Sergey V. Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is clear for me, why FDL appears: it is needed to help technical
> writers earn money by writing free documentation for free software and
> to help publishers of free manuals make a profit from them [1].
That may be clear to you, but should we
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray wrote:
> ... Both FSF and Debian agree that FDL-covered works are not free
> software, ...
To the best of my knowledge, this is not correct: RMS seems to argue
that a manual published under the FDL is free in the free software
sense, since you can make any f
Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray wrote:
>> ... Both FSF and Debian agree that FDL-covered works are not free
>> software, ...
> To the best of my knowledge, this is not correct: RMS seems to argue
> that a manual published under the FDL is free in
Hello,
I have for some time been lurking during the discussions of the FDL, RFC
issues, and related matters, and I am getting an increasingly uneasy feeling
about the consensus that appears to be starting to coalesce around them.
You may note that I am a staunch Free Software advocate as you read
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As the discussion about FDL and the RFCs continues, I have seen various
> people attempt to disect the DFSG, or to redefine "software" in a highly
> loose manner, or to question DFSG's applicability to non-software items.
If FDL-covered works are not softw
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray wrote:
> Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray wrote:
>>> ... Both FSF and Debian agree that FDL-covered works are not free
>>> software, ...
>> To the best of my knowledge, this is not correct: RMS seems to argue
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 09:09:10AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > This is an arbitrary distinction that has no clear basis in the law.
> > > You are also circumventing CSS by playing the DVD
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
> *ALL* of these approaches are wrong. Putting non-software items into
> the same box as a very different beast serves only to cloud the
> issue.
No one as yet has come forward with a compelling argument as to why we
should consider treating documentation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
> You are incorrect. The Free Software Foundation has a monopoly on the
> trade mark "GNU". As a result, no other organization may title a
> document "GNU Manifesto" without the FSF's permission.
Well, some might. :) The word is also trademarked by
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 09:09:10AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > > This is an arbitrary distinction that has no clear basis in the law.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 12:13:12PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> I have for some time been lurking during the discussions of the FDL, RFC
> issues, and related matters, and I am getting an increasingly uneasy feeling
> about the consensus that appears to be starting to coalesce around them.
> You
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 12:13:12PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> I think this points out to me that a "strict constructionist" approach to
> documentation does not serve us well. Speaking in a general sense, rather
> than with regard to the particulars of the FDL, it does not prove a
> significant
John Goerzen said:
> Problem #2: Double Standards
>
> We have, and continue to, allow information to be distributed with
> software under even more strict terms than the FDL.
The entire debate revolves around the question of "will [we]* continue to
allow information to be distributed under non-fre
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 09:03:19PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > 2. Would removing the specifications around wich large parts of our
> > system are based benefit our users? Free Software?
>
> No. Would it harm them? Not really. Including them, or not, does not
> have a significant effect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
> DMCA 1201(a)(1)(A): No person shall circumvent a technological
> measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under
> this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall
> take effect at the end of the 2-year period
Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To be precise, the reference you cited (thanks!) makes it clear that
> RMS considers the "free" in "free software" to apply only to the
> "technical functionality" of the work, whether the work is a program
> or documentation: he writes
The problem is
MJ Ray wrote:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As the discussion about FDL and the RFCs continues, I have seen various
> > people attempt to disect the DFSG, or to redefine "software" in a highly
> > loose manner, or to question DFSG's applicability to non-software items.
>
> If FDL-c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
>
>> DMCA 1201(a)(1)(A): No person shall circumvent a technological
>> measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under
>> this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sente
John Goerzen wrote:
> All of the arguments being made about freeness of documentation -- that
> somebody may want to develop a document based on the original -- would also
> apply to licenses (perhaps I wish to develop a license based on the GPL).
> Yet we are ignoring the problem with the license
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BZZT. That is exactly the argument John just asked us not to make.
I think your buzzer is malfunctioning. John seemed to be asking us not
to stretch the DFSG to non-software. Not the same thing.
[Software/Docs distinction]
> So's this. And it's been said a
MJ Ray wrote:
>
> Does anyone have *NEW DATA* to bring to the discussion?
as a mostly passive observer at this point, the only data we are missing
is a clear working definition to separate out Software, Data, and
Documentation.
once we do that to our own satisfaction, then we can get on with
def
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:13:12 -0500
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As the discussion about FDL and the RFCs continues, I have seen various
> people attempt to disect the DFSG, or to redefine "software" in a highly
> loose manner, or to question DFSG's applicability to non-software items.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> To be precise, the reference you cited (thanks!) makes it clear that
>> RMS considers the "free" in "free software" to apply only to the
>> "technical functionality" of the work, whether t
23 matches
Mail list logo
