On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 02:41:08PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:55:35PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Craig Sanders wrote:
> >
> > > the DFSG also allows that the modification may be by patch only.
> >
> > No, it does not.
>
> yes it does.
>
> > Quoting DFSG 4
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 02:41:08PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:55:35PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Craig Sanders wrote:
> >
> > > the DFSG also allows that the modification may be by patch only.
> >
> > No, it does not.
>
> yes it does.
>
> > Quoting DFSG 4
Craig Sanders wrote:
>>>The license may restrict source-code from being distributed
>>>in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution
>>>of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying
>>>the program at build time. THE LICENSE MUST EXPLICITLY PERMIT
>>>DISTRIBUTI
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:06:09 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:07:48PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
>> You made the assertion that it was sufficient to just include a link
>> to the full document (including invariant sections) or to just the
>> invariant sect
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:07:48PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:38:57 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >>> the GFDL has a similar provision. you can provide a link to an
> >>> internet address containing the full document.
> >>
> >> Please show me where the
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:55:35PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> > the DFSG also allows that the modification may be by patch only.
>
> No, it does not.
yes it does.
> Quoting DFSG 4, with emphasis added:
> > The license may restrict source-code from being distribu
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:38:57 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> the GFDL has a similar provision. you can provide a link to an
>>> internet address containing the full document.
>>
>> Please show me where the GFDL has such a provision. The passage that
> i've shown it before. i h
Craig Sanders wrote:
> the DFSG also allows that the modification may be by patch only.
No, it does not.
Quoting DFSG 4, with emphasis added:
> The license may restrict source-code from being distributed
> in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution
> of "patch files" with the
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:52:28PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 01:42:44PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
> >> 3a only says that a binary has to be *accompanied* with the source
> >> code. Hence it can be on a separate medium. So you can distribute
> >> your 1KB chip, stapled
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 02:52:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > you can do the same with GFDL documents. e.g. the stupid coffee cup
> > example so popular with you zealots - if you can't fit the invariant
> > sections on the cup itself, then print it on paper and include it in the
> > box.
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:29:05 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> you people love to recycle the same lies over and over and over again.
> i'm becoming convinced that it is a deliberate strategy - repeat the
> same lies and eventually everyone will just give up out of exhaustion.
> On
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 01:42:44PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
>> 3a only says that a binary has to be *accompanied* with the source code.
>> Hence it can be on a separate medium. So you can distribute your 1KB
>> chip, stapled to a CD-ROM that contains t
you people love to recycle the same lies over and over and over again.
i'm becoming convinced that it is a deliberate strategy - repeat the
same lies and eventually everyone will just give up out of exhaustion.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 01:42:44PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
> 3a only says that a bina
13 matches
Mail list logo
