Andreas Fester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I would appreciate a quick review of the debian/copyright file
> of the subcommander package:
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/subcommander/
[...]
> The license is basically GPL, but the package includes a few
> additional licenses, especially for
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >.h file under the Tigris licence. I expect that .h file is compiled
> >in somehow. That could be a problem.
> Not for any sane person, since it's just a few #defines for version
> strings and trivial macros.
Cool. I'd not looked at
Andreas Fester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[about: the Tigris licence is incompatible with the GPL]
> Isn't subversion also licensed under this license?
As far as I know. Why does that matter? GPL-incompatibility isn't a
big problem unless you're mixing it with work under the GPL, so there
are GP
Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [rant cut]
> I can certainly say that I, as the copyright holder of Live-F1, will
> never claim a licence breach for the code being dynamically linked to
> non-GPL code through a publically defined interface[1].
I think that's sufficient to close a bu
\"weakish jiang\" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> IMO, sadly, at least the CC organization means \"all other\". In the
> Chinese translation of CC Attribute 2.5 . They use the a Chinese word
> meaning \"at the same time\", and the word \"comparable\" was omitted in
> the Chinese translation.
Y
Cc'ing because I forgot to look and mdpoole cc'd. Please do not cc me
on replies to debian-legal.
Martin Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any document that describes why debian considers CDDL[1] to not
> be DFSG compliant (if that statement still holds true)?
There is no single documen
Martin Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> fair enough, but if ftpmasters decide on inclusion/exclusion of certain
> software, there should at least be common consensus concerting certain
> license.
Yes, there should be, but I doubt everyone gets it right every time and
ftpmasters are not exactly
Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Does the anti-DRM requirement in the CCPL 3.0 draft, without a
> parallel distribution proviso, make it incompatible with the
> DFSG?
It means that any work under any CC 3.0 does not follow the DFSG unless
the licensor grants additional
> From: Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If they were going to play the heavy with us, why would they bother
> making all the other changes we asked for? What would be the point?
To give enough concessions to make a favourable GR more probable.
> It's pretty clear that the Debian Project is n
Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, 2006-15-08 at 12:46 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > > Can we try to make CC put this issue out to a general
> > > > resolution?
> > > You can, if you want. I don't think that's Debian's place, thoug
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The DFSG is concerned with the rights that the copyright holder extends
> to us, and by extension, people using software in Debian. This does
> not, and can not, cover local patent laws.
TTBOMK, the DFSG does not refer to the copyright holder directly, nor
copyr
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:37:08 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 09:53:57PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > AFAICT, CC seems to interpret the clause this way, since the
> > > explicit parallel distribution proviso was *removed* beca
Magnus Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 27 July 2006 12:15, Magnus Holmgren took the opportunity to say:
> > I sent a "clarification request" using their feedback form a couple of
> > weeks ago. Still no reaction (reply or update of their web page). I asked
> > if their intention i
Not quite contradicting what was written, but it isn't quite so simple...
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> trademarks are a no-op. The DFSG allows for name-change clauses (DFSG 4).
> This allows us to modify and redistribute without infringing trademarks
> if need be. No freedom issue h
Javier Serrano Polo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[artwork on sf.net, OSTG terms say it's all under the main licence]
> Should I contact the author in any case?
Yes, as that would probably be simplest if it is done amicably.
> If I don't receive any reply, does that paragraph grant a DFSG usage?
I
[-devel trimmed]
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please reread the discussion on debian-legal about this, where consensus was
> mostly found to support this idea, and also remember that we contacted
> broadcom with this analysis, who contacted their legal team, and i also mailed
> the FSF
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:26:56PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Should the ftpmasters, who have even less legal expertise,
>
> Judging by some of the nonsense that debian-legal is typically riddled with,
It's generally quite easy to spot the
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Where's the cc-nl lead's explanation? It's something.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003876.html
Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingList
Sebastian Wangnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=377109;msg=186 ]
> Mr. Schilling claims the following:
> In Europe, we have the "Recht auf das wissenschaftliche Kleinzitat"
> that allows us to cite other works without asking in case that
Reuben Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm trying to find out whether I can use code from the glibc info
> documentation in a GPLed project (I'm trying to make a feature fix for
> xvnc4viewer). I can't seem to find any information about this either in
> the documentation itself, or in the archives
Michael Hanke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [ Please keep me CC'ed, I'm not subscribed. ]
[...]
> I talked to upstream and they replaced those statement with something
> like the following to make their software acceptable for Debian main:
>
> # The immv file was originally part of FSL - FMRIB's Softwar
Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 9/6/06, Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 3. The name of the authors may be used to endorse or promote products
> > derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
>
> Is that a copying error or just a really stupid
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >How has it 'been placed in the public domain'? I am not aware of any
> >way to do that in Oxford besides copyright expiring, or the work somehow
> >not qualifying for automatic copyright protection anyway. It may be
> >possible to dis
Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hmm, that does explain, but seriously I would be concerned as an
> author! eg. Someone could take my work and add a splashscreen that
> says "Andrew Donnellan is crap" and use it to make an illegal crack
> downloading program or something like that. Then they
Alexis Sukrieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [Please CC me, I'm not subscribed] [...]
> # This software code is made available "AS IS" without warranties of any
> # kind. You may copy, display, modify and redistribute the software
> # code either by itself or as incorporated into your code; provided th
Michael Hanke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ Please keep me CC'ed, I'm not subscribed. ]
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 11:35:54AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Sorry, I think it's ambiguous. The UK Patent Office (www.patent.gov.uk,
> > who also handle much to do wi
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to ask you to give us some days to find a peacefull
> solution without starting another flamewar. But, hey, you already did it
> by Cc'ing debian-legal and so attracting the trolls ASAP. Very
> diplomatic. NOT.
If the above troll of debian-leg
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] It only implies that this issue is
> higly inflamable, and putting it on a wider mailing list is not a good
> tactical move. And please don't tell me that there is not a single troll
> on this list.
Given the apparent posting restrictions on debburn-devel,
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I noticed that bug #384019 has been recently closed. [...]
> The bug was closed because an FTP-master (James Troup) stated that the
> Open Publication License v1.0 without options is fine for main. [...]
> What should be done, in your opinion?
> Should the bug b
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003876.html
[...]
> The main motivation was to prevent license complication,
> *not* to prohibit parallel distribution.
> This is emphasized quite clearly in that message.
If they wanted to "prevent
Charles Fry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Can anyone comment on whether or not it is problematic for us to
> distribute a tiny icon of Firefox's logo? [...]
IIRC we have no current copyright permission for it, even in the browser
sources. So, yes, a problem. Can you ask Mozilla.org whether the logo
is a
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Did anyone read Creative Commons response to comments on CC-v3 draft(s)?
>
> A PDF file was sent to the cc-licenses mailing list and can be found
> here:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-September/004027.html
I have not yet read them. I h
Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines
> of: "The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public
> domain. In jurisdictions where this is not legally possible, the
> author(s) place no restrictions on this scri
Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have no documentation on how parallel distribution is absolutely
> necessary to satisfy the DFSG, nor do we have much of a mechanism short
> of a GR to determine if this is the consensus of Debian as a whole.
We have documentation, but not a clear int
Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-26-09 at 09:42 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > So, CC's leadership suggests that the workgroup's presented view is
> > not debian's view, which effectively kills the workgroup because its
> > lead star
Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Are you talking about this license?
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/scotland/legalcode
As far as I know, yes.
> It doesn't seem to be a shining example of simplicity to me. Here's the
> relevant section from CC Scotland:
>
> 2.2 However,
Ryan Finnie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked for help with:
> 1. The license[2], also included below, has not been reviewed by the
> OSI, and is not used in any existing Debian package. The company
> itself considers it "open source", but I feel I am not qualified to
> make a determination.
I will comme
Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But is it good for Free Software to be ported to platforms that have
> been designed to deprive both developers and end users of freedom?
Yes, as long as a mutable copy is available to developers and end
users, because it widens the audience who will se
KWWU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Indeed. Sadly, CC's anti-TPM language may(*)
> >prohibit iSuck owners
> >applying TPM themselves, as the copy would violate
> >the licence and the
> >anti-TPM measure is not limited to distribution. [...]
>
> Isn't this a case of fair use?
Why would that be
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only issue here is a trademark one, but as the icon is used to
> reference firefox itself, I'd have guessed it is allowed. I'm CCing
> debian-legal, as this has been discussed to death and I guess someone
> will have more clues than myself.
I think
Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course that doesn't mean it's not required, just that the evidence
> given was irrelevant. I've seen most places do it and lawyers
> recommending it and so on, and as it is a legal disclaimer I think it
> would be wise to use emphasised text, at leas
KWWU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [odd quoting]
> > >I'm thinking about them. Surely I can take a GPL
> > perl script and run it
> > >through a compiler, even the undump trick, and
> > distribute that compiled
> > >form, as long as I comply with the source supply
> > requirements of the GPL,
> > >ca
Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sep 27, 2006, at 18:14, MJ Ray wrote:
> > [...] as long as a mutable copy is available to developers and end
> > users, because it widens the audience who will see free software
> > and may become interested in its developmen
Sandro Tosi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > OTOH you have a different problem: a four clauses BSD-like license is
> > not compatible with GPL-licensed code, and this means that the package
> > is not distributable at all.
>
> So, what do I have to do now? Should I get in touch with upstream
> askin
Markus Laire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/27/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Since the CC licenses don't require distribution of the preferred
> > > form for making modification aka. source code, it is essential that
> > > downstre
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=390664
> (please read it first)
Oh crap, it's a maintainer who thinks calling other people Nazis is
a good idea in debian/changelog. Defamation or what?
There's also some documentation-in-the-source-is-not-sou
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi debian-legal, ...
I've trimmed -release, as luk suggested it's unwelcome there.
> [...] The real problem is that there are a certain
> amount of firmware in the kernel, embedded in the drivers, which have no
> license notice whatsoever, and as thus fall
Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 1, 2006, at 21:51, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> The mutable copy doesn't help much if the platform is designed to
> >> refuse to run modified versions.
> >
> >
Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The case has been made that CCPL3.0 is DFSG-non-free because it does not
> allow the distribution of content in TPM'd format[0]. I assert that not
> only is this argument false, it is actually reversed: allowing TPM
> distribution, even with parallel d
Markus Laire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I don't see there anything which says anything like BSD[2] clause 3:
> : Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors
> : may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
> : without specific prior written permission.
>
> Is the
Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The case has been made that CCPL3.0 is DFSG-non-free because it
> > > does not allow the distribution of content in TPM'd format[0]. I
> >
Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, fine. Let's consider the case in which TPM is "hard" to apply:
> Then isn't it an effective barrier to further modification and
> redistribution (i.e. non-free)?
It's a practical problem, not necessarily something non-free.
[...]
> I stand by my o
d all stylistic
> emphasis from this post. IMHO, this makes it harder to read, but I
> trust you are prepared to make the extra effort. [...]
this:
> (Once again, here's the binary/source to TPM/non-TPM analogy that MJ Ray
> insists isn't being used to support parallel dist
I spent far too long crafting a reply to this, then a pair of ISP/SMTP
errors sent it to /dev/null - this is a rushed rewrite. If you are in
a rush, points 17.1, 17.8, 17.13, 17.15 and 17.18 are most repeated
and you can get the gist from them.
Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
&g
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> proposed:
> We believe that the draft CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses appear to be Free
> Licenses, so that most works licensed under them will probably satisfy the
> DFSG. Please note that Debian evaluates the freeness of each work
> independently. Issues beyon
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] If it is a
> license from the copyright holders, than the only ones who can sue
> Debian for distribution of sourceless GPL'ed works are, er, the people
> who originally gave out those works in that form. I understand there is
> some contention aroun
[gnomemm maintainer added to cc]
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this exception should be copied into the debian/copyright,
[...]
I agree. As well as breaking policy, it means the same report may
appear again.
> Moreover: it seems that one of the libraries the package depend
Goedson Teixeira Paixao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Version 1.2 of gnomemm (which is the one involved in this bug) is
> licensed under the GPL.
ACK. I jumped version somewhere. Probably its upstream is not averse
to relicensing or giving extra permissions, as 1.3 onwards is LGPL, but
this is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Wouldn't it be possible to link to libgnutls instead of libssl? It seems
> that GNU TLS provides an API compatible with OpenSSL.
The compatible API is part of GNUTLS-EXTRA, which is also GPL. See
http://josefsson.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/gnutls/includes/gnutls/openssl.h?
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> 1) Does this license allow me to treat the package as licensed under the
> plain GPL in terms of what I am allowed to do?
Yes.
> 1b) If I were to package this software, would the package be under the GPL?
Yes. At least some of it would b
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maarten de Boer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt>
> >
> > Which also talks explicitely about software...
Yes, if one wants to license people to copy the non-software origina
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> forwarded:
> Adobe Systems Incorporated ("Adobe") hereby grants to the TeX Users
> Group [...]
This licence isn't a general public licence. We can't use it. BUT:
> The TeX Users Group is also permitted to sublicense, and grant
> such sublicensees the right to furt
=?iso-8859-15?q?J=E9r=F4me_Marant?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I watched Sun's Simon Phipps' talk at debconf 2006 few weeks ago.
> It was mentioned that the choice of venue was useless and would be
> removed from CDDL, thus making CDDL DSFG-compliant.
CDDL also discriminates against agents acting on be
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note that even if that happens, that won't change the licensing terms
> for the software already released under current CDDL.
It will, unless the Initial Developer says not:
"4.2. Effect of New Versions.
You may always continue to use, distribute or otherw
Tom Marble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed allow me to appeal to everyone to reconsider CDDL *as is*
> given the clarification that Simon has provided in this regard [1].
In essence, this is the same claim we have heard before:
"If, however, you are an individual, or a company that trades i
Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> > I have placed them in the Public Domain.
>
> PD is the most free 'license' possible.
Assuming that this means PD as opposed to copyright-controlled,
not 'in the PD' meaning published.
> > This is all 100% my own work.
>
> Means he
\"Anthony W. Youngman\" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> And what happens if you DON'T have a place in common where you trade?
[...]
I don't know and it sounds like a common case in this global software
distribution game.
I just tried to add a trackback to this thread from the previously-cited
article and w
Tom Marble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Simon's blog entry is from a while ago, so yes the comments are closed.
Radical interface design idea: why not remove the links instead of
letting people waste time sending to an error-bouncer?
> But you can comment here, send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> and
Jeff Carr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I notice that recently you have complied with Mozilla's request to not
> use their trademarks for your browser packages. However, you can't
> also use their trademark to switch users to a competing product.
> ("bait-and-switch") [...]
I do not understand bait-and-sw
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> You are right, that is a more fair analogy. But I think it is yet more
> complicated. I'm going to a car lot, asking for a Ford Focus and being told
> sure, we've got that, but we call it a Peugeot 307 (which, incidentally I had
> never heard of bef
Does the new draft available at
http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=OFL_review&_sc=1#db4033e4-5239a507
let software follow the DFSG?
There's some discussion at
http://openlists.sil.org/archives/ofl-discuss/2006-December/000103.html
and
http://openlists.sil.org/archives/ofl-
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I don't understand is why a package for the Iceweasel software
> would carry the name firefox. There's no such thing as a firefox. [...]
Others have explained that the package doesn't do that and that there is
such a thing as a firefox.
> [...]
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, you propose that Firefox refers to both the code base and the browser?
Not only that, but firefox (lowercase, not as in the trademark) is also
a debian control field term and an executable invocation. None of those
are used to label packages in the tr
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1.1-review2 - 15 November 2006
> [...]
> > 1) Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components,
> > in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself.
>
> This restriction does *not* fail the DFSG (beca
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It is true that a purely functional indication cannot be affected by a
> > > trademark. So if something cannot function without having part o
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mention you in advertizing material for my software is strictly worse
> than requiring mention in a cover text. ANd yet we consider the
> advertizing clause free.
Does the advertising clause restrict your ability to modify the original
work more than copyr
Christian Hammers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 07:27:12PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> Hmm, I think you've got a point, the "just add an OpenSSL exception to
>> the license" procedure doesn't work if other GPL'ed stuff
>> (mysql-server) is included.
> I wrote today with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
And now, a short clarification statement:
I was recently mentioned in a discussion on debian-legal, but the
cited emails are unpublished. I assure you that I did not claim to
speak for the Debian project or call the debian-legal list a minority
opinion
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually it does. GNU TLS's OpenSSL compatibility layer is licensed
> under the GPL, not the LGPL, last time I checked. This would cause
> problems for at least some works we distribute.
Indeed it is. I was referring to MySQL in particular, not debi
=?iso-8859-15?q?J=E9r=F4me?= Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As long as I am a GNU Emacs user, I object to see the Emacs manual
> going to non-free. Currently, it is provided by the emacs package
You are complaining to the wrong people, I think. Fix the licence,
not the social contract.
MJR
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=E9r=F4me_Marant?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> En réponse à MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> You are complaining to the wrong people, I think. Fix the licence,
>> not the social contract.
> After reading RMS's reply, it seems not really p
=?iso-8859-15?q?J=E9r=F4me?= Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> I'm not asking Debian to include components in main. Those components
>>> are already in main. I'm asking to keep in main GNU documentations.
>> You're asking us to keep non-Free document
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] We also
> disagree about Debian's practice of distributing and recommending
> non-free software.
I'm sorry, but can you justify this statement, please? For part of
Debian to recommend non-free software is a breach of policy, which
says that Deb
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your message repeated over and over that you think the GFDL isn't
> free, but didn't even try to justify that claim. I continue to
> believe that the GNU FDL is a free documentation license.
This is not the question. Do you believe that the GNU FDL is
Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I fear there will always be non-free things or things becomming non-free
> in some way.
This does not seem to be a reason for keeping the non-free section.
> I want things to become free by getting supperior or at least usable
> alternatives (not by c
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, there are many cases of this apparently happening.
Such as? And was uploading to non-free a temporary measure to prepare
a package while the copyright holder deliberated?
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http:/
Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] Free software sadly
> needs some time to fit in al the niches, as much too few institutions
> have adopted it, and good code just needs time.
Maybe, but giving a supported distribution system for it removes some
of the desire, doesn't it?
> [..
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 00:04, Simon Law wrote:
>> Is it an appropriate time to reconsider its mention in Section 4
>> of our Social Contract?
> No. Wait until the voting GR is over. Then propose the get rid of
> non-free GR.
Is proposing a GR you
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] *this* is something that belongs in non-free as
> a useful service.
People could provide an RFC apt source as a useful service.
[...policy vs users?...]
> Isn't that more or less exactly what some folks have been accusing the FSF
> of recently?
I don
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] The invariant section is
> a requirement on packaging of modified versions of the technical
> material, and that is an area where tolerance is called for. [...]
Does anyone know of a legal ruling on what conditions a manual with such
secondary s
Alexandre Dulaunoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The (long) debate, as usual, is a matter of terminology. Can we find a
> solution by having a DFSG for documentation ?
You would also need to amend the Social Contract to change "1. Debian
will remain 100% Free Software" which would no longer
Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] The FSF is willing to characterize a document with
> invariant sections as "free" because this allows the FSF to use such
> sections to promote software freedom.
I'm not sure that is accurate. I *think* the FSF position is that free
documentation c
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What happens if OSI ever decides to yank their approval from a license,
> what happens then?
Do OSI have any process to fix their goofs? (APSL...)
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Free Documentation that can only be instantiated in a non-Free Document
> is not Free.
You are in a maze of twisty frees, all different.
Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One clear difference is that the FSF finds the FDL license to be free
> on their terms [...]
To my knowledge, the FSF have never claimed the FDL meets their definition
of free software. Can you show otherwise, please?
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The FSF is set up as a charitable corporation, which means its board is
> self-perpetuating. [...]
Please, pick one topic and stick with it. Do you really think that any
common form of accountability mechanism would have made any difference to
this s
Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This reminded me to ask: I haven't seen anything recently on the topic of
> what to do about GFDLed Debian packages. What's the current state of
> this discussion?
I think Branden published a proposed summary, which provoked some
discussion. I believe we
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like that document. Everyone concerned about the GNU FDL issue should
> read it.
Unfortunately, it makes the error of confusing the word "documentation"
with the word "document," I think. I'm not sure it was ever claimed
that a GFDL document was fr
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find such a defense of the GFDL to be the height of sophistry.
If you found that to be a defence of the GFDL, I want some of your drugs!
I think that GFDL is only called a "free documentation licence" which is
probably technically accurate, even if I
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday, Jul 6, 2003, at 18:39 US/Eastern, MJ Ray wrote:
>> I think that GFDL is only called a "free documentation licence" which
>> is probably technically accurate, even if I don't like it.
> The
801 - 900 of 1495 matches
Mail list logo
