Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Agreed. I will continue to assert that there is an extra level of
> scrutiny required for GNU FDL-licensed material that is inapplicable to
> GNU GPL-licensed material. If all copyright within a GPL'ed work is
> consistent and accurate, then it's fi
I don't see why. It is pretty obvious to me that the existing DFSG
provides no exceptions to clause 3. The work must be modifiable and
modified versions must be redistributable under the same license as the
original. Period. It doesn't say "except for the license text itself".
On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 10:52:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> Moreover, the DFSG applies to *software* by its own explicit terms,
> and we simply have never had (nor needed) to worry over much about
> other kinds of material. Things which do not directly impact the
> freedom of *softw
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If all copyright within a GPL'ed work is consistent and accurate,
> then it's fine; it is impossible for an author/copyright holder to
> misapply the GNU GPL to his own work.
/* Copyright (c) 2001 J. Stupid Luser
*
* This program is free software
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 01:46:56PM +0100, Bernd Warken wrote:
> A new kind of document license based on the GNU Free Documentation
> License is needed. Who is interested?
I think that a better idea might be to better define what is and isn't
allowed in the "invariant sections" defined by the FDL
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 02:34:19AM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I don't see why. It is pretty obvious to me that the existing DFSG
> provides no exceptions to clause 3. The work must be modifiable and
> modified versions must be redistributable under the same license as the
>
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 04:14:24PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > If all copyright within a GPL'ed work is consistent and accurate,
> > then it's fine; it is impossible for an author/copyright holder to
> > misapply the GNU GPL to his own work.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 01:37:53PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> to be stretching the purpose of a Secondary Section. Or is the FSF's
> intent to permit people to use the GNU FDL to protect a 3-page reference
> card for some program, accompanied by a 100-page novella which begins,
> "It was a d
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 04:14:24PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > it is impossible for an author/copyright holder to
> > > misapply the GNU GPL to his own work.
> > /* Copyright (c) 2001 J. Stup
On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 10:52:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Nope, the de facto exceptions have included such things as the Emacs
> manual *from day one*.
To what extent is this true by design, and to what extent by accident?
I know some folks might find this horribly offensive, but
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 06:59:57PM +, M. Drew Streib wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 01:37:53PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Or is the FSF's intent to permit people to use the GNU FDL to
> > protect a 3-page reference card for some program, accompanied by a
> > 100-page novella which beg
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 08:22:44PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 04:14:24PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > > it is impossible for an author/copyright holder to
> >
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 03:53:58PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'm cognizant of the work that has gone into it. I'm just not convinced
> that it is as militantly defensive of the user's right to share
> documentation as GNU GPL is for software.
Interestingly, while we (the list) might mostly
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 09:12:58PM +, M. Drew Streib wrote:
> Would it be a thought to distinguish between the different types of
> documentation? Should a man page (designed to be strictly technical/reference)
> be any different than files in the doc directory? Could invariants be
> allowed mo
Scripsit "M. Drew Streib" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Would it be a thought to distinguish between the different types of
> documentation? Should a man page (designed to be strictly
> technical/reference) be any different than files in the doc
> directory?
There would be good reasons to use stricter st
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 04:38:37PM +, M. Drew Streib wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 01:46:56PM +0100, Bernd Warken wrote:
> > A new kind of document license based on the GNU Free Documentation
> > License is needed. Who is interested?
>
> I think that a better idea might be to better defin
"M. Drew Streib" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Interestingly, while we (the list) might mostly subjectively
> agree on what is abuse of the FDL on a case-by-case basis, the hard part
> is finding a way to put into an quantitative policy.
I think this is true, but that's why I'm very hesitatant a
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [1] I think it's interesting that RMS and I have complementary paranoid
> fears. He is afraid that Debian package maintainers will not be
> reasonable, and molest the "modifiable" version of Invariant texts, and
> I'm afraid that GNU FDL licensors wi
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 11:01:13PM +0100, Bernd Warken wrote:
> Fine. So ye people of FSF, how about an update to GNU FDL 1.2 that
> restricts the invariant sections on meta-sections?
I suggest that if you want to address the FSF, you mail them.
--
G. Branden Robinson|Any m
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 02:30:38PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [1] I think it's interesting that RMS and I have complementary paranoid
> > fears. He is afraid that Debian package maintainers will not be
> > reasonable, and molest the "mo
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 02:28:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> "M. Drew Streib" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Interestingly, while we (the list) might mostly subjectively
> > agree on what is abuse of the FDL on a case-by-case basis, the hard part
> > is finding a way to put into an
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You seem to keep overlooking the point that this "policy", without
> further action from the Developers or Project Leader, is as malleable as
> Debian wants it to be.
Well, of course it's not cast in stone. I'm worried though that a
standard will ge
22 matches
Mail list logo
