On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 06:54:12PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 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
Please stop fighting each other. We all have the same aim, so let's
join, Debian, FSF, OpenSource. This list is not a place for personal
revenge.
To reduce traffic, please do not answer this mail.
Bernd Warken
-Original Message-
From: Bernd Warken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So there should be a note in the Debian wekkly news to make things
> clear.
> That's what most people read.
There was a link.
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 09:11:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I think I agree with your goal here completely. For that reason, we
> should not make any kind of statement that "everything licensed under
> the GFDL is ok".
Agreed. I will continue to assert that there is an extra level of
I don't see why. It is pretty obvious to me that the existing DFSG
provides no exceptions to clause 3.
Ah, so it wasn't a misunderstanding after all. I wasn't confused.
I think it's pretty obvious that there is at least some confusion on
this issue. I've seen at least three confused people p
On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 03:45:59PM +, Sunnanvind wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bernd Warken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > So there should be a note in the Debian wekkly news to make things
> > clear.
> > That's what most people read.
>
> There was a link.
>
Yes, but unfortunatel
Such material may not exceed 16 binary kilobytes (16,384 bytes)
when viewed in plain-text form (treating all adjacent white space
characters as one byte).
GNU Emacs comes with more than 16k of such material. Much more. And
that is not even counting the material that is part of the
7 matches
Mail list logo
