On 1916-3.820-5.730(4sf), Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[So a GR can state that pi=3,]
> No.
>
> Language, and interpretation thereof, is not an exact science. Math is.
The representation of maths is not much more exact than language
in some ways. Two half-daft observations from a st
Hi,
At the time of writing, less than two days before the end of
the vote, the standing are still lower than expected; here is a
comparison with recent years (all but 2006 numbers are the final
tally number):
===
|||T
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rubbish. The opinion I have seen bandied around is that the
> two issues are a problem with the GFDL, and have been acknowledged as
> such by the FSF, and are going to be fixed real soon now
> ™. Pragmatically, it does not make sense to rem
El jueves, 6 de abril de 2006 a las 23:12:20 +0200, Sam Hocevar escribía:
> > Well, no. If the author makes that promise, we may just as well wait until
> > that happens and the package is free. It's not like we've run out of
> > software to package :-)
>Oh. I really must have been on anothe
El jueves, 6 de abril de 2006 a las 22:15:49 +0200, Josselin Mouette escribía:
> > Well, no. If the author makes that promise, we may just as well wait until
> > that happens and the package is free. It's not like we've run out of
> > software to package :-)
> Now, please re-read Manoj's email a
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 10:15:08PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> So a GR can state that pi=3,
>
> No.
>
> Language, and interpretation thereof, is not an exact science. Math is.
But the interpretation of licenses is something rather different from
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> El jueves, 6 de abril de 2006 a las 19:06:50 +0200, Sam Hocevar escribía:
>
> >Indeed. Would such a wording be acceptable:
> > "As a special exception, the license may forbid use of
> > technical measures to restrict access or use of the so
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 10:15:08PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> So a GR can state that pi=3,
No.
Language, and interpretation thereof, is not an exact science. Math is.
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT
Le jeudi 06 avril 2006 à 21:10 +0200, Jacobo Tarrio a écrit :
> El jueves, 6 de abril de 2006 a las 19:06:50 +0200, Sam Hocevar escribía:
>
> >Indeed. Would such a wording be acceptable:
> > "As a special exception, the license may forbid use of
> > technical measures to restrict acce
Le jeudi 06 avril 2006 à 20:02 +0200, Jutta Wrage a écrit :
> Before you make any change to the DFSG, you'd better discuss and vote
> about "Accepting FDL" needs/does not need a DFSG change. Vut in my
> point of view thsi question was already coverd by the GR.
So a GR can state that pi=3, and
El jueves, 6 de abril de 2006 a las 19:06:50 +0200, Sam Hocevar escribía:
>Indeed. Would such a wording be acceptable:
> "As a special exception, the license may forbid use of
> technical measures to restrict access or use of the software
> itself, as long as the license author pr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 06.04.2006 um 19:06 schrieb Sam Hocevar:
"As a special exception, the license may forbid use of
technical measures to restrict access or use of the software
itself, as long as the license author promises that such a
clause will b
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le jeudi 06 avril 2006 à 09:50 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
>> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > At the end of DFSG #2, the following text should be added:
>> > "The license may restrict distribution to some kinds o
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> First, I disagree that such a change is necessary (if it were, the GR
> itself would already include the needed changes and require 3:1
> supermajority).
>
> Second, these amendments would make this example license DFSG-free:
>
> [...]
Indeed. Wo
Le jeudi 06 avril 2006 à 09:50 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > At the end of DFSG #2, the following text should be added:
> > "The license may restrict distribution to some kinds of media if
> > it is still possible to distr
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At the end of DFSG #2, the following text should be added:
> "The license may restrict distribution to some kinds of media if
> it is still possible to distribute the source code and compiled
> code together on at least one mac
El jueves, 6 de abril de 2006 a las 09:04:35 +0200, Josselin Mouette escribía:
> At the end of DFSG #2, the following text should be added:
> "The license may restrict distribution to some kinds of media if
> it is still possible to distribute the source code and compiled
>
Le jeudi 06 avril 2006 à 08:07 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> Rubbish. The opinion I have seen bandied around is that the
> two issues are a problem with the GFDL, and have been acknowledged as
> such by the FSF, and are going to be fixed real soon now
> ™. Pragmatically, it does no
On 6 Apr 2006, Sam Hocevar stated:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2006, Andreas Barth wrote:
>
>> What's that for, now? Obviously the majority (and also the
>> secretary) wasn't the opinion the DFSG needs to be changed. Could
>> you please just accept the decision being done, and can we go back
>> to work?
>
>
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006, Andreas Barth wrote:
> What's that for, now? Obviously the majority (and also the secretary)
> wasn't the opinion the DFSG needs to be changed. Could you please just
> accept the decision being done, and can we go back to work?
Well since obviously the majority was of the
* Josselin Mouette [Thu, 06 Apr 2006 09:04:35 +0200]:
> While documents using this license are considered free provided they
> don't use invariant sections, the DFSG don't contain the necessary
> modifications.
Because none are needed. Amendment A would have been 3:1 otherwise.
--
Adeodato Si
* Josselin Mouette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060406 09:05]:
> After the vote of GR 2006-001, we end up with an unclear situation about
> the GNU Free Documentation License. While documents using this license
> are considered free provided they don't use invariant sections, the DFSG
> don't contain the n
After the vote of GR 2006-001, we end up with an unclear situation about
the GNU Free Documentation License. While documents using this license
are considered free provided they don't use invariant sections, the DFSG
don't contain the necessary modifications. Therefore, I'm proposing the
following
23 matches
Mail list logo
