I suggest a few wording changes and additions to avoid some arguments
against the statement and to make it a little clearer.
I agree with earlier comments about adding the version number.
Anthony Towns
> Within the Debian community there has been a significant amount of concern
> about the GNU F
Anthony Towns writes ("GR Proposal: GFDL statement"):
> Bcc'ed to -project, -legal and -private; followups to -vote please.
>
> It's been six months since the social contract changes that forbid
> non-free documentation went into effect [0], and we're still distributing
> GFDLed stuff in unstable
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 09:37:32 +, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I suggest a few wording changes and additions to avoid some
> arguments against the statement and to make it a little clearer.
> I agree with earlier comments about adding the version number.
> Anthony Towns
>> Within the D
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Also,
>> (4) How can this be fixed?
>
> This section should be clarified and strengthened. In particular, we
> should encourage documentation authors to (at the moment) dual-licence
> GDFL/GPL.
The recommendation is: "License your documentation under the same license
as the
Anthony Towns wrote:
> (2.1) Invariant Sections
>
> The most troublesome conflict concerns the class of invariant sections
> that, once included, may not be modified or removed from the documentation
> in future. Modifiability is, however, a fundamental requirement of the
> DFSG, which states:
>
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 21:17 -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> The recommendation is: "License your documentation under the same license
> as the program it goes with. If you need to license under the GFDL for some
> reason, dual-licence."
>
> I think -legal came to a very definite consensus that l
6 matches
Mail list logo
