On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 04:08:33PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> What about Marcel Duchamp? Dammit, stop ignoring the question! For
> Duchamp, "violating" the Mona Lisa was an integral part of the
> artistic statement being made. Does that not count? Address the
> case. So far it merely
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 01:49:03PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > I think it's an interesting case to consider because of the question of
> > > whether an interface is copyrightable, but I think that discussion is
> > > best left for another thread. In any case, I believe the "generic
> > > in
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 04:39:30PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 02:35:05PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > > I wonder how the arguments I pointed to came into being, then, if I
> > > did not construct them.
>
> > Whi
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] We also
> disagree about Debian's practice of distributing and recommending
> non-free software.
I'm sorry, but can you justify this statement, please? For part of
Debian to recommend non-free software is a breach of policy, which
says that Deb
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your message repeated over and over that you think the GFDL isn't
> free, but didn't even try to justify that claim. I continue to
> believe that the GNU FDL is a free documentation license.
This is not the question. Do you believe that the GNU FDL is
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:21:13PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I would point out that the FSF has rewritten its views as well. For
> example, I protested that the FSF's acceptance of invariant sections
> contradicted its own reasing in the "why free manuals are important"
> document; the
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:53:25PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> The GNU FDL does many other things, but you raised the issue of
> invariant sections, so my response focused on that issue.
Just so you know, the Debian Project is also concerned about:
1) Cover Texts[1]
2) Acknowledgements and D
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:53:27PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Is the FSF willing to dual-license manuals that previously had no
> invariant sections at all, such as _Debugging with GDB_, under the GNU
> FDL and the traditional GNU documentation license simultaneously?
>
> I don't
RMS,
There are a few questions from previous mails that I consider important,
which you elided from your replies. I am intensely interested in your
answers to these questions, and I would greatly appreciate it if you
could take some time to answer them.
Your answers to my other questions have be
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:32:25AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Well, all right, but this makes it more difficult for me to dismiss
> substantive objections from dismissive or belittling remarks.
Err, s/to dismiss/to distingush/
I apologize for the error.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 07:29:46AM -, MJ Ray wrote:
> Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] We also
> > disagree about Debian's practice of distributing and recommending
> > non-free software.
>
> I'm sorry, but can you justify this statement, please?
That we distribute it is
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 11:45:36AM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> Note that relicensing software under a different licence that you have
> merely repackaged is not considered good form.
It's not just bad form.
It's not even valid if one has not made any original contributions to
the work. Matthew B
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 10:54:36AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> You raised one point that I am concerned about:
>
> * Debugging with GDB; "GDB version 5 May 2000"[1]
> [1] This manual is an interesting case because it started out with no
> invariant sections at all, but later ad
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 01:59:36AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Good. Then perhaps you'll agree that saying "This is licensed under the
> GPL with the additional restriction that" is an invalid statement,
> because such a thing is not licensed under the GPL at all.
I think that you've mispar
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > As I said before: when the GNU GPL says "this License" and "herein",
> > these terms are not variables. They are constants. They always and
> > forever will refer to the terms and conditions laid out within the same
> > document.
Perhaps GPLv3 should solve
On Tue, 2003-05-20 at 05:15, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I am uncomfortable with some of the ramifications but I am also
> uncomfortable with totally declawing the GNU GPL by adopting and
> interpretation of it that would let people wrapper and language-bind
> their way out of the copyleft commons.
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2003-05-20 at 05:15, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
>> I am uncomfortable with some of the ramifications but I am also
>> uncomfortable with totally declawing the GNU GPL by adopting and
>> interpretation of it that would let people wrapper and l
On Wed, 21 May 2003, Nick Phillips wrote:
> Now what are you going to do with the overriding requirement that you
> can't do baz? Let's see...
>
> The result looks EXACTLY like:
>
> Copyright 2003 Joe Blow.
>
>TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
>
>1) You
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:53:25PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I hope Debian won't adopt your views, but if it does, it won't be the
> first disagreement between Debian and the FSF. Debian wrote its own
> definition of free software which is different from ours. We also
> disagree about Debi
19 matches
Mail list logo
