Thomas Hood wrote:
Several people said that they didn't want Debian documentation to be
full of political rants. They would like to reserve the right to
delete the parts they don't like from the manuals they package. But
what is this but censorship? And how is censorship compatible with
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:02:47PM -0400, Thomas Hood wrote:
While I don't regard the DFSG as already applying to
documentation, the spirit of it is naturally extended to cover
documentation. I would suggest that the GFDL is a reasonable
license to use for free documentation --- free as in
Joey Hess wrote:
Protecting the freedom of this form of speech requires a somewhat
different strategy from the one used to protect the freedom to copy
source code.
Freedom of software and freedom of speech are two entirely
different animals, and attempting to confuse them as you do
[...]
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:51:27PM -0400, Thomas Hood wrote:
Richard Braakman wrote:
What you're advocating is the evil twin of censorship,
namely forced speech.
I don't think that placing restrictions on an otherwise
completely liberal license amounts to using any kind of
force, but
Em Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:26:39 +0300, Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escreveu:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:02:47PM -0400, Thomas Hood wrote:
While I don't regard the DFSG as already applying to
documentation, the spirit of it is naturally extended to cover
documentation. I would suggest
begin Gustavo Noronha Silva quotation:
Em Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:26:39 +0300, Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escreveu:
If the GFDL were a free to use and modify license, then we would not
be having this discussion. The problem is that the GFDL specifies
parts that we are _not_ free
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:22:07PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
indeed, I would not like to see people modifying my points of view and
redistributing saying that's what I think, you see
So if I rewrite charsets (7) (which I'm considering), I should make sure
that it's under an invariant
I asked:
Were there any other important debates about the GFDL
that should be read?
To answer my own question:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg7.html
Off to read about 100 messages ...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 04:17:28PM -0400, Thomas Hood wrote:
I asked:
Were there any other important debates about the GFDL
that should be read?
To answer my own question:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg7.html
Off to read about 100 messages ...
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg7.html
Off to read about 100 messages ...
... and a tedious experience it was.
I would like to make the following points which I didn't
see mentioned in the hundreds of messages (many of them
snipes and flames).
1.
For those interested in the status of the GNU Free
Documentation License issue: Please read the interesting thread
The old DFSG-lemma again on debian-legal from Nov. 2001.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg6.html
In the thread, Branden Robinson expressed
11 matches
Mail list logo
