Re: A clarification for my interpretation of GFDL [was: Anton's amendment]

2006-02-06 Thread MJ Ray
Stephen Gran wrote: > This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said: > > The current opinion of FSF, at least. In the past, RMS has > > worked against advertising clauses far less obnoxious than > > the FDL ones. [...] > > Er, we consider the 4 clause BSD license a free license. I know. Did you just n

Re: Anton's amendment

2006-02-06 Thread Zephaniah E. Hull
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:31:38AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 05:55:54PM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote: > i challenge any of you zealots to come up with a REAL WORLD, PRACTICAL > proof that the GFDL is non-free (and i mean actually non-free, not > merely inconvenient. t

Re: Anton's amendment

2006-02-06 Thread Frank Küster
"Zephaniah E. Hull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, I write a program, nice, big, with a license that says that you can > do anything you want with it as long as you keep the copyright > statements attached and don't make any changes at all to main.c, none, > not for bug fixing, not for feature c

Re: Anton's amendment

2006-02-06 Thread Yavor Doganov
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:37:20 +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > "Zephaniah E. Hull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> So, I write a program, nice, big, with a license that says that you can >> do anything you want with it as long as you keep the copyright >> statements attached and don't make any changes

Re: The invariant sections are not forbidden by DFSG

2006-02-06 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
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

Re: Anton's amendment

2006-02-06 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is not a proper example. Non-modifiability of secondary.c may > obstruct further improvements of the program. This is not the case > with the invariant sections, which do not prevent the manual to be > enhanced. Sometimes an enhancement require

Re: Anton's amendment

2006-02-06 Thread Zephaniah E. Hull
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 07:10:07PM +0200, Yavor Doganov wrote: > On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:37:20 +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > > > "Zephaniah E. Hull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> So, I write a program, nice, big, with a license that says that you can > >> do anything you want with it as long

Re: Anton's amendment

2006-02-06 Thread Craig Sanders
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 09:49:51AM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:31:38AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > > i challenge any of you zealots to come up with a REAL WORLD, PRACTICAL > > proof that the GFDL is non-free (and i mean actually non-free, not > > merely inconvenie

Re: Anton's amendment

2006-02-06 Thread Craig Sanders
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 04:37:20PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote: > "Zephaniah E. Hull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So, I write a program, nice, big, with a license that says that you can > > do anything you want with it as long as you keep the copyright > > statements attached and don't make any

Re: Anton's amendment

2006-02-06 Thread Craig Sanders
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 09:14:12PM -0600, Richard Darst wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:31:38AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > > [the topic is invariant sections] > > > i challenge any of you zealots to come up with a REAL WORLD, PRACTICAL > > proof that the GFDL is non-free (and i mean actual

Re: Anton's amendment

2006-02-06 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > no, code in a program could never be a secondary section. it is > inherently the "primary topic" of the work - which automatically > excludes it from being secondary. It seems to me that this cannot quite be right, at least, not in the way craig intends

Re: Anton's amendment

2006-02-06 Thread Craig Sanders
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 10:40:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > This is not a proper example. Non-modifiability of secondary.c may > > obstruct further improvements of the program. This is not the case > > with the invariant sections, which

Re: Anton's amendment

2006-02-06 Thread Craig Sanders
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 03:17:03PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > no, code in a program could never be a secondary section. it is > > inherently the "primary topic" of the work - which automatically > > excludes it from being secondary. > > It

Re: Anton's amendment

2006-02-06 Thread Zephaniah E. Hull
Alright cas, I've tried to be nice and polite. You've been throwing insults. So get this through your fucking skull, I don't care if it's made of pure neutronium or of bogons, or even some mixture. The Debian Project has declared that we will be 100% free. Period. End of declaration. We do NO

Re: Anton's amendment

2006-02-06 Thread Craig Sanders
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 07:06:50PM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote: > Alright cas, I've tried to be nice and polite. no, you've tried to be stupid and disingenuous. and succeeded spectacularly at the former. too bad you're not smart enough to lie convincingly. > You've been throwing insults. only