Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On 24 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote: > > Given the GNU Projects influence on Debian, shouldn't the GNU Manifesto > > be included in the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution anyway? > > I propose expanding this question to: > >Why does Debian want to remove (say) the GNU Manifesto from the >ma

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 06:20:27PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > instead of a document > like this one that warns about and criticises the FDL, perhaps Debian > should issue a more general statement along the lines of: We have > decided documentation in Debian must comply with the DFSG, and this will >

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Anthony Towns wrote: > If we are willing to accept invariant chapters in DFSG-free > documentation, I don't see how we could possibly claim the GNU FDL is not > DFSG-free. Merely being able to delete something doesn't make it free -- > I can delete MS Office easily enough, eg.

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 03:00:00PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > The difference between Office and Invariants is (if I understand the licence > correctly) that Invariant sections can't be large chunks of the manual - > only so-called "secondary sections". So, if I make a Debian system that incl

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 04:57:36 +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On the other hand, the DFSGly non-free docs that are about to be > thrown out of main are at least as freely distributable as any other > package in main. This is a quality that many packages in non-free do

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Scripsit Anthony Towns > > If only we could be sure that the license on the manuals would > > allow a user who thinks that "because!" is reason enough for him, > > to remove the GNU Manifesto, we probably could still distribute > > the unmidified manuals with the Invariant Sec

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Scripsit Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Anthony Towns wrote: > > What About Unmodifiable Software Licenses Like the GNU GPL? > >Many software licenses unfortunately disallow the creation ofderivative > >works. The FSF give everyone permission to distribute verbatim > >copies of the G

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Scripsit "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Henning Makholm said: > > Perhaps the O.A.C. ought to be our next target, but let us fight one > > battle at a time. > EXPN O.A.C.? Obnoxious Advertising Clause. -- Henning Makholm "However, the fact that the utterance by

Re: question about moral rights

--- Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> からの メッセージ： > Hi Mark, > On Thursday 24 April 2003 19:37, Mark Rafn wrote: > > A few people have brought up the topic of Moral > Rights, with > > which I am not very familiar. They sound like > some sort of > > meta-copyright which an author cannot

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 02:05:10PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Anthony Towns > > > If only we could be sure that the license on the manuals would > > > allow a user who thinks that "because!" is reason enough for him, > > > to remove the GNU Manifesto, we probably could

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If only we could be sure that the license on the manuals would > allow a user who thinks that "because!" is reason enough for > him, to remove the GNU Manifesto, we probably could still > distribute the unmidified manuals with the I

Re: VisualBoyAdvance license

* Richard Braakman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > More disturbing is the file src/win32/wavwrite.cpp, which has the > GPL blurb followed by this: > > //- > // File: WavWrite.cpp > // > // Desc: Wave file support for loading

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 02:21:24PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > But the question itself is good, because many people do have the > impression that the "changing it is not allowed" language at the top > of the GPL itself is the final word. This question would be an > excellent place to refer to B

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Henning Makholm said: > Scripsit Anthony Towns > >> > If only we could be sure that the license on the manuals would >> allow a user who thinks that "because!" is reason enough for >> him, to remove the GNU Manifesto, we probably could still >> distribute the unmidified manuals with the Invar

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Hi Glenn, On Friday 25 April 2003 05:00, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 04:57:36AM +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote: > > On the other hand, the DFSGly non-free docs that are about > > to be thrown out of main are at least as freely > > distributable as any other package in ma

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

>> As far as I am concerned, I have no desire to have ReiserFS distributed >> for free by anyone who removes the GNU manifesto or similar expressions >> from Stallman's work (or my own) and redistributes it. It is simply a >> matter of respect that is due the author. > > Respect is due; but it

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: [Disclaimer: if, at any point during the reading of this message, you see a point which has been raised and covered before, please point me to the archive message. I couldn't find anything in the d-legal archives back to Jan-2002 which appeared to deal w

Is documentation different from software [Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Matthew Palmer wrote: > I was about to pipe up with "but we don't distribute novels with Debian" > until I realised that we want to distribute a few other novel-like things - > pure documentation not associated with a specific software program (eg the > hoary old chestnut of t

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 02:21:24PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > > excellent place to refer to Brian's discovery. > /me sniffles dejectedly > But I made the same "discovery" 2 days earlier, on Tue, 22 Apr 2003 > 12:49:47 -0500 in Message-ID: <[EM

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Scripsit "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Henning Makholm said: > > No, we just said that license text are sufficiently non-software-like to > > enjoy an exception. > I think the key reason (that licenses are acceptable invariant texts) is > that the license text is a legal agreement between _yo

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 10:04:31AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > To roast a hoary chestnut, I've not yet seen a good argument why we'd want > the RFCs to be relicensed as DFSG-free, apart from the "so it can go into > Debian main". Modifying an RFC and re-releasing it is not a good thing, but > t

Re: Is documentation different from software [Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Mark Rafn wrote: > > Could we produce a distinction amongst our offerings in the following > > manner: > > Why do we want to produce a distinction where there is none? We obviously disagree on whether there is a distinction. > > To roast a hoary chestnut, I've not yet seen

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > To roast a hoary chestnut, I've not yet seen a good argument why we'd > > want the RFCs to be relicensed as DFSG-free, apart from the "so it can > > go into Debian main". Modifying an RFC and re-releasing it is not a > > good thing, but the DFSG says

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 12:33:21PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > RFC authors do it all the time, by issuing updates to existing RFC > documents. They say "Do it like this, except for this, this, and this". This argument would suggest that any unmodifiable, freely-distributable document is free.

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 10:49:26PM +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote: > > There's lots of software in non-free that is freely > > distributable, but non-free for other reasons, such as > > limitations on commercial use. Non- free things should go in > > non-free, even if there's a lack of fre

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

> What About Unmodifiable Software Licenses Like the GNU GPL? Strike that text! It's not true. Noting , let me try: start new answer The Free Software Foundation clarifies what it means by "...but changing [the GPL] is not allowed"