On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:22:02AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Could some one tell me why including the invariant sections of
> a GFDL licensed work in main would not require us to modify the DFSG
> or the social contract?
because the GFDL is not a non-free license.
GFDL invariant
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:22:02AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> Could some one tell me why including the invariant sections of
> a GFDL licensed work in main would not require us to modify the DFSG
> or the social contract?
Unfortunately DFSG are not unambiguous and obviously the
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 08:09:15PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > Specifically, I am looking at the SC:
> > >> 1. Debian will remain 100% free
> >
> > And the DFSG:
> > >> The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
> > >> allow them to be distrib
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
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 20:09:15 +1100, Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:22:02AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Could some one tell me why including the invariant sections of a
>> GFDL licensed work in main would not require us to modify the DFSG
>> or the social
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 11:53:44 +0200, Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:22:02AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> Could some one tell me why including the invariant sections of a
>> GFDL licensed work in main would not require us to modify the DFSG
>> or the s
On 2/1/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could some one tell me why including the invariant sections of
> a GFDL licensed work in main would not require us to modify the DFSG
> or the social contract?
>
> Specifically, I am looking at the SC:
> >> 1. Debian will
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 09:37:12AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> > Here are three possible interpretations of "The license must allow
> > modifications":
>
> > FIRST
> >The license must allow us to modify the work as we see fit with
> > possible exception for the license and [list here r
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:46:55 -0300, Margarita Manterola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On 2/1/06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Could some one tell me why including the invariant sections of a
>> GFDL licensed work in main would not require us to modify the DFSG
>> or the social con
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I understand that this is how you interpret DFSG. (BTW, the list in
> the brackets is not empty.)
Actually, I think that the DFSG already lists the license text as the
only unmodifiable part in the binary:
"The license must allow modifications and der
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:17:31 +0200, Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 09:37:12AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> > Here are three possible interpretations of "The license must
>> > allow modifications":
>>
>> > FIRST
>> >The license must allow us to modi
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:46:55 -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> Even though I strongly disagree with Anton's position and reading of
> the DFSG, I think that the point is that the text says "allow
> modifications" and not "allow for the whole source to be modified".
> Of course, the "spirit" of
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:41:55AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> > I understand that this is how you interpret DFSG. (BTW, the list in
> > the brackets is not empty.)
>
> I think that is what is written, and is not just an interpretation.
Not everybody reads the text as you so it is just a
Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 11:53 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> Unfortunately DFSG are not unambiguous and obviously the people
> understand them in various ways.
Well, the text in DFSG3 may be not well tight. But I think we should
look at its direct reference, which can be said as the most sane
in
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 06:17:45PM +0200, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> If I include your personal position about, let's say, software freedom
> in my documentation under GFDL, I have to put it in an Invariant
> section, otherwise people would be able to change/twist your words and
> turn it into somethin
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 02:38:30PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 11:53 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> > Unfortunately DFSG are not unambiguous and obviously the people
> > understand them in various ways.
>
> Well, the text in DFSG3 may be not well tight. But I think we sh
On 2/1/06, Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is not an unbelievable conclusion. If I include your personal
> position about, let's say, software freedom in my documentation under
> GFDL, I have to put it in an Invariant section, otherwise people would
> be able to change/twist your wor
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 09:41, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> "The license must permit modifications". No if, and, or
> buts. So no, I do not think that is actually true.
Sure, it says it must permit modifications, but it doesn't way that it must
permit ALL modifications. The way it rea
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not everybody reads the text as you so it is just an interpretation.
This is not sufficient. You must explain how your interpretation is
more plausible or likely. If it is just an ad-hoc thing, designed
only to get the particular conclusion you want
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 08:46, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> Of course, the "spirit" of the DFSG is that of allowing to modify the
> whole text, but it's not explicitly stated,
Okay, here's the thing: why do you (or anyone) get to say what the "spirit"
of the DFSG is about, and why should a
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am sorry, it says allow modifications. Period. Not allow
> modifications only in parts that some people consider important. Not
> allow modifications, except in secondary sections.
I agree with Manoj here (as anyone following the discuss
Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is not an unbelievable conclusion. If I include your personal
> position about, let's say, software freedom in my documentation under
> GFDL, I have to put it in an Invariant section, otherwise people would
> be able to change/twist your words and tu
Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 20:12 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> If the invariant sections are unreasonably long then I'd agree the
> document is non-free. However some developers object even short
> invariant sections.
It has nothing to do with the size of the invariant section (and indeed,
GFDL do
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:20:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Not everybody reads the text as you so it is just an interpretation.
>
> This is not sufficient. You must explain how your interpretation is
> more plausible or likely. If it
Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 11:13 -0700, Wesley J. Landaker escreveu:
> On Wednesday 01 February 2006 09:41, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > "The license must permit modifications". No if, and, or
> > buts. So no, I do not think that is actually true.
> Sure, it says it must permit modifications, bu
"Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sure, it says it must permit modifications, but it doesn't way that it must
> permit ALL modifications. The way it reads, literally, could be interpreted
> as it must permit ALL modifcations, or as it must permit at least two
> modifications (s
"Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since we obviously DON'T all agree on exactly what the spirit of it is--you
> say the spirit requires allowing modifications to the whole text, others
> say it only requires allowing modifications to some/most of it--this GR can
> show us what
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I have not yet seen such an interpretation of this sort, in which
>> explanation and analysis of similar cases and such is proffered. This
>> does not mean it cannot be done, but it has not.
>
> This interpretation is not ad-hoc thing and I strongly
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
> "Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Sure, it says it must permit modifications, but it doesn't way that it must
> > permit ALL modifications. The way it reads, literally, could be interpreted
> > as it must permit ALL mo
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 08:38:25PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:20:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Not everybody reads the text as you so it is just an interpretation.
> >
> > This is not sufficient. You
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 11:13:05AM -0700, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> Sure, it says it must permit modifications, but it doesn't way that it must
> permit ALL modifications. The way it reads, literally, could be interpreted
> as it must permit ALL modifcations, or as it must permit at least two
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So, would you regard a license which permitted the modification of
>> some features of a program, but not others, to be free? I would not.
>
> In 1997, at the time of the writing of the DFSG, the BSD clause
> contained the obnoxious advertising clause.
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You can declare that same conditions should apply to programs and
> documentation; however, what Wesley is saying is that we do not
> apparently agree on what those conditions should actually be.
Yes. So, what is the interpretation being seriously pu
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:37:33AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> "Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Since we obviously DON'T all agree on exactly what the spirit of it is--you
> > say the spirit requires allowing modifications to the whole text, others
> > say it only requ
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
> Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> So, would you regard a license which permitted the modification of
> >> some features of a program, but not others, to be free? I would
> >> not.
> >
> > In 1997, at the time of the writing of
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It does prohibit code reuse, which I think is one of the things under
> discussion here. Code under this license can't be mixed with code under
> the GPL, as I'm sure you're aware. Similarly one could say the GFDL
> does not prohibit modification of the
At Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:35:47 +0100,
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 06:17:45PM +0200, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> > If I include your personal position about, let's say, software freedom
> > in my documentation under GFDL, I have to put it in an Invariant
> > section, otherwise people
Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we had the right to remove the GNU Manifesto, the Free Software
> Movement would slowly lose its influence. People, especially young
> people, tend to forget how this started and what ideals the movement
> follows and why they are important.
This is
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It does prohibit code reuse, which I think is one of the things under
> discussion here. Code under this license can't be mixed with code under
> the GPL, as I'm sure you're aware. Similarly one could say the GFDL
> does not prohibit modification of the
Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we had the right to remove the GNU Manifesto, the Free Software
> Movement would slowly lose its influence. People, especially young
> people, tend to forget how this started and what ideals the movement
> follows and why they are important.
This ma
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:46:19 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Which means that you are perhaps arguing that we should make the change to
> the DFSG which the amendment in question calls for.
I agree with this (e.g. that the Invariant sections are
DFSG-compliant):
http://lists.debian.org/deb
Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:46:19 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> Which means that you are perhaps arguing that we should make the change to
>> the DFSG which the amendment in question calls for.
>
> I agree with this (e.g. that the Invariant section
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 07:41:45PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 08:38:25PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:20:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > I have not yet seen such an interpretation of this sort, in which
> > > explanation and a
Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 23:00 +0200, Yavor Doganov escreveu:
> Since you and the Secretary (probably others as well) are interpeting
> the DFSG in a different way, perhaps it is a good idea to clarify that
> particular sentence, but it is not an obstacle for the current GR.
Well, it has been argued
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 07:44:58PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 11:13:05AM -0700, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> > Sure, it says it must permit modifications, but it doesn't way
> > that it must permit ALL modifications. The way it reads,
> > literally, could be interpreted
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:11:25PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
>
> Ok, but by being invariant they are turning the documentation into
> non-free documentation. As you say, people won't be able to change it,
> therefore, it's a non-free text.
The modifications that are permited by GFDL are e
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:24:36AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> The FSF insists that only modification of "functional" parts is
> important, and this is a key in the disagreement. We insist on the
> modifiability of all parts, not only in the parts which someone says
> are the important
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 11:13:45AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> Yes. So, what is the interpretation being seriously put forth? That
> we should allow licenses which restrict parts of a program to being
> off-limits? ("You may change gnugo in any way you like, except that
> you may not
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:39:12AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> The DFSG says *nothing* about "functional parts", and was recently
> amended *specifically* to clarify that the same conditions apply to
> software and programs.
I have never objected this decision.
> To interpret the DFSG
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:40:32PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> On 2/1/06, Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This interpretation is not ad-hoc thing and I strongly belive that it
> > represents not only my view but also the view of FSF. I asked Richard
> > Stallman for confirmat
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 07:41:45PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 08:38:25PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:20:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> > > I have not yet seen such an interpretati
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 07:44:58PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 11:13:05AM -0700, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
>> > Sure, it says it must permit modifications, but it doesn't way
>> > that it must permit ALL modifications. The w
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:36:48AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> "Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Sure, it says it must permit modifications, but it doesn't way
> > that it must permit ALL modifications. The way it reads,
> > literally, could be interpreted as it must p
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:28:30PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
>
> The use cases I gave are just examples, I could think in other
> examples to show you the fact that they being invariant prevents it
> from fitting in a particular need, but that's not what's going to
> make us move forward...
I un
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The decision we have taken is that DFSG applies to all works, not just
> to software programs. We have never taken decision acording to which
> "we insist on the modifiability of all parts". I'd say that we insist
> on the modifiability of some partic
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We would not accept any of these because they prohibit some useful
> modifications.
It is useful sometimes to remove invariant sections.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> To interpret the DFSG to read into it language about functional parts
>> or to have different standards for programs and documentation, is to
>> insert something that is simply not there.
>
> I do not interpret DFSG that way. If I decide to create a p
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The modifications that are permited by GFDL are enough to make useful
> modifications, that is to adapt the document and to improve it. Yes,
> you can not do whatever you whish but this is not necessarily the
> right interpretation of DFSG.
For many p
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 11:13:05 -0700, Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wednesday 01 February 2006 09:41, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> "The license must permit modifications". No if, and, or buts. So
>> no, I do not think that is actually true.
> Sure, it says it must permit modificati
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:40:32PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
>> On 2/1/06, Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > This interpretation is not ad-hoc thing and I strongly belive that it
>> > represents not only my view but also the view of
Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 23:28 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:11:25PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > Ok, but by being invariant they are turning the documentation into
> > non-free documentation. As you say, people won't be able to change it,
> > therefore, it's a
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But this must be done in a *principled* way. If you are saying simply
>> that thet GFDL should be subject to a *different* set of requirements
>> than the ones you think should be applied to programs, then you can
>> find no support for this position
Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 23:33 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:28:30PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > This was what I tried to show you, not the opposite. My interpretation
> > of DFSG3 is guided by freedom 1, which says "adapt it to your needs".
> > Invariant sections are
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 20:38:25 +0200, Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This interpretation is not ad-hoc thing and I strongly belive that
> it represents not only my view but also the view of FSF. I asked
> Richard Stallman for confirmation and I will report here when I
> receive his repl
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:22:10 +0200, Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:41:55AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> > I understand that this is how you interpret DFSG. (BTW, the list
>> > in the brackets is not empty.)
>>
>> I think that is what is written, an
Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:11:25PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
>>
>> Ok, but by being invariant they are turning the documentation into
>> non-free documentation. As you say, people won't be able to change it,
>> therefore, it's a non-free text.
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:29:22 +0200, Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The 3:1 requirement would be necessary only if you can prove that
> "we insist on modifiability of all parts".
Procedurally, I think that the 3:1 requirement stays until you
can prove "The license must allow m
At Wed, 01 Feb 2006 13:09:38 -0800,
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:46:19 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >
> >> Which means that you are perhaps arguing that we should make the change to
> >> the DFSG which the amendment in q
Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, I think that Anton Zinoviev's amendment to the GR does *not*
> require a change to the DFSG.
For this to be true, it must seem like a plausible interpretation of
the words of the DFSG. Can you work me through this then, since I
(and others) are s
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:45:42 +0200, Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> No, I think that Anton Zinoviev's amendment to the GR does *not*
> require a change to the DFSG.
> But as it is clear that DDs interpret the DFSG differently, I agree
> that a "clarification" to the DFSG #3 may be prop
Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As explained on http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-howto.html, the
> Invariant sections serve a special purpose, which is the case of the
> GNU Manifesto. Many users, including myself, consider it a more
> important part than the GNU Emacs Manual itself. H
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 11:33:49PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:28:30PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > The use cases I gave are just examples, I could think in other
> > examples to show you the fact that they being invariant prevents it
> > from fitting in a particula
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:44:59 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:45:42 +0200, Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>
>> No, I think that Anton Zinoviev's amendment to the GR does *not* require
>> a change to the DFSG.
>
>> But as it is clear that DDs interpret the DFSG d
Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | Everything, which is reasonable to be modified, must be modifiable
> Things that are unreasonable to be modified for me are license texts
> and personal opinions (or rants), which can only be copied verbatim.
You are, once more, ignoring that invaria
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 12:24:34PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > If we had the right to remove the GNU Manifesto, the Free Software
> > Movement would slowly lose its influence. People, especially young
> > people, tend to forget how this started and what ideals the movement
> > follows and why
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 11:36, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> "Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Sure, it says it must permit modifications, but it doesn't way that it
> > must permit ALL modifications. The way it reads, literally, could be
> > interpreted as it must permit AL
"Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, I agree. Hence, "common sense" and "gut feel". But it's a fact that all
> developers "common sense" about the GFDL isn't leading to the same
> decisions.
I'm not going by common sense or gut feel. I'm going by actual
reasons. We do not
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 14:32, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:36:48AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > "Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Sure, it says it must permit modifications, but it doesn't way
> > > that it must permit ALL modifications. Th
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 14:36, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Can you please explain then where the DFSG contains any statement of
> limitation on the concept of modifiability? Where does it allow for
> any limitations on modifiability?
Can you explain where the DFSG contains any statement th
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 14:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 07:44:58PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 11:13:05AM -0700, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> >> > Sure, it says it must permit modification
"Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Precisely; the point of my whole e-mail was that you can never solve issues
> about how to interpret the DFSG by legalistic semantic nitpicking on how
> the sentences are written.
Suppose we have a case where a majority of the developers want
"Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm seriously asking, because I don't see it either permitting OR limiting;
> it just says modifiablility. You read it assume it means that no limits are
> allowed. Someone else reads it and assumes that it means some limits are
> okay.
How do
"Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I really see this as a push to kill a valid interpretation by forcing it to
> have a supermajority. I would feel the same way even if the tables were
> turned in what option was being made to meet 3:1.
Are you saying that Manoj is acting in bad
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 14:24, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 11:13:05 -0700, Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> > On Wednesday 01 February 2006 09:41, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> "The license must permit modifications". No if, and, or buts. So
> >> no, I do not thi
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 17:51, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> We do not yet have *anyone* who has posted an interpretation
> of the DFSG under which the GFDL would pass. Nobody has even tried.
> The amendment just declares "it hereby passes"; and nobody, despite
> Manoj's request, has proffer
Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> All they need to do, if you are right, is proceed to declare that
>> their change is really just an interpretation of whatever is already
>> there. And, by hypothesis, they can present a claim that heck
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> All they need to do, if you are right, is proceed to declare that
> their change is really just an interpretation of whatever is already
> there. And, by hypothesis, they can present a claim that heck, a
Actually, a group of developers, no matter
"Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you are saying that "The license must permit modifications" has one, and
> only one interpretation, and that that interpretation is "The license must
> permit any and all modifications", then you are really doing the hair
> splitting, becaus
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:20, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> "Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm seriously asking, because I don't see it either permitting OR
> > limiting; it just says modifiablility. You read it assume it means that
> > no limits are allowed. Someone els
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:17, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Nobody has, at all, even in the least even *presented* this supposed
> interpretation of the DFSG under which the GFDL passes.
Okay, I just presented on in my last e-mail, so you can stop saying this.
--
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL
Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> [...] If I decide to create a package
> with some essays from www.gnu.org that package would be free acording
> to FSF and non-free acording to DFSG (because these essays are not
> modifiable). I have no problems with that.
FSF would probably call it free documentation or
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:22, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> "Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I really see this as a push to kill a valid interpretation by forcing
> > it to have a supermajority. I would feel the same way even if the
> > tables were turned in what option wa
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 06:32:25PM -0700, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> Anyway, maybe you could give us an example format showing your point of view
> and then if someone wants to show and alternate interpretation/point of
> view, they can do it in a fashion that would be acceptable to you?
Well,
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:41, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> All they need to do, if you are right, is proceed to declare that
> >> their change is really just an interpretation of whatever is al
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:23:43 -0700, Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj, I really don't see how you can believe that this proposal is
> "novel and unconventional", but if you really, *honestly* believe
> that, and you are not pushing a 3:1 because of your personal views
> about the
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:42, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> "Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If you are saying that "The license must permit modifications" has one,
> > and only one interpretation, and that that interpretation is "The
> > license must permit any and all mo
"Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas, I don't even know what your asking for here. It only makes sense to
> give a big long detailed interpretation of the points of the DFSG where it
> FAILS.
We have people saying that there is an interpretation of the DFSG
under which it p
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 17:54:56 -0700, Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wednesday 01 February 2006 14:32, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:36:48AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> > "Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > > Sure, it says it must pe
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:53, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:23:43 -0700, Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> > Manoj, I really don't see how you can believe that this proposal is
> > "novel and unconventional", but if you really, *honestly* believe
> > that, and
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:45, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Manoj, the Project Secretary, has said that, in his opinion, it does.
> He has also expressed is openness to being convinced to the contrary.
>
> Those who wish to convince him need to do more than just declare "it's
> all a matter o
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
