Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 sections) or to just the invaria
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
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 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:
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 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
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 sections) or to just the invariant sections.
>
> This might be a reasonable thin
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> alternatively, print a single link to either the full documentation
> (containing the invariant sections) or to just the invariant sections.
This might be a reasonable thing, but it is not what the GFDL requires.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 12:24:27AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:24:23PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:52:41PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> > > An other example is a reference sheet to be printed on the front- and
> > > backside of a sheet
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:25:40AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 05:22:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > That's exactly why it's not similar to the things allowed by the
> > > patch clause. FDL is more a licence that requires later programmers
>
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 05:22:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > That's exactly why it's not similar to the things allowed by the
> > patch clause. FDL is more a licence that requires later programmers
> > to add a function that adds to or clarifies or subverts the or
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 08:59:08PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>>
>> >> That makes more than 20 pages of invariant sections, or less than 13% of
>> >> interesting material. Do you agree that the GNU Emacs Manual is non-free?
>> >
>> > It is free. 20 pa
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Acording to Stallman more or less the same freedoms should apply to
> all so called functional works.
However, Debian only distributes things that have such freedoms,
whether functional works or not. RMS may say that non-functional
things do not req
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, I won't, because it's actually a very good argument as to why
> invariant sections could be seen as less of a problem: if we allow
> unmodifiable-but-patcheable programs, it is not unreasonable to say that
> we should allow documents that are (in p
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 08:59:08PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>
> >> That makes more than 20 pages of invariant sections, or less than 13% of
> >> interesting material. Do you agree that the GNU Emacs Manual is non-free?
> >
> > It is free. 20 pages do not obstruct the users to exercise their
>
Em Ter, 2006-01-31 às 16:53 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> invariant sections with offensive material give us a similar example
> -- documents that contain such invariant section would also be
> non-free.
The problem is using one thing as media for unrelated stuff. As most
people would just rem
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 05:22:39PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> > the "patch" to the opinions/rants/whatever in an invariant section
> > does not change that invariant section (it can't change, it's
> > *INVARIANT*). It adds a NEW invariant section which makes wh
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 02:17:07PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> >> > the DFSG does not require convenience. it requires freedom. lack of
> >> > convenience DOES NOT equate to non-free.
> >>
> >> True; however, Frank said "it would be more than inconvenient", which
> >> does not say he thinks that t
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 04:34:19PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>>
>> May I ask you to please read the mails you answer to? If you do, you'll
>> know.
>
> If I did something wrong, that was not intentional. You wrote about
> some document with 9MB inva
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 04:59:45PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
>
> Debian consideres _everything_ to be under the same guidelines and
> there should be no difference between a program, a manual or a
> specification. FSF does not agree with us on this,
FSF never claimed that it is principly imposs
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 04:34:19PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>
> May I ask you to please read the mails you answer to? If you do, you'll
> know.
If I did something wrong, that was not intentional. You wrote about
some document with 9MB invariant sections.
> That makes more than 20 pages of i
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 02:37:18PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>>
>> We are not talking about software licenses here, but documentation.
>> Since Debian has decided to treat both types equally, but the FSF has
>> not, you shouldn't mix things up when cl
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> the "patch" to the opinions/rants/whatever in an invariant section does
> not change that invariant section (it can't change, it's *INVARIANT*).
> It adds a NEW invariant section which makes whatever point the 'patcher'
> wants to make. the new section may
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Would that be inconvenient to Frank? -- Yes. Does this
>> > inconvenience obstruct the software freedoms somehow? -- Certainly
>> > not, the users get the file Frank wants to give them.
>>
>> No, many won't download the file if they know they have t
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As formulated at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html, the four
> software freedoms can not be applied directly to works that are not
> programs and in particular they can not be applied directly to
> documentation. "Run the program" and "study ho
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 02:37:18PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>
> We are not talking about software licenses here, but documentation.
> Since Debian has decided to treat both types equally, but the FSF has
> not, you shouldn't mix things up when claiming to present the FSF's
> view.
>
> So do yo
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 09:50:46AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 03:41:03PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 09:54:40AM +0100, Frank Kuster wrote:
>> > > Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 09:50:46AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> > > > It is not inconvenient to distribute auctex_11.html together
>> > > > with the invariant sections.
>> > >
>> > > Of course it is - imagine that my documentation contains parts
>> >
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 11:19:34AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> craig
> > the DFSG does not require convenience. it requires freedom. lack of
> > convenience DOES NOT equate to non-free.
> >
> > case in point - it is inconvenient (for both the distributor and the
> > user) to distribute modified software
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 09:50:46AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 03:41:03PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 09:54:40AM +0100, Frank Kuster wrote:
> > > Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It is not inconvenient to distribute au
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 09:50:46AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > It is not inconvenient to distribute auctex_11.html together
> > > > with the invariant sections.
> > >
> > > Of course it is - imagine that my documentation contains parts
> > > from 10 documents, all under GFDL, all using lo
craig
> the DFSG does not require convenience. it requires freedom. lack of
> convenience DOES NOT equate to non-free.
>
> case in point - it is inconvenient (for both the distributor and the
> user) to distribute modified software in the form of original work +
> patch file. very inconvenient.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 03:41:03PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 09:54:40AM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> > Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> Imagine that AUCTeX's manual was under GFDL, and I want to distribute
> > >> only file:///usr/share/doc/auctex/HTML/auc
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 09:54:40AM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Let the sheet instead be a coffee cup; in Germany Lehmann's sell
> >> cups with Emacs or vi commands on them. You can't add a second cup
> >> for the invariant sections, even if they fit
Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-25 09:54:40]:
>
>> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:55:19PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > It is not difficult to print two sheets - the invariant sectio
* Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-25 09:54:40]:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:55:19PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> >>
> >> > It is not difficult to print two sheets - the invariant sections go on
> >> > the second sheet and FSF wins more po
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:55:19PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>>
>> > It is not difficult to print two sheets - the invariant sections go on
>> > the second sheet and FSF wins more popularity. :-)
>>
>> This is just working around the issue.
>
> Yes, i
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:24:23PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:52:41PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> > An other example is a reference sheet to be printed on the front- and
> > backside of a sheet of paper (autogenerated to always match the current
> > version) that con
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:55:19PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>
> > It is not difficult to print two sheets - the invariant sections go on
> > the second sheet and FSF wins more popularity. :-)
>
> This is just working around the issue.
Yes, it is.
> Let the sheet instead be a coffee cup; in
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:52:41PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> An other example is a reference sheet to be printed on the front- and
>> backside of a sheet of paper (autogenerated to always match the current
>> version) that contains the most important
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:52:41PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> An other example is a reference sheet to be printed on the front- and
> backside of a sheet of paper (autogenerated to always match the current
> version) that contains the most important commands, functions or
> whatever of the softwa
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 07:28:18AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Anton Zinoviev wrote:
>> >Derived Works
>> >
>> >The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
>> >them to be distributed under the same terms as
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 07:28:18AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> >Derived Works
> >
> >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.
> >
Anton Zinoviev wrote:
>Derived Works
>
>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.
>
> Notice that DFSG do not say "arbitrary modifications".
The general interpreta
45 matches
Mail list logo
