Re: A WDL.

On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 05:41:09PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 04:42:51PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > I don't think the GFDL is a good place to start from when writing a > > > documentation license, really. The WDL is a tangled mess. Start with > > > the GPL inst

Re: A WDL.

On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 04:42:51PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > I don't think the GFDL is a good place to start from when writing a > > documentation license, really. The WDL is a tangled mess. Start with > > the GPL instead, and try to answer this question: > > > > What do I want that this l

Re: A WDL.

On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 04:42:51PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > There's nothing which is not in the GPL that I don't want. Uh. Obviously I meant "there's nothing in the GPL that I would want" -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- h

Re: A WDL.

I didn't reply to this yet, but I should've; I thought I had. On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 02:22:11AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: [WDL] > I'm not yet convinced as to whether it's DFSG-free or not, but if I > had to make a spot decision right now, I'd say not. That's why I requested feedback. As long

Re: A WDL.

Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2003-09-18, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Eben Moglen has told RMS that it's ok for us to do the Unicode trick: > > to alter it into some other form, and then that new form is entirely > > unrestricted by the license. And t

Re: A WDL.

On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 01:33 US/Eastern, D. Starner wrote: We can make copies _in any form_ _whether for profit or not_. Where's the problem? Right to modify, for one thing.

Re: A WDL.

On Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003, at 16:44 US/Eastern, D. Starner wrote: Or you could go to and find the entire text of the standard in PDF files. Still leaves us the problem with the PDF spec, unless that is downloadable too. Or PostScript. Or almost any standard from t

Re: A WDL.

On 2003-09-17, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The question is: will requiring those markings make the license > non-free? I think it's more likely to be considered free if you require functionality rather than specific wording. Compare this clause from the GPL: c) If the modifi

Re: A WDL.

On 2003-09-18, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Eben Moglen has told RMS that it's ok for us to do the Unicode trick: > to alter it into some other form, and then that new form is entirely > unrestricted by the license. And then, if we like, convert back to > the original form t

Re: A WDL.

Eben Moglen has told RMS that it's ok for us to do the Unicode trick: to alter it into some other form, and then that new form is entirely unrestricted by the license. And then, if we like, convert back to the original form too, which remains unrestricted. Thomas

Re: A WDL.

On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 12:33:46AM -0500, D. Starner wrote: > *** > Disclaimer > > The Unicode Character Database is provided as is by Unicode, Inc. > No claims are made as to fitness for any particular purpose. No > warranties of any kind are expressed or implied. The recipient >

Re: A WDL.

> On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 03:44:41PM -0500, D. Starner wrote: > > > I also have no idea what direction to render the text (left-to-right or > > > right-to-left). The standard tells me. > > > > There are DFSG-free data files that include all the normative information > > like this. Run "locate Unic

Re: A WDL.

On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 03:44:41PM -0500, D. Starner wrote: > > I also have no idea what direction to render the text (left-to-right or > > right-to-left). The standard tells me. > > There are DFSG-free data files that include all the normative information > like this. Run "locate UnicodeData" --

Re: A WDL.

> I also have no idea what direction to render the text (left-to-right or > right-to-left). The standard tells me. There are DFSG-free data files that include all the normative information like this. Run "locate UnicodeData" -- I have 5 copies from Debian packages. It's not terribly human-readabl

Re: A WDL.

On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 05:55, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Ah? I wasn't aware of that. Yep. Same with PostScript. And many other document formats. And programming languages for that matter, like C. > > Same with the ASCII > > and Unicode specs. > > That may have been the case, but try man ascii, o

Re: A WDL.

Op wo 17-09-2003, om 01:06 schreef Anthony DeRobertis: > On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 06:26, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > > > A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of > > the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the > > publishers or authors of the Docum

Re: A WDL.

On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:26:07PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > As I tried to point out in the recent discussions about the GFDL (not > sure whether that point has come through, but anyway), although the GFDL > is crafted in a way which makes it not DFSG-free, IMHO there is nothing > wrong with

Re: A WDL.

On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 06:26, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of > the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the > publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall > subject (or to related matters) and

Re: A WDL.

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There are parts of the FDL that actually make sense, such as the > fact that the definition of 'source code' is not necessarily the > same for documentation as for computer programs; I don't think this has been established. "Preferred form for modifi

Re: A WDL.

Op zo 14-09-2003, om 17:48 schreef Etienne Gagnon: > I don't understand... > > Why go through all the trouble of writing a WDL? Why not stick with > using normal software licenses (GPL, LGPL, X11, BSD-3clauses,...) for > documentation? There are parts of the FDL that actua

Re: A WDL.

I don't understand... Why go through all the trouble of writing a WDL? Why not stick with using normal software licenses (GPL, LGPL, X11, BSD-3clauses,...) for documentation? Anyway, the presence of invariant/opiniated/whatever non-free parts in the body of the *licensed-work* will hardly

Re: A WDL.

Op zo 14-09-2003, om 16:07 schreef MJ Ray: > On 2003-09-14 12:08:02 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There's no markup or placing requirement; you could put them in small > > print somewhere in the document; at the first page, at their original > > place, or perhaps on the back

Re: A WDL.

On 2003-09-14 12:08:02 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There's no markup or placing requirement; you could put them in small print somewhere in the document; at the first page, at their original place, or perhaps on the back cover. I specifically did not make any other requiremen

Re: A WDL.

Op za 13-09-2003, om 18:40 schreef MJ Ray: > On 2003-09-12 23:16:17 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's been brought to my attention, however, that 'opiniated' is a > > strange construct in the English language, and that 'opinionated' > > would > > be better. I'm not a native

Re: A WDL.

Op za 13-09-2003, om 09:10 schreef Brian C: > I'm a little concerned about merely offering a link to things. FSF has > always argued against this as regards offers of source, That's not really true anymore. In the very text of the FDL, the FSF allows people to have 'a computer-network location fr

Re: A WDL.

On 2003-09-12 23:16:17 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's been brought to my attention, however, that 'opiniated' is a strange construct in the English language, and that 'opinionated' would be better. I'm not a native English speaker; I am native English, but I think the n

Re: A WDL.

On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 12:16:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 08:23:23PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > Thoughts on WDL: > > > > Is "opiniated" really a word or a smelling pistake? There's probably > > some better name. > > Agreed, but "opiniated" was the best I could com

Re: A WDL.

I'm a little concerned about merely offering a link to things. FSF has always argued against this as regards offers of source, in particular because there are parts of the world where 56k access speeds would be fast, and because some are charged per minute for such access. Perhaps documentation

Re: A WDL.

On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 08:23:23PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > Thoughts on WDL: > > Is "opiniated" really a word or a smelling pistake? There's probably > some better name. Agreed, but "opiniated" was the best I could come up with. In any case, since it can be modified, "invariant" surely is a bad n

Re: A WDL.

On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 02:05:19PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:26:07PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > As I tried to point out in the recent discussions about the GFDL (not > > sure whether that point has come through, but anyway), although the GFDL > > is crafted

Re: A WDL.

Thoughts on WDL: Is "opiniated" really a word or a smelling pistake? There's probably some better name. They also don't seem to meet FSF's requirements. The labelling requirements for removed sections seem nasty too, adding more unmodifiable parts to the document. I still don't like the l

Re: A WDL.

On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:26:07PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > As I tried to point out in the recent discussions about the GFDL (not > sure whether that point has come through, but anyway), although the GFDL > is crafted in a way which makes it not DFSG-free, IMHO there is nothing > wrong with

A WDL.

Hi, As I tried to point out in the recent discussions about the GFDL (not sure whether that point has come through, but anyway), although the GFDL is crafted in a way which makes it not DFSG-free, IMHO there is nothing wrong with the spirit, the intention, of the GFDL. As such, I've taken the GFD