On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 09:23:08PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Literally ad hominem means "targeting the man" (how he looks like,
> sure, to take the more simplistic case... but also how he writes, how
> behaves).
This seems a non-sequitur. Are you trying to say that you consider the
pointing out
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 11:45:31AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Claus Färber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Peter S Galbraith schrieb/wrote:
> > > Claus Färber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[I wrote:]
> > > > > Yes, though it should be kept in mind that the GPL-incompatibility
> > > > > problem
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 08:06:27PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 04:14:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > [ UH OH. I just noticed that the de-spamification of the mailing list
> > archives has caused some URLs from Google to point to the wrong
> > messages. IMO this is
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 04:58:15PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 04:01:45PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > A split of the tvtime upstream distribution is necessary no matter what;
> > but as I understand it, the bit that would go into contrib could be
> > omitted ent
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 09:01:28PM -0500, Billy Biggs wrote:
> David Starner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > > * That which is in main must be buildable and usable solely with
> > > packages also in main (IOW, main is a "closure");
[Starner's reply snipped]
> You have it backwards. The intention of
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:12:07PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > Please review the archive. GFDL is non-free even without invariant
> > sections, due to the anti-DMCA clause.
>
> This has been discussed recently and it was so not clear.
Moreover, there is evidence that the FSF will investigate
On 2003-09-10 11:28:39 +0100 John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Moreover, there is evidence that the FSF will investigate and address
this
issue.
I see only evidence that they will investigate.
At least, we still have a question mark about transparency (might not
be relevant) and a prob
On 2003-09-10, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm guessing that you feel all of my questions to RMS have been
> rhetorical. They haven't been. For instance, I asked him whether
> Debian ceasing to distribute non-free software (and not providing
> reference to it in the installer, a
Hello,
I have some documentation and documentation-like material that I am getting
ready to release, and figured this would be an opportune time to ask this
question:
What license do people here recommend for doing so?
I like some of the aims of the FDL (*NOT* the invariant sections), such as
tr
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 02:25:49AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 09:23:08PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > Literally ad hominem means "targeting the man" (how he looks like,
> > sure, to take the more simplistic case... but also how he writes, how
> > behaves).
> This see
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 09:51:22AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> What license do people here recommend for doing so?
I should add that I want a license that guarantees that all receipients of
modified versions get the full original rights. (Similar to the GPL rather
than BSD in that respect.)
--
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I should add that I want a license that guarantees that all receipients of
> modified versions get the full original rights. (Similar to the GPL rather
> than BSD in that respect.)
Then use the GPL, version 2 only.
If you use the GPL version 2 or later then f
Not having source is a mere inconvenience; you can always decompile the
program, read the assembly, translate it back into C, etc. Not being
able to distribute the program is only an inconvenience; you can always
rewrite it from scratch.
Those words are simply an indirect way of de
> I think you have demonstrated, better than I ever could,
> that your criticism is based on an unfair standard.
It isn't unfair, precisely because I think it's a two way street.
This is the standard that applies to both sides.
This "standard" is an indirect way of claiming you ar
Then, why don't you just create your own distribution based on
Debian? Take the official CD set, remove all references to
non-free, and distribute it from your server. Problem solved.
We thought about that, and we're still thinking about it.
In the past, this sort of thing was unusu
"Other users consider proprietary manuals acceptable for the same reason
so many people consider proprietary software acceptable: they judge in
purely practical terms, not using freedom as a criterion. These people
are entitled to their opinions, but since those opinions spring from
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> I should add that I want a license that guarantees that all receipients of
>> modified versions get the full original rights. (Similar to the GPL rather
>> than BSD in that respect.)
>
> Then use the GPL, ve
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 02:57:14PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-09-10 11:28:39 +0100 John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Moreover, there is evidence that the FSF will investigate and address
> >this
> >issue.
>
> I see only evidence that they will investigate.
>
> At least, we still
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 11:05:32AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Once again: I am subscribed to -legal. Please follow debian list
> > policy and refrain from Cc:'ing me.
>
> Please use X-Followups-To or a similar tool if it matters that much
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 09:51:22AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> * Open Publication License; debian-legal archives show
>that it may have been considered free at one time but now is
>questionable. Can anyone shed some light there?
As I recall, the OPL has a thing equivalent to the GNU FDL
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 11:57:45AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Incompatibility of licenses does cause real obstacles to certain uses,
> and it might be worth changing the GFDL to solve that problem, if it
> can be done without big drawbacks. I'm going to think about this
> question. But the
On Wednesday 10 September 2003 17:55, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Where we draw the line, when judging licenses as free or not, is
> whether you can practically speaking make the code or the manual do
> the substantive job you want. If license restrictions make it
> impossible to make the technical
On 2003-09-10, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> I should add that I want a license that guarantees that all receipients of
>> modified versions get the full original rights. (Similar to the GPL rather
>> than BSD in that respect.)
>
> Then us
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 03:08:59PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> However, there are some additional source code modules in DScaler which have
> not (yet?) been ported to build and run under Linux. These are also useful
> for tvtime, and it can make use of them by loading them in binary (DLL) for
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 02:49:23AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 09:01:28PM -0500, Billy Biggs wrote:
> > David Starner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >
> > > > * That which is in main must be buildable and usable solely with
> > > > packages also in main (IOW, main is a "closur
Op wo 10-09-2003, om 03:27 schreef Manoj Srivastava:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 22:17:07 +0200, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Op ma 08-09-2003, om 18:42 schreef Manoj Srivastava:
> >> > Since our users and the DFSG are equally important, one should
> >> > not try to solve one of thos
Hello,
This license is from the Creative Commons at
http://creativecommons.org/license/results-one?license_code=by-sa&format=text
It is designed to apply to text or similar works (manuals, books, music, etc.)
What do you think: DFSG free?
- non-binding summary ---
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 12:52:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 09:51:22AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > * Open Publication License; debian-legal archives show
> >that it may have been considered free at one time but now is
> >questionable. Can anyone shed som
If I were to try my own hand as an apprentice in the fine art of
debian-legal license analysis, I might say the following :
DFSG 1: Free Redistribution
Section 3c gives the right to use it in a collective work.
DFSG 2: Source Code
Not specifically addressed here (at least in terms of "preferr
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 04:55:40PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Don't look now, but Creative Commons publishes somewhere around half a dozen
> licenses :-) (Though some are pretty blatantly non-free)
(No ridiculously excessive license proliferation here, folks! Nope!)
--
Glenn Maynard
On Monday, Sep 8, 2003, at 16:03 US/Eastern, Joe Moore wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis said:
The GPL prohibits us from distributing Debian on orange peels or
probably even punch cards, because that's not "on a medium customarily
used for software interchange."
The medium restriction you note refer
On Monday, Sep 8, 2003, at 18:06 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote:
First off, I've already noted that I do NOT belive the GFDL's current
wording to be free. Nor can I think of free wording. But I'm not sure
that there is no free wording.
The GPL requires that we distribute source to some p
On Monday, Sep 8, 2003, at 18:07 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 11:15:09PM +0200, Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
The subject under discussion is a license which prohibits
distribution
on DRM media.
Not on media. On technical methods that limit the free access to the
On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 07:12 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Please review the archive. GFDL is non-free even without invariant
sections, due to the anti-DMCA clause.
This has been discussed recently and it was so not clear.
The poll held recently made it very clear. Who has changed th
On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 07:26 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
and we're about to claim that GFLed documentation, which may not at
all having any invariant part, is non-free stuff.
No, we claim that FDL-covered documents are not free software.
Is this mail a software?
Yes, at least for t
On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 07:53 US/Eastern, Andreas Barth wrote:
But: Most of the mails here are not copyright-able at all,
Huh? In Berne countries, AFAIK, most of them can be, and are,
copyrighted.
On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 08:24 US/Eastern, Andreas Barth wrote:
Sorry, but there is certainly non-free software that provide freedom
equally to GFDL.
Name one.
qmail.
Last time I checked, qmail didn't have secondary parts marked
invariant. The whole package is.
On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 09:50 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
The fact that you cannot write GFDLed document with OpenOffice or LyX
(which are not at all in a preferred form for modification) does not
make documentation GFDLed that others persons wrote, in the preferred
form for modification
On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 11:55 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
But in fact, OpenOffice format may be even considered as acceptable:
A "Transparent" copy of the Document means a machine-readable
copy, represented in a format whose specification is available
to the genera
On Tuesday, Sep 9, 2003, at 12:29 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
So a country were you are free to kill a girl without any legal risk
is a country DFSG compliant?
Please cite the specific paragraph of the DFSG that has _anything_ to
do with killing people.
I'm sorry but being free is mean
On Wednesday, Sep 10, 2003, at 16:35 US/Eastern, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Is it? Propreitary software can indeed provide value, and is
often useful to people -- which is why the company is in
business. And yet, we have coalesced a volunteer effort around the
premise that libre software
Martin Godisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Version: unavailable; reported 2003-09-10
> Severity: wishlist
>
> * Package name: libdict
> Version : 0.9
> Upstream Author : Steven Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : ftp://ftp.dict.org/pub/dict/
> * License
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>
> > Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> > > > It is a restriction on how I can use and transform the document,
> > > > rendering the GFDL non-free.
> > >
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>
> > Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Name one.
> > > (Note that when you speak of the freedom brought by the GFDL, you
> > > cannot consider that the invariant option is surely used)
> >
> > The ol
44 matches
Mail list logo
