Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ummm, where do you see this in the Artistic License? It says that you
> can't charge a fee for the package, but you can charge whatever you
> like for the act of transferring. How is that going to accomplish
> Joe's aims (to get a cut for every copy so
Some time ago, there was a discussion to make documents under the GNU
Free Documentation License (FDL) unfree for Debian. This is not
necessary.
The FDL seems to have a bug and some flaws. The bug that arbitrary
sections can be shut off from modification is only a potential danger
for misuse. A
Bernd Warken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some time ago, there was a discussion to make documents under the GNU
> Free Documentation License (FDL) unfree for Debian. This is not
> necessary.
...
> Therefore, it would be enough to put a freeze to not use the FDL for
> future documents, but lea
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 11:59:47PM +0100, Bernd Warken wrote:
> Some time ago, there was a discussion to make documents under the GNU
> Free Documentation License (FDL) unfree for Debian.
Some time ago, there was an actual thread containing actual discussion
and actual proposals.
Maybe you should
Again... this whole issue seems like it originated with me
misunderstanding Branden.
I somehow (don't ask me how) got under the impression that he thought
that the "Debian shall remain 100% free software"-part of the social
contract meant that every part of every piece of software should
comp
Sunnanvind Fenderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (Oh, and by the way, RMS kept ignoring me. That's really creepy, am I
> in his killfile or something?)
Did he get your messages? He doesn't subscribe to debian-legal, so if
you over-zealously trimmed him from your messages, of course he
wouldn't
On Monday, November 26, 2001, at 02:18 AM, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Did he get your messages? He doesn't subscribe to debian-legal, so if
you over-zealously trimmed him from your messages, of course he
wouldn't get them.
I'm sure he got at least one (he has that auto-response thing going on
[RMS: I invite your participation in this process.]
Summary:
Per recent discussion on the debian-legal mailing list regarding DFSG
section 3 and provisions of the GNU Free Documentation License that
allow for non-modifiable "Invariant Sections", and "Cover Texts", I am
proposing a guideline for i
Initial observations or Brandon's proposal:
1: Please separate the "whereas" from the actual proposal. People
might agree with the proposal, but for different reasons, and might
not want to seem to be signing on to the whereas clauses--and reject
it for that reason alone. I assume you don't car
I must confess, I'm very happy with Branden's proposal.
The shorter and informal one that Thomas posted would probably suffice,
but I feel we can't do totally without one - it should at least be
stated somewhere, sometime that Debian *can* distribute license texts
and invariant, auxiliary mate
Sunnanvind Fenderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The shorter and informal one that Thomas posted would probably
> suffice, but I feel we can't do totally without one - it should at
> least be stated somewhere, sometime that Debian *can* distribute
> license texts and invariant, auxiliary materia
Or, we could point out that it's the Debian Free *Software*
Guidelines, not the Debian free-everything-in-the-world guidelines. I
Isn't that exactly what this is?
Besides, remember the Social Contract: "Debian will remain 100% Free
Software".
It can be interpreted as "All software in Debia
Sunnanvind Fenderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Or, we could point out that it's the Debian Free *Software*
> > Guidelines, not the Debian free-everything-in-the-world guidelines. I
> Isn't that exactly what this is?
No, this goes way way beyond that...
> I do think your informal guidelin
I think Branden's (despite his plea at the end) will end up getting
interpreted as narrow legal rules, and we will see people (perhaps
with pseudonymous initials JG) saying noise like "this meets the
letter of the rule, why are you complaining".
I think that the plea (and the fact that these ar
Either way, I thought of it first, I rule!
Er... I mean, don't blame me! Unless it's good. Then yeah, I thought of
it. Otherwise no.
Sunnanvind
(my noise-to-signal ratio will decrease, don't worry.)
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 07:17:05PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Initial observations or Brandon's proposal:
Bzzzt. You lose points for forgetting how to spell my name despite the
fact that we've communicated dozens of times before.
> 1: Please separate the "whereas" from the actual propo
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 6: I am *still* unclear why we need a policy.
>
> I don't trust everyone in the world to live up to the standard set by
> the FSF. The FSF put out a license called the GNU FDL and is asking the
> world to use it. That's great. The license contai
17 matches
Mail list logo
