Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Err, who are you arguing against? I do not espouse the position
> above. You do a good job arguing against it, but it is unlikely that
> RMS will read what you wrote... (I'm also not someone you need to
> convince.)
I wasn't taking myself to be argui
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> To be precise, the reference you cited (thanks!) makes it clear that
>> RMS considers the "free" in "free software" to apply only to the
>> "technical functionality" of the work, whether t
Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To be precise, the reference you cited (thanks!) makes it clear that
> RMS considers the "free" in "free software" to apply only to the
> "technical functionality" of the work, whether the work is a program
> or documentation: he writes
The problem is
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray wrote:
> Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray wrote:
>>> ... Both FSF and Debian agree that FDL-covered works are not free
>>> software, ...
>> To the best of my knowledge, this is not correct: RMS seems to argue
Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray wrote:
>> ... Both FSF and Debian agree that FDL-covered works are not free
>> software, ...
> To the best of my knowledge, this is not correct: RMS seems to argue
> that a manual published under the FDL is free in
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray wrote:
> ... Both FSF and Debian agree that FDL-covered works are not free
> software, ...
To the best of my knowledge, this is not correct: RMS seems to argue
that a manual published under the FDL is free in the free software
sense, since you can make any f
Sergey V. Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is clear for me, why FDL appears: it is needed to help technical
> writers earn money by writing free documentation for free software and
> to help publishers of free manuals make a profit from them [1].
That may be clear to you, but should we
Henning Makholm wrote:
>To the extent that the GFDL caters for the wishes of publishers at
>all, it is in that it makes it inconvenient for *competing* publishers
>to publish and sell hardcopies. It would not help a publisher that
>*he* has the text under GFDL if his competitors (or those that he
>
Jeremy Hankins said:
>On debian-legal, yes. But we've had very little actual discussion
>with anyone who admitted to representing the FSF position. In fact,
>that was one of the issues that came up in our brief discussions with
>RMS: is there anyone else who can authoritatively, or at least
>offi
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The problem here is that (without going into the details)
>> communication between the FSF and Debian seems to have broken down.
>> Though I cannot say that I entirely understand the perspective of
>> the FSF
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:28:36 -0400
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It is clear for me, why FDL appears: it is needed to help technical
> > writers earn money by writing free documentation for free software
> > and to help publish
Scripsit Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > ... To the extent that the GFDL caters for the wishes of publishers
> > at all, it is in that it makes it inconvenient for *competing*
> > publishers to publish and sell hardcopies. ...
> I'm not quite tracking you there. The GFDL isn't supposed
> ... To the extent that the GFDL caters for the wishes of publishers
> at all, it is in that it makes it inconvenient for *competing*
> publishers to publish and sell hardcopies. ...
I'm not quite tracking you there. The GFDL isn't supposed to have
that effect, at least as I read it, and as I un
Scripsit Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Since the FSF felt that publishers could not use the GNU GPL for
> printed documentation, they adopted the GFDL for their manuals, to
> allow printed publication under terms they felt publishers would find
> acceptable. (The correctness of their re
> From: "Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I like FSF and I like Debian. So, I ask you (FSF and Debian) to find
> a solution. Both goals are important. I (user) need documentation
> and I (user) need free software. Please, find a compromise!
You are absolutely right. Failure to find a
"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is clear for me, why FDL appears: it is needed to help technical
> writers earn money by writing free documentation for free software
> and to help publishers of free manuals make a profit from them
> [1]. It is clear for me, why some debian
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 04:17:38AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> It is clear for me, why FDL appears: it is needed to help technical
> writers earn money by writing free documentation for free software and
> to help publishers of free manuals make a profit from them [1].
> I like FSF an
17 matches
Mail list logo
