On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 02:00:08PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Your broad definition of "technical measures to obstruct or control
> > the reading or further copying of the copies" would prevent me from
> > keeping a GFDL-licensed work locked in my house: the doors and locks
> > obstruct readin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Let's say that the library has two things you can get, the texinfo
> > source files and a pdf generated from them. People are unlikely to
> > print out the texinfo files, so they would naturally try to prin
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let's say that the library has two things you can get, the texinfo
> source files and a pdf generated from them. People are unlikely to
> print out the texinfo files, so they would naturally try to print out
> the pdf. So the library sets the "do not pr
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 12:27:16PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> > What can't be avoided is the clause in Section 2
> >
> > You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
> > reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribut
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 12:27:16PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> What can't be avoided is the clause in Section 2
>
> You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
> reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.
>
> I could easily imagine a situation where a
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm also curious about the meaning of this:
>
> You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially
> or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and
> the license notice saying this License a
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 12:27:16PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Further analysis of the GNU FDL will likely center on section 4
> > ("MODIFICATIONS"), and whether and how each of the many requirements
> > therein mesh with DFSG 3 ("Derived Works").
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Further analysis of the GNU FDL will likely center on section 4
> ("MODIFICATIONS"), and whether and how each of the many requirements
> therein mesh with DFSG 3 ("Derived Works"). Specifically, 4I seems
> similar in spirit to a requirement under the G
The Free Software Foundation has published a new revision of the GNU
Free Documentation License, version 1.2.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html
In my assessment, it does not substantially address the major concerns
that the Debian Project has raised.
The GNU FDL, version 1.2, is not necessari
9 matches
Mail list logo
