Re: removing the "draft" from the DDP policy

2003-07-11 Thread Osamu Aoki
Javi, You had too exciting subject line :-) Your intent seems much reasonable after all. On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 04:15:17PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 10:39:51PM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: > > [I am not stably subscribed to debian-* yet; please CC: me.]

Re: removing the "draft" from the DDP policy

2003-07-10 Thread Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 10:39:51PM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote: > [I am not stably subscribed to debian-* yet; please CC: me.] > [This is not really debian-devel issue yet. So removed from Reply-To:] > > Thanks Branden for reminding us about important insights to the licensing > issues as below. W

RE: removing the "draft" from the DDP policy

2003-07-09 Thread Osamu Aoki
[I am not stably subscribed to debian-* yet; please CC: me.] [This is not really debian-devel issue yet. So removed from Reply-To:] Thanks Branden for reminding us about important insights to the licensing issues as below. We have at least 2 separate issues with Javi's mail. 1) Javi's asses

Re: removing the "draft" from the DDP policy

2003-07-06 Thread James Troup
Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Do you believe the GFDL is DFSG compliant it there are no > Acknowledgements, Dedications, Invariant Sections or Cover Texts? No. This part of section 2 is particularly problematic: "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the

Re: removing the "draft" from the DDP policy

2003-07-06 Thread Bob Hilliard
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't see how I was being inconsistent, if that's what you're saying. > > Acknowledgements and Dedications are not Invariant Sections or Cover > Texts. I overlooked the "Acknowledgements and Dedications" in the referenced document. My bad.

Re: removing the "draft" from the DDP policy

2003-07-06 Thread Walter Landry
Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > 1) The GNU FDL does not satisfy the DFSG even if there are no Invariant > > Sections or Cover Texts. > > A few minutes earlier Branden Robinson wrote: > > > > Why not to use the GNU FDL: > > > http:

Re: removing the "draft" from the DDP policy

2003-07-06 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 12:06:24PM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote: > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > 1) The GNU FDL does not satisfy the DFSG even if there are no Invariant > > Sections or Cover Texts. > > A few minutes earlier Branden Robinson wrote: > [...] > > Will th

Re: removing the "draft" from the DDP policy

2003-07-06 Thread Bob Hilliard
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1) The GNU FDL does not satisfy the DFSG even if there are no Invariant > Sections or Cover Texts. A few minutes earlier Branden Robinson wrote: > > Why not to use the GNU FDL: > > http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html > > Wow. Mos

Re: removing the "draft" from the DDP policy

2003-07-06 Thread Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 06:45:07PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I strongly object to this unless you're willing to mark the very > section[1] you describe as motivating your proposal as "_very_ draft". > I say this because it is *not* representative of current consensus on > debian-legal. Noti

removing the "draft" from the DDP policy

2003-07-05 Thread Branden Robinson
[I am not subscribed to debian-doc; please follow-up to debian-legal.] # Subject: Let's remove the 'draft' from the DDP Policy # From: Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> # To: debian-doc@lists.debian.org # Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:55:11 +0200 > Since no one has spoken against the