On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 06:38:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Until you start respecting them I am not going to discuss anything with
> > you, except to mention that if you want to use altered versions of the
&g
light] category is
> that non-free-CDs that contain only packages that only fail DFSG
> 2, 3 or 6 can still be copied verbatim. So the CD as one big
> data chunk cannot become uncopyable.
That may be something that the FSF would like to see; I am not certain
that the c
ase demand a degree of
specialized knowledge, and in the second case a value judgement on the
part of the prospective package maintainer. Thus I think my proposal is
expecting both informed and prudent decisions on the part of package
maintainers.
Let me know if that's setting the bar too high
> code part of an invariant section *AT ALL*.
I was speaking of the OPL and the GNU FDL in the aggregate. They are
both relatively new licenses with a similar purpose.
> Is it now fair game for you to just spread FUD?
s/encourage/provide mechanisms for/
With that correction, my observati
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 10:46:32PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I intend to. I'm sorry to offend you by asking people more familiar
> > with the GNU Emacs Manual to assist.
>
> What bugs me is tha
way out
with infantilizing remarks like "you are getting frustrated"? If that
is the case, I suggest you follow the example of RMS, who simply
expressed the fact that he didn't agree with me and didn't see any point
in further discussion, and didn't season it with veiled
r "pristine upstream tarballs", would
probably serve to bring a lot of Debian packages automatically into
compliance, if they're not already.
--
G. Branden Robinson|I have a truly elegant proof of the
Debian GNU/Linux |above
help. I received tons of unwanted mails.
> Please forward this request to the list owner.
> Thanks
Please take your grievance to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The readers of these mailing lists *DO NOT* have the power to
unsubscribe you.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Exercise your fr
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 11:30:47PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I believe Debian should have a standard a priori the GNU Emacs Manual
> > (for example), and not reason backwards on the assumption that
> > e
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 02:41:21AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Within what time period? I have made such an assertion with you, RMS,
^ not
> Anthony Towns, Henning Makholm, Sunnavind Fenderson, Scott Dier, or
> Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller.
Sigh.
rly surprising.
I'm afraid I don't fully understand this complaint. Perhaps you'd care
to spell it out in small words for me.
> Sometime in the next few years you might like to consider if there's a
> more effective way to build consensus than your modus operand
ledge that this may not be the spirit, or intent, of the
requirement.
--
G. Branden Robinson|Somewhere, there is a .sig so funny
Debian GNU/Linux |that reading it will cause an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |aneurysm. This is not tha
; moniker is grounded on the principle of "credit where credit
is due".
It seems to fair to ask the FSF which principle they value more highly
in this case.
--
G. Branden Robinson| You could wire up a dead rat to a
Debian GNU/Linux | DIMM socke
amend the DFSG or not.
> Debian is not in the business of distributing political commentary
> and/or fiction.
No, but as long as such material is licensed freely, I don't
particularly have a problem with it, personally. The "data" section was
approved for creation for j
ince
> anyone of anything.
Forgive me for thinking that logic and rationality should be our guides.
I'm that's wrong, I don't want to be right.
> Not that there's any chance you'll clue yourself in this year. Maybe
> in two or three though.
I
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 06:32:50PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> doc-linux: GFDL, GPL, OPL, PD
Keep in mind that the GFDL and OPL are only uncontroversially DFSG-free
if they don't contain unmodifiable text, aside from the text of license
document itself.
--
G. Branden
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 10:13:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In addition to these outright offers to amend my proposal, I've
> > considered several alternatives at length in many of mails on this
> &
vetting process.
I would point out, however, that we'd have to put the GNU CC and GNU
Emacs Manuals under immediate review under such a policy. Also, given
the language of the GNU FDL, I think it's reasonable to export more, not
fewer GNU Manuals with lots of Invariant Sections in the future.
I hope we have the courage to not write the FSF a blank check, just as
we wouldn't write anyone else one.
--
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux | It tastes good.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Bill Clinton
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
pgpnUtQ6zkyab.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Damn typos.
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 12:53:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I agree, and it was never my contention that nothing that got in under
anything
> the ~32 thousand byte limit couldn't be nasty. Hence the provision for
[..
ons with Henning Makholm and
Thomas Uwe Gruetmueller).
Also see:
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Note that there are competing amendments, both of which I'd be happy
with. You should probably speak up in favor of the one you support
more.
-
e terms and conditions.
Remember, the scope of this discussion is unmodifiable text that isn't
legally binding. I expect you've heard many, many more people grousing
about the GPL's license terms, and perhaps that primed you to read my
remakrs in that light.
--
G. Branden
kept in the loop.
--
G. Branden Robinson|A committee is a life form with six
Debian GNU/Linux |or more legs and no brain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Robert Heinlein
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
pgpdsPTjtPC9F.pgp
Description: PGP signature
on one
bit. Licensing one thing to Debian (non-free under DFSG 8, remember)
and only letting Debian distribute a different -- also non-free -- thing
doesn't seem to be any different from having those GNU Manuals in
non-free without the special deal.
--
G. Branden Robinson
ns
> is going to do any good.
I believe you, but can you provide a cite for this, please?
--
G. Branden Robinson| Mob rule isn't any prettier just
Debian GNU/Linux | because you call your mob a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | governmen
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 03:13:44PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Ah, you mean the "how to apply this to your own program" section and
> the like.
...and the preamble, yes.
--
G. Branden Robinson|I just wanted to see what it looked
MS. If he says
yes, let us know. We may as well consider it.
--
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux | Please do not look directly into
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | laser with remaining eye.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
pgpoFcvdffd43.pgp
Description: PGP signature
>
> I meant "I intend no attempt to pull the wool over RMS's eyes".
>
> T and N are right next to each other on my keyboard...
Sure. *SRE.* :)
We're going to have to start calling you Tommy Flanagan, not Tommy
Bushnell. :)
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 02:52:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 11:01:49PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > For instance:
> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > "> * It's unjustified. Why 32,768 bytes? Why not 32,000 bytes?
use BSD license?
Just a BSD-style license with a copyright *notice* doesn't render
something GPL-incompatible.
--
G. Branden Robinson|I must despise the world which does
Debian GNU/Linux |not know that music is a higher
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 01:49:03PM +, Stephen Turner wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > You mean advertising clauses, right? The old 4-clause BSD license?
> >
> > Just a BSD-style license with a copyright *notice* doesn't rende
of a whole" should apply.
Nevertheless, I do not think it is the FSF's intention to forbid
otherwise GPL-compatible licenses from requiring that their own license
texts be preserved in GPL'ed derivative works.
I strongly urge you to contact the FSF and ask for their i
people can
disagree as to whether the Apache license is DFSG-free as written, but
since the Apache guys appear to have a DFSG-free interpretation of their
license at present, I'd say that makes it acceptable. Should either
their license or their interpretation of it change, we'll need
e resulting derived work is distributed under
the terms of a permission notice identical to this one.
wc /tmp/gpl
3582966 19107 /tmp/gpl
wc /tmp/funding
46 3892418 /tmp/funding
The above figures are the result of opening the info files in vim and
using line-visual mode to
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 11:25:05PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > At the time, I wanted to leave a generous margin. Over the course of
> > discussion it has occurred to me that being charitable isn't
> >
I continue to think the right thing to do is ask the FSF. Just as it's
polite for third parties to ask Debian before using our name.
--
G. Branden Robinson|I have a truly elegant proof of the
Debian GNU/Linux |above, but it is too lo
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 02:59:00PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 02:00:24AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > With a limit of 8,000 or 10,000 bytes, the GNU Emacs Manual would easily
> > fail. The GNU Manifesto itself easily blows past those limits.
>
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 02:06:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 10:44:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > or are we trying to make emacs non-free,
> > No, but it is also not my intent to author some decree that specific
> > works shall never
RL:
> + * http://fmg-www.cs.ucla.edu/geoff/ispell.html
> + *If the offering service supports hyperlinks, the aforementioned
> + *Web site must also be offered as a hyperlink. Condition #4 does
> + *not apply if ispell is offered only as part of a larger, aggregated
&
be talking past each other.
--
G. Branden Robinson| To stay young requires unceasing
Debian GNU/Linux | cultivation of the ability to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | unlearn old falsehoods.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- R
th the
DFSG?
--
G. Branden Robinson|There is no housing shortage in
Debian GNU/Linux |Lincoln today -- just a rumor that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |is put about by people who have
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |nowhere to live.-
d prefer position (d) over (c).
Note, however, that not ALL the GNU Manuals have been boilerplated. At
least not yet. So some of them could stay anyway. See Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for a lengthy, but not
exhaustive, analysis.
Also, we could set up a bit of a firebreak by pointing ou
e Free Software Foundation.
meet the DFSG.
While this is not a Policy proposal or a General Resolution, and thus
does not require seconds, I am seeking seconds for this proposal as a
means of gauging its level of acceptance.
--
G. Branden Robinson| You could wire up a dead rat to
gt; simply by defining another and even less flexible bright-line.
Haven't been reading the discussion thread, eh?
--
G. Branden Robinson| Reality is what refuses to go away
Debian GNU/Linux | when I stop believing in it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 08:55:49AM +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 1) A copyright holder is permitted to (withhold permission to modify or
> > remove) (copyright notices) upon a work, or parts of a work, un
al does say that any such packages shall be removed
from main. I don't maintain any affected packages, and I'm not an
archive administrator, nor do I have any other authority to cause
packages to be removed from main.
How consistent Debian wants to be with its stated principles in the
e right-of-partial-reuse that you seek. Quote a single
sentence and be stuck with 10 single-spaced pages of the GNU Manifesto
(plus some other stuff as well). That's the license. (You could
attempt to assert a Fair Use defense in the event of such a small
quotation, however.)
If
but it doesn't impact the
> freeness of the work it accompanies.
I proposed this to RMS. He doesn't want to grant permission for the GNU
Manifesto be removed.
--
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux | If encryption is outlawed, only
[EMAIL PROTE
le for a work to be neither, or both, DFSG-free and
DFSG-unfree at the same time and in the same respect? If so, how?
In my opinion, as an organization, Debian has to make occasional
black-and-white decisions. That doesn't mean that every developer feels
a deep philosophical affinity for
ease tell us what the procedure will look like for having
> exceptions made, since you say you don't object to making exceptions.
This sort of discussion should probably involve the archive maintainers.
--
G. Branden Robinson|Build a fire for a man, and he
feel motivated to
participate in such a discussion at all. If they stay in main, that's
fine, though I'll be a little disappointed at the compromise, and I'll
worry about the day when some non-FSF entity comes along and wants a
similar exception made for themselves.
--
G. Branden
the DFSG is a dichotomous tool; works are either
DFSG-free, or they are not. If you do not share this premise, please
say so.
--
G. Branden Robinson|Somebody once asked me if I thought
Debian GNU/Linux |sex was dirty. I said, "It is if
[EMAIL PR
required to only use "suggests".
Interestingly, you've just described how package relationship from main
to non-free are handled.
Or are people not allowed to even Suggest: non-free packages from
anymore? I can't remember. This issue was all bound up with the silly
Enhances: he
ct. A person who does not want to do a task which
has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to do it.
However, they must not actively work against these rules and decisions
properly made under them.
I ask you to contribute to Debian's progress, and no
don't think there's
anyone who could convincingly argue that that license cannot be applied
in a DFSG-incompatible way without chaging its text or adding riders
(which is true of all DFSG-free licenses).
At any rate, I'm collecting seconds despite your apoplexy.
--
G. Branden Robi
the Social Contract in doing work for the Debian Project upon
> entrance into our ranks. We do not demand compliance with an
> ideological orthodoxy. Shall we purge our ranks of those who utter
> assertions like "the GPL sucks"? Or shall we simply disenfranchise t
ontent of my proposal.
Please stay on topic.
--
G. Branden Robinson|It's like I have a shotgun in my
Debian GNU/Linux |mouth, I've got my finger on the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |trigger, and I like the taste of
http://people.d
; if
> there should be more than one, no objection from me.
I wouldn't object to such a package either, as long as its contents met
the DFSG.
--
G. Branden Robinson|It was a typical net.exercise -- a
Debian GNU/Linux |screaming mob pounding on a gre
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 06:51:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> It's something Debian's needed to actually think about for quite some
> time.
Anthony,
I don't want to make any assumptions, so I'll just come right out and
ask:
Do you second my Final Draft
license texts and/or copyright notices
must apply to the work in question, or to a substantively related
work (such as the program being documented, in the case of a
manual).
Therefore, Invariant Sections containing anything other than copyright
notices and li
tly addressed?
--
G. Branden Robinson| Human beings rarely imagine a god
Debian GNU/Linux | that behaves any better than a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | spoiled child.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein
pgpZGjF5td9r4
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 07:19:58PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:31:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > That I do not support grandfathering efforts on these manuals doesn't
> > mean I'll fight them, either. At the moment,
mes, see
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for one example.
I suppose you figure if you keep asking, eventually I'll change my
answer.
--
G. Branden Robinson| One man's "magic" is another man's
Debian GNU/Linux | engineering. &quo
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 12:47:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is it your contention that the DFSG as written DOES include this
> > "important question"? What part of DFSG 3 says that Debian doesn
y* need them.
Well, I don't personally feel that Debian's Manifesto has any more
business in main than GNU's, if neither document is modifiable.
--
G. Branden Robinson| "To be is to do" -- Plato
Debian GNU/Linux | "
in main.
There is only so much my interpretive guideline can do with the existing
language of the DFSG. If you want to see more drastic action taken, you
know how the Standard Resolution Procedure works.
--
G. Branden Robinson|I've made up my mind. Don't tr
sion is what's easiest and
> most convenient for the users, then obviously "keep it in emacs20 and
> keep that package in Debian" is easiest and most convenient.
Yes, that argument has been raised many times to support putting
Netscape in main, too.
--
G. Branden Robinson
roject.
In any event:
Please note that this document is provided in order to document
Debian's history. While the general ideas still apply some details
changed.
Even if non-free, the document could be removed from the package without
causing any real disruption.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:43:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:02:51PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > I can see justification for making a rule that one shouldn't have
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:41:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It's been discussed to death. Some people want to be able to include
> > megabytes upon megabytes of invariant non-technical sections in mai
is entirely Free.
At least that seems to be the case from my paper copy.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Psychology is really biology.
Debian GNU/Linux | Biology is really chemistry.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Chemistry is really physics.
htt
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 03:26:49AM -0600, Adrián De León wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > (What if RMS expands the GNU Manifesto to double its current size?)
>
> FWIW The GNU Manifesto starts like this:
>
> The GNU Manifesto which a
t text because
> they're not free, but we should make occasional exceptions.
>
> BTW, I have no clue how to resolve such a basic policy dispute.
Sounds like a great draft for a General Resolution ballot. :)
For what it's worth, 3) most closely describes my personal opinion.
I
get the feeling that a blend of some of the requirements of the GNU GPL,
plus some aspects of the Apache Software License and/or Artistic License
may actually accomplish the goals he seeks *and* qualify his font(s) as
Free Softwre.
But, to answer your question, the license
other than copyright law to stop people from
exercising their freedoms under the DFSG risks having their software
dropped from Debian or moved to an archive server where such harassment
is less feasible (for instance, U.S. crypto export regulations).
--
G. Branden Robinson
; freeness; I was just refuting Brandens insinuation of ignorance on behalf
> of the license writer.
Your refutation failed. Re-read the license.
--
G. Branden Robinson|I must despise the world which does
Debian GNU/Linux |not know that
On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 11:54:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This license fails DFSG 3 and I would recommend to the author that he
> > use the right tool for the job. If he wants trademark protection in the
>
6. A tentative version of the Zope license from a few
years ago, which would require every HTML page generated by Zope to have
a "Powered by Zope" button on it that you weren't allowed to remove, was
held as DFSG-unfree by Bruce Perens and others. This situation is
obviously sim
uirement not much different from the new BSD-
> license's "always include this notice in the source code" requirement.
No, it's very different from the "always include this notice in the
source code" requirement. It's more similar to the BSD advertis
, eh? Remember when you said that yes, you DO read
my mails?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That's a week ago...
--
G. Branden Robinson|I've made up my mind. Don't try to
Debian GNU/Linux |confuse me with the facts.
[EMAIL PROTE
might be something else
> which I missed too though.
Er, usually the language quoted is interpreted to mean that modified
versions can be distributed.
Except when the licensor is the University of Washington.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Never underestimate the power of
Deb
available to the Vim
maintainer at no charge, and grant him or her a perpertual license
to use, copy, modify and distribute your changes without
restriction. The preferred way to do this is by e-mail or by
uploading the files to a server and e-mailing the URL. If t
etting licenses.
Also, again and again people have said they don't doubt that your
intentions are good and consistent with the principles underlying free
software. It's just that the current Vim license appears to be an
imperfect vehicle for the communication for yo
right to use, modify, or distribute the software.
"Consideration of any kind" would include obvious things like the
compulsion of copyright assignment in any changes (N.B., copyright law
in some jurisdictions may already effectively do so, but that's
irrelevant to the DFSG), but a
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 02:39:32PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I don't need to defend whatever past decisions may have been made;
> they quite possibly were simply incorrect.
Unless, of course, they involved the GNU Emacs Manual, right? :-P
--
G. Brand
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 02:01:14AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 02:39:32PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> > > I don't need to defend whatever past decisions may have been made
I SUBSCRIBE TO THIS LIST; DO NOT CC ME ON REPLIES, YOU FILTHY SWINES.
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 04:13:56PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Please respect my damn mail headers.
>
> And "damn headers" they are.
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 05:57:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Um, it wasn't me that Branden was flaming at.
Yes it was. With my followup to your mail.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Mob rule isn't any prettier just
Debian GNU/Linux |
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 06:15:09PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 05:57:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Um, it wasn't me that Branden was flaming at.
> >
> >
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:34:26AM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>
> Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > If there's nothing else objectionable to you about the GPL, then it
> > sounds like one easy way out of this tedious thread would be just to GPL
> > Vim and
at clause about restricting this to
> > three years.
>
> I'll say it once more, since you still don't get it.
Er, while I'm sure you're quite accustomed to saying things like this to
me, I don't think you actually sent this to Bram.
--
G. Branden Robinson
, can you send me yours?")
This practice is really forbidden by the GPL?
--
G. Branden Robinson| Convictions are more dangerous
Debian GNU/Linux | enemies of truth than lies.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Friedrich Nietzsche
http
t to craft a loophole to permit the above scenario will
see extremely aggressive "legal reading" and exploitation attempts by
propriteers, and Henning Makholm came up with a very legitimate scenario
of abuse, but I'd like to think that it is possible to make the behvai
under discussion
something that should be protected under Fair Use exceptions to copyright
law?
The reason I ask is because I would agree with you that amending the GPL
to cover this scenario would be a bad idea if it would presume an
illegitimate exercise of copyright. But I don't know
; a context diff will do. The e-mail address to be used is <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> It is not allowed to remove this license from the distribution of the Vim
^^^
permitted
> sources, parts of it or from a modified version. You may use this license for
> previous Vim releases instead of the license that they came with, at your
> option.
Hopefully the above suggestions are not too objectionable.
--
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux | // // // / /
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | EI 'AANIIGOO 'AHOOT'E
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
pgpS7xFfoEiDn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
e Agreement is not permitted to use GPL'ed code. Whether that
GPL'ed code is used via copying and pasting chunks of source into the
program, or via an object loader that supports relocatable symbols, is
not considered important.
--
G. Branden Robinson| The software sa
logize on behalf of Debian. None of us have this information. The
person in charge of setting this deadline is Anthony Towns
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. It might be worthwhile to contact him.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Never attribute to malice that
Debian GNU/Linux
those off when you became a monk... :)
--
G. Branden Robinson| "I came, I saw, she conquered."
Debian GNU/Linux | The original Latin seems to have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | been garbled.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Rober
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 05:15:12PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > How isn't it? The above statement in writing is no different in meaning
> > or intent from saying "no thanks" when the person handing
well).
>
> Apparently, Branden feels free to ignore headers like the following
> one that appeared in RMS's mail:
>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Ah, the irony!
I slipped up and hit "L" instead of "g"; fuck off. :-P
--
G. Branden Rob
must be avoided by adding a remark to
> the license. That's why I added the "does not restrict..." part.
>
> This is the tricky part of the new license!
I think both our paragraphs say the same thing, except mine does not
imply that the person who makes change
701 - 800 of 1567 matches
Mail list logo
