The advertising clause is:
"All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the University of
California, Berkeley and its contributors."
If this causes problems, you can always ele
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:24:04PM +0400, olive wrote:
> >If this causes problems, you can always elect to not mention the use of
> >the software in advertising. That's annoying, but accepted. There's no
> >such escape with front- and back-cover texts.
> >
> >It's also not at all obvious to me ho
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 11:21:34AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:49:04PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > >
> > > The overall subject can be software freedom but not necesarily in all
> > > cases and certainly not in the case with the man-page. One can not
> > > use s
Glenn Maynard
> The FSF has made it clear that it does not believe documentation does
> not need the same freedoms as software, and has even agreed that the
> GFDL is not a Free Software license.
RMS quotes for this position:
"I am not sure if the GFDL is a
free software license, but I don't thin
olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That is at least an elaborate argument. I personnaly think that Debian
> would do better to defend free software if there were in accordance to
> the FSF.
I think you're completely wrong here. Monopolies are rarely good, and
monopolies on what "free software"
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> [blobs] From the point of view of the GPL work called the Linux
> kernel, they're just data.
Apart from the fact that the data is meant to be executed by some
computing device, it does not matter if you call it a program or just
data. The GPL requi
Pedro A.D.Rezende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> No. But this one is enough to expose the incompetence of
> self-aggrandizing, sophist, self-serving lawyers and lawmakers.
Maybe it also exposes the linguistic incompetence of those who try to
impose the meaning of technical terms from their s
Shame on me, just forget this message.
It's all written in
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 07:21:48PM +0100, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't think I've seen that discussed somewhere (but I could be wrong),
> but I notice
Am 2006-01-15 22:13:52, schrieb Tobias Toedter:
> On Sunday 15 January 2006 21:12, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> > I think you can, except the FSF requires that you place a notice, in
> > English, saying 'This is an unofficial translation and the original
> > English version is the only legal one', whi
Hi,
I don't think I've seen that discussed somewhere (but I could be wrong),
but I noticed terms in the GFDL that makes most distributed Debian CDs
not following the license.
3. COPYING IN QUANTITY
If you publish printed copies (or copies in media that commonly have
printed covers) of the Do
Hi Evan, hi all,
is there any public information about the progress in the talks with CC
about clarification/amelioration/whatever of their licenses?
TIA, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
On Tue, 2006-24-01 at 19:40 +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
is there any public information about the progress in the talks with CC
about clarification/amelioration/whatever of their licenses?
No, but that's just because I've been lazy and haven't done a proper report to d-d-a.
Here's the poop,
Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't have an idea of when the 3.0 license draft will be available,
> what other changes there may be, or pretty much where things go from
> here. But I do know that CC seems to take DFSG-compatibility seriously
> and that they're going to be open to o
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:17:24PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Well, if you ask the people that use this man-page they will tell.
>
> Uh. You'll have to make a choice here: either the text is the entirety
> of _all_ manpages (in which case you can split off the invariant
> sections and the F
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 12:17:24PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > With respect to that freedom GPL is also non-free.
>
> It is not. See below.
Anyone arguing for invariant sections by pointing to license texts has
missed all of the prior discussions on this topic, going back years.
Given the q
On 23 Jan 2006 16:14:00 +0100, Claus Färber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> > [blobs] From the point of view of the GPL work called the Linux
> > kernel, they're just data.
>
> Apart from the fact that the data is meant to be executed by some
> computi
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:59:07 + MJ Ray wrote:
> Personally, I think we need the same freedoms if we ever want to
> have sustainably up-to-date manuals for free software.
Indeed.
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 04:17:55 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> This is a concluded debate: Debian and the FSF are in disagreement
> regarding standards of freedom for documentation. I'm glad that
> Debian stuck to its standards, and didn't allow them to plummet merely
> to follow the FSF's standards i
On Tue, 2006-24-01 at 20:50 +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Thank you for the report;
To be clear, I'm going to write a more thorough report and send it to d-d-a RSN.
it sounds promising, but on the other hand it
sounds as if talking upstream authors[1] into relicensing their
documentation wi
19 matches
Mail list logo
