On Monday, Sep 15, 2003, at 17:59 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
He is unrestricted in his exercise of his rights under the GPL: he can
copy the source, modify it for his purposes, and distribute it.
The GPL also gives rights to copy the binary, as a form of the program
under section
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 04:27:36PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Indeed, that standpoint of bodily integrity is one of the things that
> makes sex so much fun, that one is freely giving it up, and the other
> person doesn't have any right to it.
Boy, you really *are* a monk, if you think of
* Craig Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-16 09:21]:
> I think the page needs some information about it, roughly saying here
> the vendors are but they're not related do Debian and we dont endorse
> them or something. I don't want it to be too down as the majority of
> vendors are fine businesses
* Brian T. Sniffen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030916 00:05]:
> Actually, you *can* freely enforce restrictions on running the
> software using technical methods:
And we do it. We have software runable only be members of certain
uid/gid, enforced by the kernel. You need special authorization to
replace t
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> To the readers of this message: if you are a Debian developer and you
>> do, or perhaps might, support including manuals covered by the GFDL
>> (without expecting it to change) in Debian, please write to me
* Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030916 01:50]:
> [...]
I second the principle way of your draft (this means: also with
modifications during this discussion here). But please be warned: I'm
not a DD, so my seconding has only limited meaning.
And: Thank you for your work.
Cheers,
Andi
--
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> B. Transparent and Opaque copies
>>
>> Under certain circumstances the document may not have a transparent
>> version (for example, after being modified with a proprietary word
>> processor).
>
> I would chan
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Monday, Sep 15, 2003, at 12:37 US/Eastern, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> But I'm not restricting someone's exercise of their rights when I
>> give them GPL works on DRM media and, at the same time, give them
>> source on a traditional CD.
>
> Sure you
[RMS and Walter Landry omitted from CC list]
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 02:17:42PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> To the readers of this message: if you are a Debian developer and you
> >> do, or perhaps
On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 07:17, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> To the readers of this message: if you are a Debian developer and you
> >> do, or perhaps might, support including manuals covered by the GFDL
> >>
I just discovered that some of the copyright statements in xfree86's
copyright file have clauses that we usually consider non-free.
Normally I'd just file a bug, but given that the maintainer of
xfree86 is commonly known to know what he's doing, I'll ask here
in advance: What is it that I am missin
On 2003-09-16, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> To the readers of this message: if you are a Debian developer and you
>> >> do, or perhaps might, support including manuals covered by the GFDL
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 06:26, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of
> the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the
> publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall
> subject (or to related matters) and
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:26:07PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> As I tried to point out in the recent discussions about the GFDL (not
> sure whether that point has come through, but anyway), although the GFDL
> is crafted in a way which makes it not DFSG-free, IMHO there is nothing
> wrong with
Then what is a real lack of freedom? I could use the regex code under
an invariant license;
If the license for the code did not allow modification, you could not
make it implement different behavior. You would substantively lack
the ability to change the functionality. That is a lack of
You have mistaken the objection. There is no reason to think it would
be a small fractional increase, especially since little parts of
manuals--single paragraphs even--are useful reusable bits just in the
way that single functions of Lisp are.
Reusing a single paragraph is fair us
For example, I might use a manual by tearing it into pieces and using
the individual pages as confetti for a parade. But I cannot copy
GFDL'd manuals and then do this.
I congratulate you on your imagination--it never occurred to me to
think about this as a use of a manual.
As it ha
The principal argument in favor of the GFDL seems
to be "this is the only way we can get our message out".
The GNU Project's motive for using invariant sections is not the issue
here; that's a GNU Project decision, not a Debian decision.
The question at hand is whether Debian should acc
To use one page of the GFDL-licensed work required one paragraph in the
Copyright page, the page I wanted to use, and a copy of the GFDL (so far the
same), plus:
1. the required front-cover text (on a page by itself before the excerpt:
"bracket" in the terms of the GFDL),
2.
Would you accept a similar restriction in a software license, and
still call the license free? (Say, one which said "you must always
distribute this function as part of the system".)
Yes, and the case of TeX is an example. It requires more than just
one function that you must include
They may cause practical
> inconvenience for some kinds of uses, but no more than that. The
> issue is basically the same as the issue of the preamble of the GPL.
Yes, they do. They say "you may not use this technical material
unless you also do this unrelated non-technical
> If the license for the code did not allow modification, you could not
> make it implement different behavior. You would substantively lack
> the ability to change the functionality. That is a lack of real
> freedom.
I fail to see how this differs from an invariant section. (We can't
add a chan
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would you accept a similar restriction in a software license, and
> still call the license free? (Say, one which said "you must always
> distribute this function as part of the system".)
>
> Yes, and the case of TeX is an example. It re
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You have mistaken the objection. There is no reason to think it would
> be a small fractional increase, especially since little parts of
> manuals--single paragraphs even--are useful reusable bits just in the
> way that single functio
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> They may cause practical
> > inconvenience for some kinds of uses, but no more than that. The
> > issue is basically the same as the issue of the preamble of the GPL.
>
> Yes, they do. They say "you may not use this technical mate
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 04:27:36PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Indeed, that standpoint of bodily integrity is one of the things that
> > makes sex so much fun, that one is freely giving it up, and the other
> > person doesn't have any right
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For example, I might use a manual by tearing it into pieces and using
> the individual pages as confetti for a parade. But I cannot copy
> GFDL'd manuals and then do this.
>
> I congratulate you on your imagination--it never occurred t
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The principal argument in favor of the GFDL seems
> to be "this is the only way we can get our message out".
>
> The GNU Project's motive for using invariant sections is not the issue
> here; that's a GNU Project decision, not a Debian deci
On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 17:18, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> On 2003-09-16, Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Your problem is here. Quote more carefully next time.
> >> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> To the readers of this messa
29 matches
Mail list logo
