Yven Johannes Leist wrote:
On Saturday 19 April 2003 18:36, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:37:28 -0500,
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Not if people don't second my motion, or propose something similar.
> It may be that we're content to complain but lack the wil
Yven Johannes Leist wrote:
On Saturday 19 April 2003 18:36, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:37:28 -0500,
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Not if people don't second my motion, or propose something similar.
> It may be that we're content to complain but lack the wil
On Saturday 19 April 2003 18:36, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:37:28 -0500,
> >> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
> > Not if people don't second my motion, or propose something similar.
> > It may be that we're content to complain but lack the will to act.
> For
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 02:34:05PM +0200, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> ege> What do you mean by a "free documentation licence"?
>
> A documentation license that will provide a good balance between the
> freedoms of the individual and the freedoms and needs of society in a
> way that it will maximiz
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 03:05:48PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> But the issue here is not copying or modifying an existing card, but
>> deriving a reference card from the Emacs manual.
>
> If the documentation was licensed under the BSD license, wou
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 10:52:55AM +0200, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> The GFDL offers the users and distributors such as Debian a higher
> degree of legal security, however, as someone who has not used the
> possible measure of invariant section will have a much harder time
> suing for violation of
>> On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:37:28 -0500,
>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 09:10:00AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
>> Good luck with that, and I look forward to hearing from you and/or
>> other FSF representatives soon. I hope it's not terribly much
>> longer,
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 01:51:22PM +0200, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> Given that a document is under a license that permits modification,
> any redistributor could add anything and then say that removing it
> would hurt his or her moral rights.
>
> Any license trying to allow modification/removal o
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 03:05:48PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> But the issue here is not copying or modifying an existing card, but
> deriving a reference card from the Emacs manual.
If the documentation was licensed under the BSD license, wouldn't you
still have to include the full license t
"Georg C. F. Greve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) is a free documentation
> license; recommended for use in Debian without invariant
> sections.
>
> 2a) Documents without invariant sections go into main.
This seems fairly reasonable -- tho
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 11:30:17AM +0200, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> psg> I don't want to ship the 5MB documentation with my 100KB GUI,
> psg> just the few paragraphs that matter.
>
> That seems too genereralized to be useful.
>
> It seems hard to imagine a situation where an obviously very l
|| On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:34:17 +0100
|| Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Although I have said it before, I'll say it again: I don't
>> consider the GFDL to be perfect, but from the free documentation
>> licenses I have seen so far, it seems to be the most solid one for
>>
|| On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 15:05:48 -0400
|| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
bts> A reference card has a subset of commands, chosen for
bts> usefulness, elegance, or aesthetic appeal. It has succinct
bts> descriptions, which are a creative effort. It is definitely
bts> copyrightab
|| On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
|| Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Are you referring to documentation under the GFDL? Why would that
>> have to be removed?
mr> Not all GFDL documentation, only that which contains invariant
mr> sections which cannot be removed or modifie
|| On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 09:06:51 -0400
|| Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The GFDL deeks to do the same thing. Only this time you find
>> yourself in the position of middleman and have to take care to not
>> violate the rights of either party.
psg> Quite the opposite actuall
|| On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 09:27:43 -0400
|| Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
psg> No if it were released under the GPL. Compare to:
psg> "I'm sorry, but if somebody wrote something into SOFTWARE that
psg> was important to him and you didn't like it and removed it to
psg> distr
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 01:59:37PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> If the manifesto marked as invariant? I didn't know that!
It doesn't seem to be in the "visible" info text, but the top of
each of the info files has a GFDL blurb.
I grepped for Invariant in my emacs-21 info files. The main ma
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> mr> I hope it's not terribly much longer, as the current
> mr> semi-consensus is likely to congeal into an actual necessity to
> mr> remove un-free emacs documentation from Debian.
>
> Are you referring to documentation under the GFDL? Why would
"Georg C. F. Greve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> || On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 10:37:57 -0400
> || [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
>
> bts> You've heard all this before, but I haven't seen you answer it.
> bts> Why does the GFDL prohibit me from making an emacs reference
> bts> card fr
|| On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 09:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
|| Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
mr> Indeed. Ensuring that Debian remains free is the primary reason
mr> for this list's existence, and it can be an emotional topic.
True. All of us are probably feeling strongly about freedom.
The fact tha
|| On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 10:37:57 -0400
|| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
bts> You've heard all this before, but I haven't seen you answer it.
bts> Why does the GFDL prohibit me from making an emacs reference
bts> card from the manual? Sure, I could make a one-sided card where
b
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 09:10:00AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
> Good luck with that, and I look forward to hearing from you and/or other
> FSF representatives soon. I hope it's not terribly much longer, as the
> current semi-consensus is likely to congeal into an actual necessity to
> remove un-free
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 10:37:57AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> In addition, how does the FSF expect anybody other than itself to
> distribute a GPL'd emacs with a GFDL manual?
Heh; maybe they don't. Maybe they're tired of all these "Linux"
distributions that should be calling themselves "GNU
[I've found this unsent message which I wrote yesterday]
Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You've heard all this before, but I haven't seen you answer it. Why
> does the GFDL prohibit me from making an emacs reference card from the
> manual? Sure, I could make a one-sided card where
Georg C. F. Greve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> || On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 09:31:26 -0400
> || Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> psg> It doesn't perserve freedom at all. It grants any redistributor
> psg> the right to add unremovable rants to the loss of the user's
> psg> freedom
Georg C. F. Greve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Especially the GPL is striking a new balance between the rights of the
> author and the freedoms of the users that puts both above the wishes
> of middlemen.
>
> The GFDL deeks to do the same thing. Only this time you find yourself
> in the position
Georg C. F. Greve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Although I have said it before, I'll say it again: I don't consider
> the GFDL to be perfect, but from the free documentation licenses I
> have seen so far, it seems to be the most solid one for the reasons
> I've described.
What do you mean by a "free doc
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 10:52:55AM +0200, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> I'm sorry, but if somebody wrote something into a document that was
> important to him and you didn't like it and removed it to distribute
> that as a newer version of the document, you'd be violating that
> persons Copyright. GNU
"Georg C. F. Greve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm sorry, but if somebody wrote something into a document that was
> important to him and you didn't like it and removed it to distribute
> that as a newer version of the document, you'd be violating that
> persons Copyright.
Err, what complete
|| On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 09:31:26 -0400
|| Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
psg> It doesn't perserve freedom at all. It grants any redistributor
psg> the right to add unremovable rants to the loss of the user's
psg> freedom.
So you are afraid of somebody adding a part that you d
On Tue, 15 Apr 2003, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> Unfortunately it seems that because of the history -- of which I was
> not a part, by the way -- the issue is still very emotional to most
> people on this list.
Indeed. Ensuring that Debian remains free is the primary reason for this
list's exist
"Georg C. F. Greve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> gg> That was also discussed about the GPL.
>
> gg> Many people were complaining that it wasn't free because they
> gg> couldn't take parts of GPL'ed software and compile them into
> gg> their proprietary software any way they liked.
>
> I just
Georg C. F. Greve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> || On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 12:29:52 -0400
> || Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> psg> My example is _not_ a GUI to text (e.g. like xpdf) but a GUI to
> psg> software. I'm more interested in hardcoding docs into software,
> psg> prod
Georg C. F. Greve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> || On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:30:17 +0200
> || Georg C. F. Greve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> gg> That was also discussed about the GPL.
>
> gg> Many people were complaining that it wasn't free because they
> gg> couldn't take parts of GPL'ed so
|| On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:30:17 +0200
|| Georg C. F. Greve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
gg> That was also discussed about the GPL.
gg> Many people were complaining that it wasn't free because they
gg> couldn't take parts of GPL'ed software and compile them into
gg> their proprietary software
|| On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 14:15:25 -0400
|| Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
psg> So you want us to pretend that the work these Artists do is free
psg> because writing is so much more artistic than coding?
No.
>> And unlike most works of art -- for which aesthetics or
>> philo
|| On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 12:29:52 -0400
|| Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
psg> My example is _not_ a GUI to text (e.g. like xpdf) but a GUI to
psg> software. I'm more interested in hardcoding docs into software,
psg> producing a derived work composed of both works.
I see. It wa
Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> If I have one piece of prose that I like, I usually do not have all
> the prose I need/want. The same goes for documentation or music. In
> fact hearing some piece of music usually motivates me to get more.
Huh? Invariant sections never give you more documentation. The
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> If we ignore potential DMCA/EUCD/SW-patent issues, which are unrelated
> to the issue at hand, it is always okay to write a GUI that can
> display documents regardless of their license.
Sure, but it's clearly NOT ok to use some derived works of som
Georg C. F. Greve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But unlike prose, most software derives its justification to exist
> From its function, not its aesthetics.
So let's not encourage the use of this license for software manuals.
It's not an essay, it's a manual.
> The very same people who have been
On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 10:00, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> || On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:12:53 -0400
> || Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> psg> If I write a GUI front-end for some software which has
> psg> documentation under this license, can I take a few paragraphs of
> psg> the docu
Georg C. F. Greve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> || On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:12:53 -0400
> || Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Interpretation B -- which you probably meant -- is already
> >> included in the analysis, as cutting out parts is also
> >> modification.
>
> psg>
|| On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:12:53 -0400
|| Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Interpretation B -- which you probably meant -- is already
>> included in the analysis, as cutting out parts is also
>> modification.
psg> If I write a GUI front-end for some software which has
psg> d
Georg C. F. Greve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> || Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> br> Your analysis ignores the fact that the GNU FDL does not permit
> br> Invariant Sections to be omitted entirely from the work when it
> br> is redistributed. If the GNU FDL did that, it would
44 matches
Mail list logo
