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

2003-08-21 Thread Doug Winter
On Thu 21 Aug Branden Robinson wrote: > 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. > > [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published > by

Re: GFDL

2003-10-03 Thread Doug Winter
On Sat 04 Oct Fedor Zuev wrote: > The same (see above) point is not correct for political > speech. Unlimitedly modifiable political speech is _not_ a normal > mode of operation and never was. So, when you demand DFSG-compliant > (free-censorable) political texts, you not help to recover th

Re: If not GFDL, then what?

2003-10-13 Thread Doug Winter
On Sat 11 Oct Mark Pilgrim wrote: > Here is what I would like to do: > > 1. Give away my book for free. > 2. Force translations and all derivative works to remain free. > 3. Force my editor's contributions to remain free. > 4. Allow Apress to publish the book commercially. > 5. Put the book in Deb

Re: If not GFDL, then what?

2003-10-14 Thread Doug Winter
On Mon 13 Oct Mark Pilgrim wrote: > Doug Winter wrote: > >One license you may wish to consider is the Creative Commons Attribution > >License: > > > >http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/legalcode > > > >It appears to fulfil all of your requirements, a

Re: What "new name" means?

2003-01-31 Thread Doug Winter
On Thu 30 Jan Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote: > BTW can you give some examples of licences, that explicitly say, that > whole fscking name must be changed, not just version number? Does such > beasts really exist? http://www.apache.org/LICENSE.txt > * 5. Products derived from this software may not be ca