Op do 21-08-2003, om 07:09 schreef Branden Robinson:
> I am circulating this survey to gauge the level of consensus on this
> subject.
>
> The purpose of this survey is so that the participants in this mailing
> list can make an informed recommendation to the rest of the Debian
> Project.
>
> Ple
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2,
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
>
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
> by the Free Software Foundation, is not a
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
> by the Free Softwar
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> There clearly is a difference, otherwise we wouldn't need two words
>> for the concept.
>
> Umm, the presence of synonyms is not necesarily proof of a
> difference.
Heh. Ignore my statement. It's not particularly brilliant.[1]
> If you feel so str
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2
Branden Robinson wrote:
I am circulating this survey to gauge the level of consensus on this
subject.
The purpose of this survey is so that the participants in this mailing
list can make an informed recommendation to the rest of the Debian
Project.
Please reply to this message, to this mailing
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2,
On Thu 21 Aug Branden Robinson wrote:
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
> by
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is n
O Xoves, 21 de Agosto de 2003 ás 00:09:54 -0500, Branden Robinson escribía:
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Do
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
> by the Free Software Foundation, is not a
Before I reply, I should add I still see it as wrong and misleading to apply
*software* guidelines to *documentation*, which to me are fundamentally
different beasts. Thus, I see the question as rather misleading.
However, with the question narrowly framed as it is, regarding applying
the DFSG to
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2,
Branden Robinson wrote:
(not signed because I don't have my key on this machine)
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
> by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible
> with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this
>
Branden Robinson wrote:
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
> by the Free Softw
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
Branden Robinson wrote:
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
>
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
> by the Free Software Foundation, is no
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1
Joerg Wendland wrote:
>> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
>> by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible
>> with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works
>> under this license would require no additional pe
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 08:33:37PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00092.html
>
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I once had a big old nasty flamewar with the FTP admins that
> > was tangentially related to this point
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:09:54 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates
your opinion. Mark only one.
[X] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 12:44:57PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > My next post to -devel-announce will discuss some of these finer details.
> > In short, some members of the FSF have asked for us to give them some
> > more time to come up with a GFDL that's DFSG-free
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:07:20AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Before I reply, I should add I still see it as wrong and misleading to apply
> *software* guidelines to *documentation*, which to me are fundamentally
> different beasts. Thus, I see the question as rather misleading.
Which question?
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 05:27:22PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I have answered under the assumption that the license is applied to
> software (and not documentation, which is the common case), since this
> seems to be what you have asked for.
No; please reread the statements. I said "works"; n
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ ] The GNU Free Documentation
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) writes:
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ ] The GNU Free Document
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2,
as
published
by the Free Software Foundati
Le jeu 21/08/2003 à 07:09, Branden Robinson a écrit :
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, ve
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
> by the Free Softwar
Matthew Garrett, on 2003-08-21, 16:13, you wrote:
> Oh, now, come on. The GFDL plainly /isn't/ compatible with the DFSG.
> Whether or not it /has/ to be compatible with the DFSG in order to be in
> Debian is an entirely separate issue, but the above is obviously not
> true.
I was asked for my opin
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compa
Joerg Wendland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matthew Garrett, on 2003-08-21, 16:13, you wrote:
>> Oh, now, come on. The GFDL plainly /isn't/ compatible with the DFSG.
>> Whether or not it /has/ to be compatible with the DFSG in order to be in
>> Debian is an entirely separate issue, but the above
> === CUT HERE ===
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
> [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
> by the Free Software Foun
MBSOPPRAPP02 found Unknown infected with VIRUS= I-Worm.Sobig.f.txt
(Kaspersky) worm.
The message is currently Purged. The message, "Re: Wicked screensaver", was
sent from debian-legal@lists.debian.org
MBSOPPRAPP02 found movie0045.pif matching FILE FILTER= *.pif file filter.
The file is currently Purged. The message, "Re: Wicked screensaver", was
sent from debian-legal@lists.debian.org
|| On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:07:20 -0500
|| John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
jg> Before I reply, I should add I still see it as wrong and misleading to
apply
jg> *software* guidelines to *documentation*, which to me are fundamentally
jg> different beasts. Thus, I see the question as ra
Joerg Wendland wrote:
>I was asked for my opinion, here it is. I feel the GFDL is "free enough"
>for my heart does not beat for the bureaucratic following of iron rules
>but for the sake of our users. And our users are not just the readers of
>GFDL-licensed documentation but also their authors, an
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation
On Aug 21, Branden Robinson wrote:
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as publi
I am circulating this survey to gauge the level of consensus on this
subject.
The purpose of this survey is so that the participants in this mailing
list can make an informed recommendation to the rest of the Debian
Project.
Please reply to this message, to this mailing list, answering the
questi
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ ] The GNU Free Documentation
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
> by the Free Softwar
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 00:09, Branden Robinson wrote:
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, ver
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> I see no need (but it is still possible) to have a very exact line
> between program and documentation.
There's no need for such a line if and only if we don't make a
distinction between the freedoms that documentation must have, and the
freedoms
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:03:37 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> First off, sorry for starting off an old discussion. I've been away
> for the past two weeks. [If any one cares, there are pictures
> available on my website.]
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
>> So,
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:33:37 -0400 (EDT), Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:14:45 -0400 (EDT), Walter Landry
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > The .orig.tar.gz files only have to be purged of non-free stuff
>> > if tha
> === CUT HERE ===
>
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
> by the Free Softwar
Branden Robinson wrote:
Please reply to this message, to this mailing list, answering the
questions below. If you are a Debian Developer as of the date on this
message, please GPG-sign your reply.
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark
> Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
>
> Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
> opinion. Mark only one.
>
> [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
> by the Free Software Foundation, is not a
60 matches
Mail list logo
