Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?

-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,

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 1:http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter8/8-a.html > > I'm glad the uncredited author has an opinion. The work _is_ credited to Richard Stim, a practicing lawyer specializing in intellectual property and licensing.

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > IIRC, the specific section that most people are refering to is: > >You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading >or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. > > This means that you cannot publi

Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section

Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:03:47AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Ah, such questions are in the bowels of history. Probably it's best > > to chalk it up to a mistaken conception of what freeness needs to > > include, and one that we can ha

Script contributed to V.E.R.A.

In the History file that serves as a changelog for the latest version of V.E.R.A., the author included: Also added a Perl search routine for V.E.R.A. from Andres Soolo . You will find it in the `./contrib' directory of the distribution. For bug reports please contact Andres. This scri

Re: Script contributed to V.E.R.A.

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> The V.E.R.A. license is: >> >> > Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document >> > under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or >> > any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;

Re: CLUEBAT: copyrights, infringement, violations, and legality

On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:16:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Now, then, do > you think Euclid held a copyright in the _Elements_? Did the apostles > of Jesus hold a copyright in the gospels? If so, when did these > copyrights expire,

Re: removing the "draft" from the DDP policy

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1) The GNU FDL does not satisfy the DFSG even if there are no Invariant > Sections or Cover Texts. A few minutes earlier Branden Robinson wrote: > > Why not to use the GNU FDL: > > http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html > > Wow. Mos

Re: removing the "draft" from the DDP policy

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't see how I was being inconsistent, if that's what you're saying. > > Acknowledgements and Dedications are not Invariant Sections or Cover > Texts. I overlooked the "Acknowledgements and Dedications" in the referenced document. My bad.