=== 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, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is
ther non-english
language) that foreign language documents are non-free.
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 05:19:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > don't be an idiot. you only have to keep the invariant sections if you
> > are DISTRIBUTING a copy. you can do whatever you want with your own
&
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 06:28:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > there's nothing in the GFDL that prevents you from doing that. the
> > capabilities of your medium are beyond the ability of the GFDL (or any
>
Of course, in this case, GFDL would prohibit sharing information. And
> people call that free?
no, the GFDL does not prohibit sharing information.
the GFDL, same as any other license, simply is not capable of granting
the power to do the physically impossible.
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAI
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:32:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Craig Sanders:
>
> > there's nothing in the GFDL that prevents you from doing that. the
> > capabilities of your medium are beyond the ability of the GFDL (or any
> > license) to control.
>
>
y, and then build the package, so they
> can then do the same.
>
> In other words, I cannot distribute the modified version , I
> can only tell people how to modify it for themselves. DOes not quite
> meet the freedom requirement, in my view.
that qualifies as free a
nses, but consider it beyond the
pale and non-free for the GFDL.
> But it gets even better. You don't even have to accompany the binary
> with the source itself. If you want, you can instead:
the GFDL has a similar provision. you can provide a link to an internet
address conta
ith or support it in any way, but at least it's not
dishonest. if debian wants to exclude stuff for convenience reasons,
then fair enough - but lying to pretend that the reason is that it's
non-free when it's really just inconvenient is inexcusable.
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL
only.
around and around the circle we go. the same stupid arguments, the same
old lies coming out of your keyboard.
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:33:01PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > bullshit. "freedom", as used by Debian, is explicitly defined in the
> > DFSG. the DFSG has a number of clauses detailing what we consider
&
containing the full document.
>
> Please show me where the GFDL has such a provision. The passage that
i've shown it before. i have no interest in playing your time-wasting
game. go read the archives.
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (part time cyborg)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:55:35PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> > the DFSG also allows that the modification may be by patch only.
>
> No, it does not.
yes it does.
> Quoting DFSG 4, with emphasis added:
> > The license may rest
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:07:48PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:38:57 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >>> the GFDL has a similar provision. you can provide a link to an
> >>> internet address containing the full docum
a known market value, don't they? why not buy a
debian CD for $2 or whatever they cost these days?
add in the 30% tax and that's a total of $2.60 + postage.
remember to keep the purchase receipt :)
craig
--
craig sanders
t is a gift to the public of the world - anyone,
anywhere is licensed to use it at no cost. it's like a public park, not
like an individual present.
craig
--
craig sanders
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 11:29:54PM +0100, Mariusz Przygodzki wrote:
> On Monday 13 November 2000 23:16, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > you will have a receipt for a software CD called Debian GNU/Linux.
> > that's what it cost you to buy it, including the cost of materials and
> &g
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 12:20:25AM +0100, Mariusz Przygodzki wrote:
> On Monday 13 November 2000 23:54, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > sure it does. the monetary cost of the license is zero dollars, which is
> > clearly included in the price you paid for the CD.
>
> And this is a
the tax office also has a license to use it and
should therefore start taxing themselves :)
craig
ps: yes, i know we're talking about tax office bureaucrats here rather
than any kind of logical thinking peoplebut their world-view is so
bizarrely distorted it needs to be refuted just on general principles.
--
craig sanders
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 01:08:59PM +0100, Marek Habersack wrote:
> ** On Nov 13, Craig Sanders scribbled:
> > sure it does. the monetary cost of the license is zero dollars, which is
> > clearly included in the price you paid for the CD.
>
> It must be explicitly put some
aged to get something like that through here in oz for blank
tapes.
they tried for DAT tapes too, but I think they failed because they are
mostly used for professional purposes (including computer backup) rather
than for consumer audio. can't remember exactly, i could be wrong.
this is veering wildly off-topic
craig
--
craig sanders
get as much as 25%
of the retail price.
> I like the idea of on-line promotion of music - see
> http://www.audioglobe.com/ for example.
yep. promotion and sales, too. most artists would make a lot more money
selling direct to the public over the net, cutting out the parasitic
middlemen (aka record companies).
craig
--
craig sanders
ecause someone _might_ sue. Everything we do
> incurs some sort of risk of liability. If we avoided such risks
> altogether, Debian would have no packages, no web site, no mailing
> lists, and no developers.
well said!
i couldn't agree more.
craig
--
craig sanders
procedures described in 734.2(b)(9)(ii).
IANAL, but that's clear as crystal to me. it even states that the intent
is "to release publicly available software from control".
craig
--
craig sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GnuPG Key: 1024D/CD5626F0
Key fingerprint: 9674 7EE2 4AC6 F5EF 3C57 52C3 EC32 6810 CD56 26F0
ld read that and send a notification
message whenever a notifiable package is uploaded. creation of new
crypto packages would have to be co-ordinated with whoever maintains
that listthat's not a lot of work.
for fun (and the chance to win an all expenses paid vacation to a
maximum security ce
this strategy?
that's worth trying too.
craig
--
craig sanders
le with the GPL. condition 3 is a bit
questionable but nothing in the GPL forbids it.
The BSD license allows you to distribute the software under any terms you
like as long as your terms include the above conditions.
craig
--
craig sanders
On Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 10:17:06PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 11:18:54AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> >
> > > If I got it as "public domain" (that is, "do whatever you want
> > &g
as it was created by the US government). however, there was
NOTHING preventing Ashton-Tate from copyrighting their version and suing
anyone who infringed on their rights.
craig
--
craig sanders
On Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 11:08:17PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT
> >
> > that's why it is called "public domain".
> >
> > the fact that there is no copyright means that you can d
in source and binary forms are permitted
^^^^^
: * provided that this entire copyright notice is duplicated in all such
: * copies.
how else do you use source code but to modify and compile it?
i.e. for source code, the right to modify is implicit in the right to
u
fect and couldn't do better. we're
not and we can. even so, we're still pretty good.
--
craig sanders
either. this is why most companies spend a
fortune on technical support staff, help-desks, and support contracts.
15. most of those support staff are barely more computer-literate
than the people they are helping...but it's damn easy to sound like
an "expert" when your boss isn't capable of understanding what you're
talking about either.
16. if you see a need then start coding. don't waste everyone's time by
telling us what we *should* be doing.
craig
--
craig sanders
bother with, especially when we
have free alternatives.
of course, if someone wants to go to all that trouble just to get it in
non-free then that's their choice.
craig
--
craig sanders
34 matches
Mail list logo
