Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 03:53:25PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > That's probably because Mail-Followup-To is not the solution.
>
> you're a bit tiredsome with that. List-Post does not helps you to
> specify that you want to be set as a Cc: or not when some
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 19:25:08 +0100 Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> the usual rule on lists I'm on, is that when M-F-T is set, it's what
> should be used. Though, when none is set, you should assume the guy
> who you are answering to is not subscribed, and politeness ask you to
> set the Cc:
This does
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 03:53:25PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yeah, sorry about that; I try to remember to use "list-reply" instead
> > of "group-reply" on Debian MLs, but I often forget. This matter would
> > be so much simpler if everyone's MUA would
Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, sorry about that; I try to remember to use "list-reply" instead
> of "group-reply" on Debian MLs, but I often forget. This matter would
> be so much simpler if everyone's MUA would support and set
> Mail-Followup-To. Alas, this seems not to be h
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:06:04 +0100 Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 11:08:26PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> > P.S.: Please do not reply to me and the list, as I didn't ask to be
> > copied.
>
> Yeah, sorry about that;
Don't worry.
> I try to remember to use "list-reply"
On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 11:08:26PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> P.S.: Please do not reply to me and the list, as I didn't ask to be
> copied.
Yeah, sorry about that; I try to remember to use "list-reply" instead
of "group-reply" on Debian MLs, but I often forget. This matter would
be so much si
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 20:43:40 +0100 Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 05:36:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > Improvable: still suboptimal definition of "Transparent" copy
>
> > The definition of "Transparent" copy is improved with respect to
> > GFDL 1.2, but it's
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 05:36:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
>> GNU Free Documentation License
>> Discussion Draft 1 of Version 2, 25 September 2006
>> A "Transparent" copy of the Work means a machine-readable copy,
>> represented in a format whose specification is available to the
>> general
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thank you for showing my point.
I'm glad that I showed the point of Marco d'Itri: that he will post much
nonsense, from misattributed quotes, to accusations that people joining
debian-legal in 2003 introduced interpretations of the DFSG which had
apparentl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I didn't write that, fraudster.
Thank you for showing my point.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 11:33:53 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:18:35 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
> > > I recommend the more precise:
> > >"Allows redistribution under non-free terms"
> >
> > I agree that this is more precise, but a t
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:18:35 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
> > I recommend the more precise:
> >"Allows redistribution under non-free terms"
>
> I agree that this is more precise, but a tagline should be useful to
> classify reported issues
You're referr
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:42:05 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:22:22 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > "Allows non-free derivs" ?
> > >
> > > That's probably accurate too, yes.
> >
> > OK, I'm
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:18:35 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:22:22 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
> >
> > > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > "Allows non-free derivs" ?
> > >
> > > That's probably accurate too, yes.
> >
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:22:22 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
> > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Allows non-free derivs" ?
> >
> > That's probably accurate too, yes.
>
> OK, I'm going to use that tagline for my comments (as soon as I submit
> them to
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:22:22 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
>
> > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Allows non-free derivs" ?
> >
> > That's probably accurate too, yes.
>
> OK, I'm going to use that tagline for my comments (as soon as I
> sub
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:22:22 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Allows non-free derivs" ?
>
> That's probably accurate too, yes.
OK, I'm going to use that tagline for my comments (as soon as I submit
them to the FSF).
--
But it is also tradition that tim
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Allows non-free derivs" ?
That's probably accurate too, yes.
--
MJR/slef
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:38:35 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
[...]
> > So, how come the LGPL is considered a copyleft license?
> > Or even the GFDLv2draft1, for that matter: it includes one or
> > two relicensing clause(s)...
>
> This is a very good que
Le lundi 11 décembre 2006 à 15:43 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> Come on. This "everything is a cost" meme is becoming silly.
> The DFSG was not written with this meaning.
Your continuous ranting about anything which is said on this list is
turning ridiculous.
Hint: a "bad" clause can be DFSG-fr
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Come on. This "everything is a cost" meme is becoming silly.
> >> The DFSG was not written with this meaning.
I didn't write that, fraudster.
> >Come on! Stop beating your straw men! Nor were they written with the
> >intent
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Come on. This "everything is a cost" meme is becoming silly.
>> The DFSG was not written with this meaning.
>Come on! Stop beating your straw men! Nor were they written with the
>intention to prevent only money demands that hit everyone every time!
Really? Can you sho
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> On the other hand, there's no warranty that each pseudonymous
> contributor uses one pseudonym only: 'BlackStar' and 'RedBlood' could be
> the same real person.
> Hence, I don't know how much a pseudonym can help to "identify" a
> contributor among
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html says:
>
> Copyleft is a general method for making a program free software
> and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to
> be free software as well.
It's telling, and disappointing, that the
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:28:13 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 22:47:32 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
> > > I don't think it matters. Pseudonymous publication seems
> > > possible, but we must watch out for developments on this
> > > uncerta
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Come on. This "everything is a cost" meme is becoming silly.
> The DFSG was not written with this meaning.
Come on! Stop beating your straw men! Nor were they written with the
intention to prevent only money demands that hit everyone every time!
I think
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Personally I think that DFSG#5 does not require that anonymity be
>protected, but I think that the requirement of adding the names is an
>additional cost - it could be technically impossible for example, or
>it could incur another cost such as being persecuted or arrested
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 22:47:32 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
> > I don't think it matters. Pseudonymous publication seems possible,
> > but we must watch out for developments on this uncertainty.
> [...]
> Hence, I'm not so sure that anonymous publication is
On 12/10/06, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, does a "Published by anonymous" statement "crearly and legibly
identify you as the publisher" ?
I really doubt...
Hence, I'm not so sure that anonymous publication is possible.
As for pseudonymous publication (which is something differ
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 22:47:32 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What follows is my own analysis of the first draft of GNU FDL v2.
> > I welcome any comments on my reasoning.
>
> As you might expect from
> my summary http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/fdl#gen
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What follows is my own analysis of the first draft of GNU FDL v2.
> I welcome any comments on my reasoning.
As you might expect from
my summary http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/fdl#general
I agree with most of that reasoning, apart from:
> > [...] Bot
Hi all!
What follows is my own analysis of the first draft of GNU FDL v2.
I welcome any comments on my reasoning.
The full text of the draft is available at http://gplv3.fsf.org/
> GNU Free Documentation License
>
> Discussion Draft 1 of Version 2, 25 September 2006
>
> THIS IS A DRAFT, NOT
32 matches
Mail list logo
