On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:14:12 -0600, Richard Darst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:31:38AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> [the topic is invariant sections]
>> i challenge any of you zealots to come up with a REAL WORLD, PRACTICAL
>> proof that the GFDL is non-free (and i mean
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:31:38AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
[the topic is invariant sections]
> i challenge any of you zealots to come up with a REAL WORLD, PRACTICAL
> proof that the GFDL is non-free (and i mean actually non-free, not
> merely inconvenient. the DFSG does not require convenien
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 14:30:40 +0100, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 12:37:00PM +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> This one time, at band camp, Mike Hommey said:
>> > On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 06:17:19PM +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL
>> > PROTECTED]> w
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 18:17:19 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:42:41PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> alternatively, print a single link to either the full documentation
>>> (containing the invariant s
- Original Message -
From: Pierce Terence
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2006 7:38 AM
Subject: hey debian-vote
This one time, at band camp, Mike Hommey said:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 12:37:00PM +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, Mike Hommey said:
> > > You forgot something...
> > >
> > > > If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document
> > >
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 05:55:54PM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 09:34:19AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > so, your complaint is that if you delete the contents of the document,
> > then you can no longer change it?
> >
> > are you for real? do you seriously take this
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 09:34:19AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 08:47:54AM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> > I am unconvinced that the DFSG means 'all modifications', I think that
> > it really does mean all reasonable modifications.
> >
> > But the GFDL fails this, _ent
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 08:47:54AM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> I am unconvinced that the DFSG means 'all modifications', I think that
> it really does mean all reasonable modifications.
>
> But the GFDL fails this, _entirely_.
>
> Even by the bounds of 'reasonable modifications' the GFDL wi
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 12:37:00PM +, Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Mike Hommey said:
> > On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 06:17:19PM +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:42:41PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 12:40:38PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 11:00:34PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I am uneasy myself on that clause. But see, I regard
> > removal of copyright notices as prohibited by copyright law, and if
> > the original p
This one time, at band camp, Mike Hommey said:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 06:17:19PM +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:42:41PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > alternatively, print a singl
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 06:21:19PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > I didn't mean one specific license, but the requirement of DFSG:
>
> >The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in
> >modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of
> >"patch files"
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 06:17:19PM +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:42:41PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > alternatively, print a single link to either the full documentation
> > > (containing t
14 matches
Mail list logo