[I think we basically agree, so I've marked this OT]
> > > Documentation relating to software needs to be really free, in order
> > > that we can manipulate it in far more interesting ways (such as
> > > refcarding it, embedding it as online help, or updating it because of
> > > advances in the pr
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 04:35:20PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I am trying to package caml-light which comes with the attached licence.
> > My understanding of it is that it is not distributable by debian, since
> > it allow distribution of modified
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:42:43PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
> An additional question, is this the actual license? Or is it an
> english translation of the actual license? [Looks like it was written
> by a non-english common law attorney.]
>
> On Wed, 14 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
> > My under
On Thu, 15 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:42:43PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
>>> Distribution of derivative works obtained by modifying the sofware or
>>> integrating it in another software is allowed only if the
>>> distributio
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 03:15:35AM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:42:43PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
> >>> Distribution of derivative works obtained by modifying the sofware or
> >>>
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 08:20:57PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Well, I'm willing to go along with this, but it means adding yet another
> > exception to our "no invariant text" rule, in addition to the five I
> > already enumerated.
>
> I'm having a hard time with the idea of calling a peice of te
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 11:11:49AM +0200, Uwe A. P. Wuerdinger wrote:
> Hi,
> I just catched this conversation on the misc OpenBSD mailinglist.
> Does this in any way afflict debian?
indeed seems to be a problem. Since it does not grant the rights to distribute
and sell the modified code, just the
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 02:39:15PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 11:11:49AM +0200, Uwe A. P. Wuerdinger wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I just catched this conversation on the misc OpenBSD mailinglist.
> > Does this in any way afflict debian?
>
> indeed seems to be a problem. Since it d
Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 10:19:45AM -0500, Debian Press Team wrote:
> > Thank you for your interest in the Debian Project!
>
> Debian Press Team,
>
> Please don't spam the Debian Legal Team.
>
> Thanks!
Please bug the spammer so it doesn't send mail with headers like:
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > If it's part of emacs, then it's very clearly non-free software
> > > > > > and the whole thing should be removed from Debian (unless the
> > > > > > FSF doesn't have to follow everyone else's definition of
> > > > > > freedom).
> > > > >
> > >
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> > Documentation relating to software needs to be really free, in order
> >> > that we can manipulate it in far more interesting ways (such as
> >> > ref
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 02:09:34PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 02:39:15PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> > On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 11:11:49AM +0200, Uwe A. P. Wuerdinger wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I just catched this conversation on the misc OpenBSD mailinglist.
> > > Does this
Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Again, moving a program to non-free will motivate people to
> write a free equivalent.
Actually, moving a program to non-free has historically been much more
likely to convey a message to the author of that program: "WAKE UP!"
When the author wakes up and realizes that thei
Martin Schulze wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 10:19:45AM -0500, Debian Press Team wrote:
> > > Thank you for your interest in the Debian Project!
> >
> > Debian Press Team,
> >
> > Please don't spam the Debian Legal Team.
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> Please bug the spammer so i
En réponse à Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > No you don't care: you don't use Emacs.
>
> I do. I even code for it. I use the manuals all the time, and I'm
> bothered by the hypocrisy of it.
Peter, as a GNU Emacs user, I know this. This was not directed
to you.
--
Jérôme Marant <[EM
(My idea in participating in these debates is to provide
some areas to research assertions. I will not express a
legal opinion on the fact specific issues. I'm including
citations and snippets for people's reference, not to be
pedandic. People have been saying that's very helpful but
let me know
En réponse à Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Emacs embbeds an info reader and makes possible to browse such
> > documentation. There is no link in the code AFAIK.
>
> It was argued in
>
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00169.html
OK. I meant
En réponse à Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Do you have to display the invariant section as well. It is legal
> just
> > embedding the invariant section without displaying it?
>
> You've got to be kidding. For one thing, who wants to jump through
> that
> hoop. For another, that
En réponse à Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?iso-8859-15?q?J=E9r=F4me?= Marant)
>
> > Err, it is a regression isn't it? I've always considered it as part
> > of Emacs, and even its online help. It has always worked like that.
>
> If it is part of Emacs, then
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> En réponse à Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > Emacs embbeds an info reader and makes possible to browse such
> > > documentation. There is no link in the code AFAIK.
> >
> > It was argued in
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-leg
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> En réponse à Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > Do you have to display the invariant section as well. It is
> > > legal just embedding the invariant section without displaying
> > > it?
> >
> > You've got to be kidding. For one thing,
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 03:08:25PM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003, Uwe A. P. Wuerdinger wrote:
>
> > I just catched this conversation on the misc OpenBSD mailinglist.
> > Does this in any way afflict debian?
>
>This subject has already been discussed forever on debian-legal.
Sorry for the noise.
Peter, I cannot reach you :-( I tried your both addresses.
Any idea?
Your message
To: Peter S Galbraith
Subject: Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Sent:Thu, 15 May 2003 16:21:41 -0400
did not reach the following recipient(s):
Galbraith, Peter on T
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> OK. I meant linked as with software, there is no code linking to
>> documentation.
>
> I'm not so sure. The Info file isn't dumped raw into a buffer for
> display. The info files provides offsets to each Info node such that a
> browser that quic
24 matches
Mail list logo
