-sofia.bg, who assisted me with the text.
Anton Zinoviev
---
GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom,
it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines
~~
(0) Summary
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:29:38AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
>
> > For example the GNU General Public License contains the following
> > clause:
> >
> >If the modified program normally rea
n your own copy.
> > >
> > > No; however, as written it can be interpreted as such.
> >
> > If you do not have any access to my encrypted or "chmod -r" copy, then
> > I am not controllyng your reading or further copying
>
> Really. If you ma
e.
OK.
> > You are not in violation of the license. You can not control the
> > reading or further copying if you do not allow the reading or further
> > copying to happen.
>
> Uh, go find a dictionary somewhere. If you do not allow the reading or
> further copying to h
"to have power to
> > direct or restrain; to regulate". You can not control something that
> > does not exist.
> >
> > To "control the reading" means to make you able to read the document
> > today but not tomorow. To "control the fu
roposal where this paragraph
contained the words "it is our belief that". The responce by Stallman
was "You can state that as more than just your belief. It's a fact."
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the material.
> This is why it's important to read what a license says, not just
> what someone says a license is supposed to mean.
Do you believe that someone not connected with Debian interprets the
lincense in this peculiar way? The obvious interpretaion allows us to
place the transparent copy along with the opaque copy on a web server
and to distribute them separately without the one-year requirement.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
d as I demonstrated in my proposal). However
you see that my conclusion is not based only on DFSG. It can not be
based only on DFSG because DFSG say nothing about what modifications
must be allowed by the license.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "
control. I
would be controlling your reading if the copy I gave to you was
protected in such a way that you could read it today but not tomorow.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:39:41AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> On Sunday 22 January 2006 16:45, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > > In fact, the license says only this:
> > >
> > >You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
> > >readi
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 t
t achieve
> > this.
>
> The clause was explicitly introduced to forbid distribution on a
> particular type of encrypted file system, namely,
> Digital-Rights-Management-enabled media. You are wrong.
OK. That was just an example. If I give you handheld that allows you
to read the Gl
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:48:20PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:02:25PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> >> >
> >> > If you do "chmod -r" then I am unable to read th
only a chapter from a bigger
text and to point to the man-page with table of contents. Ofcourse
you will have to distribute the man-pages as a whole.
It is also possible to split the manual into files in plain-text
format. As a matter of fact the info-format is almost plain-text and
can be r
ng
hindered or prevented has already started. Hence you can not
"obstruct the reading" if the process of reading has not started yet.
When the permission bit for reading is not set then the reading can
not start.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hich
> deals with language support) in a documentation bundle about "Optimizing
> TeX workflow for i18n and l10n".
It is not inconvenient to distribute auctex_11.html together with the
invariant sections.
> It might be possible to do this, but what if I don't want to d
scussion that's been done for years
> now. It isn't getting us anywhere.
I find our discussion very interesting and usefull. I agreed with
some of your arguments and it seams to me that you agreed with some of
my arguments. Moreover, I think I can create something like a FAQ
ab
Stallman) but
nevertheless it is possible to improve it by adding a new secondary
section (Craig Sanders).
BTW, I couldn't find the source of the quotation of Craig Sanders.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ion.
> For example, a resolution which said "All software hereby meets the
> DFSG", and which passes by a slim majority, would effectively repeal
> the DFSG.
In this case the Foundation Documents effectively invalidate any part
of the resolution that contradicts with them.
An
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:
> > > >
> >
back texts.
>
> This would make the manual basically unusable.
This would be required only if you are creating "aggregation with
independent works". You will have to create such an aggregation only
if some of your sources are covered under incompatible with GFDL
license. But even in that case you may combine your GFDL sources and
as a result all invariant sections will be grouped in one place.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on of the above nearly-3-pages section on coding
> selection in Emacs.
This cost can not be avoided even if it was only due to the long
license text. You can print the invariant sections with small font as
far as this doesn't obstruct the user's reading. It is probably
illegal to print the license with a small font.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and the same thing, and this has been discussed
> quite a lot during past discussion.
I agree.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ferent: In one case the
> developers where not careful enough about choosing their algorithms, or
> the patent law in this country is so strict that there's no way out. In
> the other case, the developers deliberately chose to make the text
> non-distributable in this country
it is a
possible interpretation of the current text of DFSG. For the first
and the second interpretation I can say that there are developers who
accept them.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tual interpretation of DFSG.
> If you want to interpret things quite so differently, it is of
> course your right to do so, you just must change the DFSG to cater to
> this interpretation.
Just the opposite -- I wish we had more unambiguous DFSG. The problem
is that the current DF
2. If some license says "you are allowed to change the word "foo"
to "bar" or "baz" then this license permits at least two
different modifications.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
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
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
>
and the path to the default configuration
> file is Free?
Nobody is suggesting that. The point is that DFSG allow many
interpretations and the Debian developers have to decide which one is
the correct one.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t to give out copies to students and want to minimize
> cost.
I doubt someone can make a formal rule that the free works have to
minimize the distribution cost and I hardly see how such a rule fits
in the context of DFSG.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ritten, and so
> I agree with Manoj that a 3:1 requirement is necessary for the
> proposed amendment.
The 3:1 requirement would be necessary only if you can prove that "we
insist on modifiability of all parts".
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
odifications of
> programs are not?
The following: the license must give us enough permission to modify
the work in order to adapt it for various tasks and to improve it.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.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.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 Ric
rpose* of saying that the
> same conditions apply to everything in Debian, whether a program or
> documentation or something else.
It is not necessary to apply different conditions for programs and
documentations in order to say that GFDL is free. I insist that with
proper reading the _cu
n not covered by it.
I still belive that my interpretation of DFSG3 is the same as yours.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
what is the interpretation you suggest?
The second interpretation from my first post in this thread. I
received confirmation and clarification from Stallman that I will
report in separate message.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is widespread
among the free software community. I'd say that your interpretation
is more unconventional than mine.
So far there is absolutely _no_ decision taken by Debian project that
invalidates my interpretation.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subjec
is and I
understand this. However I don't understand why you think that your
interpretation is the only one possible -- it is not.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ires list of
exceptions so I can ask: why DFSG doesn't contain any hints about such
exceptions.
Anton Zinoviev
P.S. I mean the second interpretation from my first post in this thread.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hoc.
The text of my proposal clearly states that it is not a proposal to
modify the DFSG. It is not even a proposal to interpret the existing
DFSG. It makes some of the existing interpretations of DFSG invalid
but it doesn't suggest which interpretation is the right.
Anton Zinoviev
--
T
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:32:00PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:22:10 +0200, Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >> If you wish to extend the list of exceptions, that is fine. But
> >> that does mean the DFSG must be clarified to a
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:59:14PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 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&q
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:30:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> 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,
> &g
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 06:32:50PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> 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
> >
the invariant sections
> total fifty pages of irrelevant paper-wasting garbage?
If the invariant sections are extremely voluminous, the document would
be probably non-free (I mean non-free acording to FSF). But if the
invariant sections are not voluminous, then the invariant sections are
inconvenience at most.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ion requires a list of
exceptions because "must permit arbitrary modifications" would render
GPL and some other free licenses to be non-free.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
n
> statement and the DFSG, which is bad.
This would mean that Debian developers decided that DFSG do not
require clarification.
Notice BTW, that the interpretation of DFSG that I proposed is not the
only one possible interpretation of DFSG that makes my proposal about
GFDL consistent w
ject
that our notion of "free software" differs from the notion of FSF.
I acknowledge that with respect to the so called non-functional works
the notion of Debian project for "freeness" is clearly different to
the notion of FSF. However here we are talking about GFDL
ty much the same freedoms as from the software
programs. There is no disagreement between Debian and FSF for such
works, at least not yet.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:10:56PM +0100, Frank Kьster wrote:
>
> So which is "your interpretation", exactly?
It is described in my message entitled "A clarification for my
interpretation of DFSG".
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
led "A clarification for my interpretation of
DFSG".
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:16:55PM +0100, Frank Kuster wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >> As it has been discussed here, having the Manifesto attached as
> >> >> invariant is not only non-free, but also quite problemati
t are
licensed in this way.
On the other hand invariant sections apply only to documents that are
derivatives of the initial document. This is much easier to keep
requirement and thats why FSF considers it acceptable for the GNU
project.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:23:18PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In order to make reasonably evident that this is not just my
> > interpretation but also interpretation that is shared by many other
> > Debian devel
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 07:58:44AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 12:39:52 +0200, Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > The interpretation I proposed is not a novel and unconventional. It
> > is not novel because it represents notion for &qu
it has been always obvious that GPL is a non-free or at
least almost non-free license?
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ld think not clarifying the DFSG would make for a
> contradiction.
What contradiction?
> At the very least, it would confuse a large set of readers.
It is not difficult to make the readers aware of the proper meaning of
DFSG3.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE
om to improve the
program and release your improvements to the public. Freedom 3 says
nothing about your needs.
What I wrote was the following: if your modifications solve some real
need, not just your whims, then your modifications are usefull and
freedom 3 gives you the right to distribute them.
Anton Zino
is free to explicitly state that GFDL restrictions are also free
but he doesn't have to. There is nothing in DFSG that can make GFDL a
non-free license.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
such clause is non-free. This makes
more than evident that you don't have steady notion for "free
software". Nevertheless you are trying to impose on Debian your
_current_ notion for "free software".
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 11:22:29AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:36:09PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >>
> >> Can you please explain then where the DFSG contains any
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 03:03:13PM -0500, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev wrote:
>
> > The text of my proposal clearly states that it is not a proposal to
> > modify the DFSG. It is not even a proposal to interpret the existing
> > DFSG. It makes some of the exi
works covered by such
license then there is no permissible way to distribute the source
of the combined work (unless the combined work is merely
aggregation of independent derivatives of both works).
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that they are obstructing the users to really excercise
the rights they have acorging to GFDL. Such a document would be
non-free.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 11:59:54AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Debian acknowledges as free some licenses that require that the
> >source of all derived works is distributed in the form
> >original_source
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 02:01:18PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >original_source+patch. If you have two works covered by such
> >license then there is no permissible way to distribute the source
> >of the combine
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:28:08PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You are not allowed to distribute a patch against work A which turs it
> > into a patch against work B. You are not allowed to do this because
> > thi
ributed 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.
So the license may require the distribution as original_source+patch_file.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 01:07:46PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > However now I see that I missed another more obvious problem. You
> > have to distribute the combined work in the form original_B+
> > +patc
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 01:10:10PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I didn't mean one specific license, but the requirement of DFSG:
> >
> >The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in
> >
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 03:18:00PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>From DFSG:
> >
> >The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in
> >modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribut
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 01:38:24PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Any patch file for A is a work based on A. The copyright law forbids
> > the independent distribution of such works unless the license of A
> > explic
of some hypothetical document are
so lengthy that they are obstructing the users to really
excercise the rights they have acorging to GFDL. Such a
document would be non-free.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 02:59:51PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Em Sex, 2006-02-03 às 11:43 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> > If GPL didn't contain the clause we are discussing then you
> > would say that a license with such clause is non-free.
>
> I still don
> document would be non-free.
>
> What do you mean by this? Which rights specifically?
Theoretically it is possible to make the invariant sections so lengthy
that nobody would make printed copies. This is obstruction of the
right to make printed copies.
Anton Zinoviev
[
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 11:16:40AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If your interpretation does not require any list of exceptions than
> > your interpretation makes GPL and many other licenses non-free. You
&
g distribute in modified
form if allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code
for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. This is all I
am going to use.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 05:16:24PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
>
> Our discussion became too complicated and I am not sure on what we
> agree and on what we disagree. I will try to explain my current
> opinion in a separate message and if we have some disagreement we can
> cont
the invariant section follows]
A.2 Scientific Analysis
.
-----
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
27;any modification I'd like to do' then the document is obviously
non-free. But if 'reasonable modification' means 'modification that
is necessary in order to solve some particular need' then it is not
obvious that the document is non-free as we can see from the e
ip could be a matter of historical connections, of
legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:58:55AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 09:42, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
>
> I think I could accidently or deliberately slip something nasty
> into a GFDL invariant section. For example, a manual for some
> application could contain a
licenses that disallow any combined works.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 10:59:09AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
>
> GFDL explicitly permits licenses that disallow any combined works.
Sorry, I wanted to say DFSG explicitly permits.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe".
t notion of freedom can be
at most an ideal with many exceptions.
The Debian developers have the right to determine which way Debian
will go and I hope our secretary will give them this right. Whatever
the developers decide, a determined Debian will be better for everyone
than the current Debia
talks entirely about the current
DFSG.
Second, my proposal doesn't revoke automatically the decision of the
release team to remove the GFDL-documents from main. If my proposal
wins, it is the release team who will have to change this decision
Anton Zinoviev
signature.asc
Descripti
you who agree with the latter definition
and consider GFDL non-free. Thats why I tried to show whenever I
could why GFDL doesn't obstruct us to adapt the documents or to
improve them. See for example
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00226.html
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSU
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 02:46:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The first notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
> > do whatever we want with it.
> >
> > The second notion of fr
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:47:21PM +0100, Laurent Fousse wrote:
> Hello,
>
> * Anton Zinoviev [Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:33:30AM +0200]:
> > During the the discussions in this and the previous month it became
> > clear there are two completely different notions of &
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:43:42AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > If the project secretary decides
> > that my proposal (for GFDL) requires 3:1 supermajority, this would
> > mean that the project secretary decides on behalf of
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:19:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I do not place limitations on "various needs". Any modification that
> > is not just subjective wish but serves some practical purpose is
>
to improve it, with no
substantive limits on the nature of these changes, but there
can be superficial requirements on how they are packaged.
However this interpretation is not part of my proposal. My proposal
invalidates some possible interpretations of DFSG but it doesn't state
w
e sources in machine readable format, various copyright notices, etc.
> Docstrings. Useful! Not prohibited by other free licenses! Wow!
I don't understand what you mean by "docstrings".
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "un
f the documents.
Of course I can have nothing against the automatic overriding the
decision so if everybody thinks my proposal overrides it, I am OK with
this.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
an useful test. If the license forbids some
modification that is necessary in order to adapt the document to some
need, then the document is non-free. Otherwise, that is if the
license does not forbid any necessary modification, the document may
be free.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:52:33PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060210 11:36]:
> > On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:54:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > >
> > > It does prohibit some modifications which are useful.
&
nse by additional invariant section.
> In other situations, we might want to incorporate parts of the manual
> into the source (for tooltips, help texts, usage examples, etc..). We
> certainly couldn't do that with a GFDL manual and GPL source.
Yes, it is not possible to incorpo
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
