On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:14:52AM +1100, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> * Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-10-21 15:00]:
> > In sum, I think the two-year gestation process on debian-legal was
> > necessary to give this joint committee of Debian and the FSF a
> > tract
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-10-21 15:00]:
> In sum, I think the two-year gestation process on debian-legal was
> necessary to give this joint committee of Debian and the FSF a
> tractable task to deal with.
Yes, I fully agree with this, and appreciate the hard work -legal has
done
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 12:32:11AM +1000, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> I think that since the time when you've made your original posting
> there has been tremendous progress in the discussions about changing
> the GFDL. A committee has been created to foster a solid discussi
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-08-26 14:34]:
> There appears to be confusion regarding the intended presence of GNU
> FDL-licensed works in sarge.
> I personally see no ambiguity at all in clause one of Social
> Contract on this point; everything that is part of the "Debian
> GNU/Lin
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 06:05:16AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Look at what you wrote... if the clause requires interpretation and you
> allow for the possibility that he has his own, presumably different
> interpretation, then surely it is at least possible that it is not
> unambiguous? :)
Experi
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:34:37PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Given there's more ambiguity in whether to apply the DFSG to
> > documentation than there is in whether the GFDL passes the DFSG, it
> > seemed most sensible just to exempt documentation from the DFSG for
> > sarge; so that's the
6 matches
Mail list logo
