Francesco Poli wrote:
> Moreover, the GPL requires that *source code* be accompanied or offered.
> This POSIX license requires that *nroff source* be included.
>
> What if I created a derivative work by
> step 0) converting it from nroff to some other typesetting language
> (e.g. DocBook
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 09:53:18 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
> >>One other issue: does "and the nroff source is included" mean that
> >>if I want to hand someone a printed copy of a manual page, I have to
> >>either print the nroff source or supply it on an attached disk?
> >>This seems onerous for ph
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:51:39 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >> One other issue: does "and the nroff source is included" mean that
> >if I> want to hand someone a printed copy of a manual page, I have to
> >either> print the nroff source or supply it on an attached disk?
> >This seems> onerous fo
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Josh Triplett:
>
>> Agreed. "In the text" could imply "right next to where you differ from
>> the standard", which would probably be unreasonable enough to be
>> non-free. Without the "in the text", modifiers could simply add a
>> blanket notice somewhere in the distri
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 04:14:40PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 05:23:51PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > "to give any third party", this fails the Desert Island (or some
> > > variant of it) test.
> >
> > Nobody on a desert island can be requested to do anything.
>
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 05:23:51PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > "to give any third party", this fails the Desert Island (or some
> > variant of it) test.
>
> Nobody on a desert island can be requested to do anything.
Sure you can; send a message in a bottle (or via one-way satellite). Lots
On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 02:41:08PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Josh Triplett:
>
> > Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Josh Triplett:
> >>>One other issue: does "and the nroff source is included" mean that if I
> >>>want to hand someone a printed copy of a manual page, I have to either
> >>>print t
* Josh Triplett:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Josh Triplett:
>>>One other issue: does "and the nroff source is included" mean that if I
>>>want to hand someone a printed copy of a manual page, I have to either
>>>print the nroff source or supply it on an attached disk? This seems
>>>onerous for p
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Josh Triplett:
>>One other issue: does "and the nroff source is included" mean that if I
>>want to hand someone a printed copy of a manual page, I have to either
>>print the nroff source or supply it on an attached disk? This seems
>>onerous for physical distribution.
>
* Josh Triplett:
> Agreed. "In the text" could imply "right next to where you differ from
> the standard", which would probably be unreasonable enough to be
> non-free. Without the "in the text", modifiers could simply add a
> blanket notice somewhere in the distributed work saying "this has bee
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 09:07:52PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Andre Lehovich wrote:
> > The upstream source for the manpages has received permission
> > from IEEE to include text from the POSIX documentation in
> > Linux manual pages. Debian has not distributed the POSIX
> > man pages becaus
MJ Ray wrote:
>> Redistribution of this material is permitted so long as this notice and
>> the corresponding notices within each POSIX manual page are retained on
>> any distribution, and the nroff source is included. Modifications to
>> the text are permitted so long as any conflicts with the st
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 04:32:11PM -0700, Andre Lehovich wrote:
>> The latest version (1.67, 20 May 2004) now allows
>> modification, "so long as any conflicts with the standard
>> are clearly marked as such in the text".
>
> This seems to be reasonable. It's also right
Andre Lehovich wrote:
> (Please cc: me on replies)
>
> The upstream source for the manpages has received permission
> from IEEE to include text from the POSIX documentation in
> Linux manual pages. Debian has not distributed the POSIX
> man pages because until recently the license prohibited
>
On 2004-06-09 00:32:11 +0100 Andre Lehovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
(Please cc: me on replies) [...]
I've attached the full text of the new license.
Don't do that. I've inlined it.
The other
sentence that caught my eye is "This notice shall appear on
any product containing this materi
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 04:32:11PM -0700, Andre Lehovich wrote:
> The latest version (1.67, 20 May 2004) now allows
> modification, "so long as any conflicts with the standard
> are clearly marked as such in the text".
This seems to be reasonable. It's also right up against the line - a
stronger r
16 matches
Mail list logo
