I said we built the community, which we did by
> pushing for free software when nobody else did. Of course, many
> others have contributed since then.
I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free
software.
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2003-09-30 05:25:50 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > This appears to be a variation on the "If we can't all be rich then we
> > should all be poor" idea, which I reject.
>
> It's not. It's the "level playing field" idea.
It's not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
> > A good candidate would also be familiar with debian-legal's analysis
> > of the GFDL.
>
> This would only be the case if we had to prove that invariant sections are
> outside of the DFSG. I don't think we will have to argue about that,
> it's pretty ob
Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, according to your defintion "software" is synonym to
> "digital information". Right?
Wrong. "Software" is synonymous with "information".
> Song written on CDDA is a software, whereas the song written on a
> analog magnetic tape (exactly the sam
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
> Bear in mind that Debian does distribute freely modifiable political
> text, for which the original author is *dead*, and yet his original
> words are still copied about substantially unchanged: the book of
> Amos, for example, in package bible-kjv-te
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sadly, it leaves him open to accusations from both sides that he is
> representing the other one instead of them. I'm not sure that those
> accusations should be taken seriously, but they are quite likely to
> happen, in my experience.
Um, well, I think on th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
> A good candidate would also be familiar with debian-legal's analysis
> of the GFDL. Any of N Nerode, D Armstrong, or A DeRobertis would
> serve well -- Branden Robinson would, I suspect, be objectionable to
> the FSF, and Thomas Bushnell is a GNU dev
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To be fair, the joke in poor taste is that we demand people speak English on
> this list, but my thoughts on that are well-known --
> http://ttt.esperanto.org/
Why, because more people speak Esperanto?
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > You don't even have to go through that much of a hassle.
> >
> > Old-Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> That could of been forged.
Note to self: when forging Anthony DeRobertis, spell it "could of".
Check.
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think
> > it needs to be possible to use text from manuals in a program.
> > A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals.
>
> And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as
>
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you want to criticize the FSF based on things you can imagine we
> might do, I am sure you can imagine no end of nasty possibilities.
> The only answer necessary to them is that they are false.
You are criticizing Debian based on things you can im
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The point I am making is that Debian might indeed remove the political
> essays from our manuals if they could be removed. A few months ago,
> some people said here that if only the invariant sections could be
> removed (even though they could not be
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Your casual suggestion to "pick whichever seems better" leaves out the
> object: better for whom? For the Free Software community? For the
> Free Software Foundation, whose goals are quite different?
>
> That is a cheap shot, because it
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) Because the borders between the cases are ambiguous and uncertain.
>
> I sent a message a day or two ago (perhaps after you sent this one)
> which addresses that issue.
>
> 2) Because we want to be able to combine works from different sou
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We want to have freedom over what we distribute in "binary" packages.
> We are willing to tolerate noxious restrictions like the TeX ones only
> because they do not impact what we can distribute in the binary
> package: they only restr
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2003-09-24 23:12:06 +0100 Carl Witty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Software" is a controversial word in English.
>
> "Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the
> automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes." --
> M
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think that nontechnical invariant comments do not make a program
> non-free, but not for those reasons. The reason is that this is a
> packaging requirement that doesn't really restrict you from making the
> program substantively behave as you want
Stephen Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, you're not the only one with that impression. Personally, I'm ready
> to killfille [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a bunch of trolls. The only reason I
> haven't is that I think there are some people worth listening to who are
> part of gnu, but you'd never kn
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We are talking about two different kinds of packaging. When I speak
> of a "packaging requirement" I'm talking about a requirement that
> applies to the form of a program or other work, but not the substance.
> This a different kind of packaging from
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the whole docu would be DFSG-free, than there would be no cause to
> remove polical statements.
>
> According to Don Armstrong, a non-modifiable text cannot under any
> circumstances be considered DFSG-free, so it would have to be removed
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have never considered the question of whether the GFDL is a free
> software license. The question seems purely academic, since it is (1)
> not meant as a license for programs, and (2) clearly an annoying
> license to use for programs. So I don't k
Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Adobe has patents which it claims apply to PDF and has licensed them only
> for the purpose of creating compatible implementations.
>
> http://partners.adobe.com/asn/developer/legalnotices.jsp
>
> If you modified an application which implements PDF
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> I am not saying that the DFSG is evil, just that it isn't free (and
> our logos aren't either), and therefore can't be in a free OS (and so
> also our logos can't).
Of course I meant "GFDL" where I said "DFSG". Sorry for the
confusion.
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I value freedom in documentation just as much as I do for programs. I
> > value it so much that I designed the GFDL specifically to induce
> > commercial publishers to publish free documentation.
>
> You don't value the freedom to
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) Because the borders between the cases are ambiguous and uncertain.
>
> I sent a message a day or two ago (perhaps after you sent this one)
> which addresses that issue.
By saying "everything has ambiguous and uncertain borders". But hey!
We
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Everything in Debian is software; the "official logo" is not free, and
> therefore is not in Debian.
>
> Fortunately it is not necessary for me to understand this.
Many things are on Debian servers which are not part of the Debian
system. T
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This has been explained to you enough times that your attempt to
> pretend it hasn't can no longer be attributed to ignorance.
>
> I am not pretending anything--I consider the issue a red herring. So
> I have addressed the issues I think are
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't agree that the latter is the important question. I think the
> former is the question that matters. I am not sure if the GFDL is a
> free software license, but I don't think the question matters.
When people said the GFDL is incompatible wi
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The text in the manual is usually not suitable for a doc string, and
> vice versa. I don't copy text from the Emacs manual into a doc
> string, even though the FSF as copyright holder for both could do so.
The problem is that you can't even re-edit
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>The DFSG lists three specific licenses that are meant to satisfy its
> >>criteria. Nowadays some Debian developers
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2003-09-22 16:05:31 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Because you are confronted with a situation where your arguments, that
> > you repeat and repeat, do not convince your interlocutor (me in this
> > case)?
>
> There are two ways to argue a
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Many people, including the author of the DFSG, have stated that they
> believe that the DFSG was intended to apply to documentation as well.
> The number of people arguing that documentation should not fall under
> the standards of freedom set out by t
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Someone else criticized the idea (though no one had proposed it) of
> giving the FSF special consideration; now you seem to be saying just
> the opposite, that you believe in giving the FSF less cooperation that
> you would give to anyone else. The c
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer
> would remove the political statements one could find in it.
>
> Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot
> be modified.
DFSG prohibits such unmodifiab
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But if they were only removable without being
> modifiable, then yes, removing them would be the only way to include the
> accompanying documentation while still ensuring that all bits in Debian
> guarantee the freedoms that we requi
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > A few weeks ago someone was trying to argue that nobody would do
> > this, and that invariant sections were designed to solve a
> > nonexistent problem. Now we know the problem is not just
> > theoretical.
>
> No, it's still a
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you are aware of the existence of unmodifyable essays and logos in
> debian main, please file an RC bug against the package in question.
>
> You seem to be saying that if our political statements, which are
> included as invariant sections
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You've asked me to explain why the criteria for free documentation
> licenses should be different from free software licenses (or, as you
> would perhaps put it, free computer program licenses). I would rather
> ask why they should be the same, since
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Many free documentation licenses won't permit use of the text in
> GPL-covered free programs, and practically speaking, this means I
> can't use them in any of the programs I might want to use them in.
> Whether the manual's text could be used in a fr
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell proposed another interpretation, in which certain
> things that are included in the Debian package files are not "part of
> Debian" for this purpose. That way, you don't have to apply the DFSG
> to them.
No, I did not, and you know i
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think that section titles are a problem--it would not be
> hard to put them in a program. But it is true that you cannot take
> text from a GFDL-covered manual and put it into most free programs.
> This is because the GFDL is incompatible wit
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I value freedom in documentation just as much as I do for programs. I
> value it so much that I designed the GFDL specifically to induce
> commercial publishers to publish free documentation.
You don't value the freedom to modify the whole book. Yo
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 08:32:55PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > But Debian contains essays, logos, and licenses that cannot be
> > >
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As far as the logo, the name "Mathieu Roy" isn't free in the
> DFSG-sense. Neither is the Debian name. I don't see why the Debian logo
> should be either.
>
> I don't believe the logo needs to be free; I think the way it is being
> hand
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:51:14PM +0200, Roland Mas wrote:
> > - "un logiciel" can even be used to mean "a software program", whereas
> > the phrase "a software" sounds awkward to me in English (but then
> > again, I'm not a native English speake
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My girlfriend photography sitting on my computer is not free
> software. That's not something I think important to be shared.
And it can't be part of Debian as long as it's not free.
I'm not saying there should never be non-free stuff--only that the
DF
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The Debian project is dedicated to the Debian OS. Without this
> "collection of software", the Debian project is purposeless.
>
> If the Debian project does not follow the rules that the Debian
> project wrote itself for the Debian OS, the Debian project
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > 1: Of course, you do hear about rather rediculous [sic] judgements from
> > > time to time. That's because there are quite a few moronic lower court
> > > judges out there. Most of those
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The DFSG lists three specific licenses that are meant to satisfy its
> criteria. Nowadays some Debian developers tend to say that these
> three licenses are listed as exceptions to the rules of the DFSG, but
> I think that is a misinterpretation. I
1 - 100 of 1059 matches
Mail list logo
