On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 09:36:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > do you also consider :
> >
> > 10 REM
> >
> > as a piece of software ?
>
> Who cares?
>
> The current DFSG requires that a license permit free distribution of
> the work when in an ag
Scripsit Sven
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 09:36:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > the work when in an aggregation. As long as O'Reilly understands that
> > "aggregation" includes even "trivial" aggregations of a single page,
> > designed purely to allow for the publication for profit (whe
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Sven wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 09:36:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > People generally seem happy with the idea that the DFSG applies
> > directly to documentation, mutatis mutandis, exactly as it does to
> > softwar
Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, this may well fgollow the letter of what is written, but in no way the
> spirit of it.
The "spirit" of it? The "spirit" of it? Puhleez.
The DFSG's spirit is given by the customary interpretations on
debian-legal and the history of how it has been used.
On 20020213T133738-0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> In fact, it seems like the GPL is better worded
> for this sort of thing.
I would advice against anyone using the GPL for documentation.
For example, if I print and photocopy a GPL'd document and
give the copies to my students, I must also give them
begin Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho quotation of Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 08:00:48PM +0200:
> I would advice against anyone using the GPL for documentation.
> For example, if I print and photocopy a GPL'd document and
> give the copies to my students, I must also give them
> machine-readable source. This is
begin Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho quotation:
> I would advice against anyone using the GPL for documentation. For
> example, if I print and photocopy a GPL'd document and give the
> copies to my students, I must also give them machine-readable
> source. This is a major nuisance.
Or a writte
On 20020214T101613-0800, Don Marti wrote:
> The GPL says you only have to _offer_ them the source. If they
> want it on physical media you can tell them to bring a floppy to
> office hours; otherwise just put it on a web site.
That's not sufficient according to my reading. There are exactly
thre
On 20020214T102905-0800, Nick Moffitt wrote:
> Or a written offer, good for three years.
Yes, and that's a greater nuisance IMO.
--
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, LuK (BSc)* http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ * [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Title: â§â¡â
"íë¼ìëì¬" ê°ë¼ì¬ë...
10 matches
Mail list logo
