On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:43:42AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > If the project secretary decides
> > that my proposal (for GFDL) requires 3:1 supermajority, this would
> > mean that the project secretary decides on behalf of the whole project
> > that ou
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:02:54PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > Actually, I think that both FSF and DFSG define "free software" pretty
> > similarily. The problem arises from the fact that our Social Contract
> > applies DFSG to all works, not just software, whereas FSF considers
> > software
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If the project secretary decides
> that my proposal (for GFDL) requires 3:1 supermajority, this would
> mean that the project secretary decides on behalf of the whole project
> that our notion of "free software" differs from the notion of FSF.
This is not corr
Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
> > The current opinion of FSF, at least. In the past, RMS has
> > worked against advertising clauses far less obnoxious than
> > the FDL ones. [...]
>
> Er, we consider the 4 clause BSD license a free license.
I know. Did you just n
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 06:52:45PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>>
>> > 2. Compilation works. Such works are based on many different
>> >documents and as a result the volume of all invariant sections for
>> >the resulting document can be too big.
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 06:52:45PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>
> > 2. Compilation works. Such works are based on many different
> >documents and as a result the volume of all invariant sections for
> >the resulting document can be too big. However DFSG accept as free
> >some licenses
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll try to list the examples I can remember.
>
> Category 1. GFDL prohibits some particular use of the document but
> some other free license also prohibits this use.
>
> This category includes:
>
[...[
> 2. Compilation works. Such works are
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:33:34PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> >
> > Ok. However so far, nobody could give a resonable example of needs
> > that can require you to remove the secodary sections.
>
> No, several people have. You just don't want to accept these, and
> therefore each time one exa
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 11:38:21AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 04:31:18AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > The current opinion of FSF, at least.
> I know the policies of FSF well enough to be confident that this is
> not just "current opinion". This has always been the opinion
This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
> The current opinion of FSF, at least. In the past, RMS has
> worked against advertising clauses far less obnoxious than
> the FDL ones. You could summarise what's happening today with
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html and doing s/BSD/FDL/g;
> s/sen
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 08:11:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> Firstly, if my needs require me to rtemove the secondary
>> sections, and invariant sections, I should be allowed to do so
>
> Ok. However so far, nobody could give a reso
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 08:11:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> Firstly, if my needs require me to rtemove the secondary
> sections, and invariant sections, I should be allowed to do so
Ok. However so far, nobody could give a resonable example of needs
that can require you to remo
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:23:18PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In order to make reasonably evident that this is not just my
> > interpretation but also interpretation that is shared by many other
> > Debian developers I decided to ask Richard Stallm
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 04:31:18AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
>
> The current opinion of FSF, at least.
I know the policies of FSF well enough to be confident that this is
not just "current opinion". This has always been the opinion of FSF.
> In the past, RMS has worked against advertising clauses fa
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:02:54PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
>
> Actually, I think that both FSF and DFSG define "free software" pretty
> similarily. The problem arises from the fact that our Social Contract
> applies DFSG to all works, not just software, whereas FSF considers
> software a speci
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The current opinion of FSF, at least. In the past, RMS has
> worked against advertising clauses far less obnoxious than
> the FDL ones. You could summarise what's happening today with
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html and doing s/BSD/FDL/g;
> s/sentence/
Anton Zinoviev write:
>Can you confirm that the second interpretation expresses properly
>what modifications must be allowed about a particular software
>program or documentation for it to be considered free by FSF.
>
> Notice that I intentionaly mentioned both software program and
> d
[Anton Zinoviev]
> This was the answer by Stallman:
[...]
> The license must give us permissions to modify the work in
>order to adapt it to various needs or to improve it, with no
>substantive limits on the nature of these changes, but there
>can be superficial r
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 12:49:01 +0200, Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:22:02AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> And the DFSG:
>> >> The license must allow modifications and derived works,
>> >> and must allow them to be distributed under the same
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In order to make reasonably evident that this is not just my
> interpretation but also interpretation that is shared by many other
> Debian developers I decided to ask Richard Stallman for the opinion of
> FSF.
>
> This was the question I asked Stallman:
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> project has not decided this yet. If the project secretary decides
> that my proposal (for GFDL) requires 3:1 supermajority, this would
> mean that the project secretary decides on behalf of the whole project
> that our notion of "free software" differs
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:22:02AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> And the DFSG:
> >> The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
> >> allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license
> >> of the original software.
In reply to Mano
22 matches
Mail list logo
