Hi,
Note that this is a draft, voting is not yet open. I've made
some modifications (for example, we are talking about works licensed
under the GFDL, not the GFDL itself), and went back and looked at the
emails from the proposer to make sure I am representing their intent,
to the best
On 25 Feb 2006, Arthur de Jong outgrape:
>
>> [ ] Choice 1: GFDL licensed works are unsuitable for main in all
>> cases
>
> I would personally like to see this without the "in all cases" as an
> author could add extra statements clarifying their intention or
> interpretation of the license that co
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> [ ] Choice 2: GFDL licensed works are free unless unmodifiable sections
> present
All GFDL works have unmodifiable sections, including at least:
* [4D, 4E] Copyright statements
* [4A, 4I] Parts of the section entitled "History"
* [4F] The permission notice, whic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[ ] Choice 1: GFDL licensed works are unsuitable for main in all cases
I would personally like to see this without the "in all cases" as an
author could add extra statements clarifying their intention or
interpretation of the license that coul
Hi,
Well, obviously this is not about "procedures to publish posts
from the debian-private mailing list" .
==
The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to address
the Debian projects position on the GNU
Hi,
Note that this is a draft, voting is not yet open. I've made
some modifications (for example, we are talking about works licensed
under the GFDL, not the GFDL itself), and went back and looked at the
emails from the proposer to make sure I am representing their intent,
to the best
6 matches
Mail list logo
