Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Q1.1) Are GFDL licensed works without invariant texts non-free?
Well, according to the RM team, and some developers (full
disclosure: myself included), yes, they are, even if there is no
explicit infraction of specific portions of our
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 03:42:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
And what? If someone tries to bring through a GR stating that
MS office warez can be distributed in main since it meets the DFSG,
one might rule that as frivolous and a waste of time.
I'm not convinced the
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:40:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 03:42:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
And what? If someone tries to bring through a GR stating that
MS office warez can be distributed in main since it meets the DFSG,
one might rule
On Sat, January 21, 2006 21:52, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
So, can the developers dispute this? Obviously, the developer
body can dispute any delegated action. But a GR can't overturn something
seen as fact (so no GR stating PI=exacly 3.14 or 22/7).
Could you please explain how you arrive at the
2006/1/22, Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This goes even further here, because the DFSG is not even a strict set of
rules but are guidelines. As we all know, guidelines are subject to
interpretation on a case-by-case basis, that's what distinguishes them
from rules. Therefore, I think a
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
2006/1/22, Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This goes even further here, because the DFSG is not even a strict set of
rules but are guidelines. As we all know, guidelines are subject to
interpretation on a case-by-case basis, that's what distinguishes them
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:25:58 +0100, David N Welton [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:59:15 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
1. debian-legal is wrong, the GFDL is compatable with the DFSG and
thus should be included in main.
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 12:48:05 +0100 (CET), Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Sat, January 21, 2006 21:52, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
So, can the developers dispute this? Obviously, the developer body
can dispute any delegated action. But a GR can't overturn something
seen as fact (so
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:59:15 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
1. debian-legal is wrong, the GFDL is compatable with the DFSG and
thus should be included in main.
Looking over the arguments for and against it in -legal, I am
trying to ascertain if this stance
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:36:05 -0300, Margarita Manterola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On 1/21/06, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, I am seeking arguments and guidance from the developer body
whether issue 1 can, and should, be decidable by a general
resolution, or whether the
On Sunday 22 January 2006 11:59, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:21:13 -0700, Wesley J Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Saturday 21 January 2006 13:52, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
So, I am seeking arguments and guidance from the developer body
whether issue 1 can, and should,
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 02:52:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I am, at this point, unclear whether I hold GFDL licensed
works without invariant texts non-free as a matter of opinion, or of
fact.
Fact 1: The GFDL include this:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:59:15 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
1. debian-legal is wrong, the GFDL is compatable with the DFSG and
thus should be included in main.
Looking over the arguments for and against it in -legal, I am
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:21:13 -0700, Wesley J Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Saturday 21 January 2006 13:52, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
So, I am seeking arguments and guidance from the developer body
whether issue 1 can, and should, be decidable by a general
resolution, or whether the
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 10:57 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
If you do not see closed source software as incontrovertibly
non-free, I have no desire to discuss this issue with you.
You are exaggerating my point into ridicule.
Under some (extreme) viewpoints, there are no facts
(you, sir,
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 12:53:00PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:25:58 +0100, David N Welton [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:59:15 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
1. debian-legal is wrong, the GFDL is
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 12:53:00PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
And what? If someone tries to bring through a GR stating that
MS office warez can be distributed in main since it meets the DFSG,
one might rule that as frivolous and a waste of time.
One answer to this would be to let
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:26:12 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
said:
Why should it be a separate GR? That's seems both unnecessary and a
bad idea; what's the point in overriding decisions about the GFDL,
if it is then declared non-free anyway?
Well, here is one view of how
18 matches
Mail list logo
