Hi
On Wednesday, 13. February 2002 22:37, Walter Landry wrote:
> [Excellent Analysis by Stephen Ryan omitted]
>
> This all begs the question, why does the FDL exist at all?
> The rationale given at
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html
>
> is that it will encourage commercial entities t
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Excellent Analysis by Stephen Ryan omitted]
>
> This all begs the question, why does the FDL exist at all?
I'm very glad that you guys are asking this question. Because you are
pointing out some of the serious flaws with the FDL that will
inevitably le
On 20020215T115256+, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> I would have thought that in this situation you could get away with
> putting the source on a web site and telling the students to download
> it within a few days. That way they have been given the source.
No, you couldn't. (Unless the copyri
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 20020213T133738-0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> > In fact, it seems like the GPL is better worded
> > for this sort of thing.
>
> I would advice against anyone using the GPL for documentation.
> For example, if I print and photocopy a GPL'd docum
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > The GPL says you only have to _offer_ them the source. If they
> > want it on physical media you can tell them to bring a floppy to
> > office hours; otherwise just put it on a web site.
>
> That's not sufficient according to my reading. There are
On 20020214T102905-0800, Nick Moffitt wrote:
> Or a written offer, good for three years.
Yes, and that's a greater nuisance IMO.
--
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, LuK (BSc)* http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ * [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
On 20020214T101613-0800, Don Marti wrote:
> The GPL says you only have to _offer_ them the source. If they
> want it on physical media you can tell them to bring a floppy to
> office hours; otherwise just put it on a web site.
That's not sufficient according to my reading. There are exactly
thre
begin Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho quotation:
> I would advice against anyone using the GPL for documentation. For
> example, if I print and photocopy a GPL'd document and give the
> copies to my students, I must also give them machine-readable
> source. This is a major nuisance.
Or a writte
begin Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho quotation of Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 08:00:48PM +0200:
> I would advice against anyone using the GPL for documentation.
> For example, if I print and photocopy a GPL'd document and
> give the copies to my students, I must also give them
> machine-readable source. This is
On 20020213T133738-0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> In fact, it seems like the GPL is better worded
> for this sort of thing.
I would advice against anyone using the GPL for documentation.
For example, if I print and photocopy a GPL'd document and
give the copies to my students, I must also give them
[Excellent Analysis by Stephen Ryan omitted]
This all begs the question, why does the FDL exist at all? The
rationale given at
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html
is that it will encourage commercial entities to fund free
documentation. However, it still requires the documentation to b
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 06:21:32PM -0500, Stephen Ryan wrote:
> [...]
>
> I'd just like to say that I concur completely with Stephen Ryan's
> analysis in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
>
> Thanks for stepping back and taking a look at the forest while I
> eye
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 06:21:32PM -0500, Stephen Ryan wrote:
[...]
I'd just like to say that I concur completely with Stephen Ryan's
analysis in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Thanks for stepping back and taking a look at the forest while I
eyeballed the trees, Mr. Ryan.
--
G. Branden Robinson
I've subscribed to the debian-legal mailing list purely out of interest,
and have seen the request for comments on the GNU FDL 1.2 Draft.
Several of the discussions on debian-legal over the past six months have
got me to thinking, and looking over the draft I have finally figured
out precisely wha
14 matches
Mail list logo
