On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
into the common reference area?
Who should I talk to about this?
Please check
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:46:23AM -0700, Martin Quinson wrote:
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
into the common
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Well, since there are these other issues being raised
(specificcally, the concern that GFDL may not meet the DFSG [I happen
to disagree with that statement, for what that counts for]), we
should wait for the dust to settle down before
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:36:28PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
3. I placed my book under this license with the express understanding
that it was considered free. Now I'm hearing noise that this is a
non-free license. While I disagree,
Dale Scheetz wrote:
So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they
contain clauses that can be used, and will be considered
non-free.
Your objection is true of the OPL, but RMS argues
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00017.html
that that is not true
begin Dale Scheetz quotation:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
As usual, this issue has been beaten to death on a list you don't read.
Please review the archives of debian-legal for the past several months.
In a nutshell:
1) The current version of the GNU FDL is
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:12:06PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses
that can be used, and will be considered non-free.
It is software that is or is not DFSG-free, not licenses.
The simple fact is, a work licensed under version
Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary
license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are
inforced by the author...
The license is
Le lun 08/04/2002 à 19:12, Dale Scheetz a écrit :
So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain
clauses that can be used, and will be considered non-free.
I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
the license are not exercised. Using this
This one time, at band camp, Dale Scheetz wrote:
So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses
that can be used, and will be considered non-free.
I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
the license are not exercised. Using this
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 02:50:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
A work licensed under GNU FDL, version 1.1, which consists entirely of
Invariant Sections either has no license or is wholly unmodifiable.
Most people on debian-legal agree that this renders the work DFSG-free.
Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 05:06, Joseph Carter ha scritto:
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
into the common
On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Dale == Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dale There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of
Dale the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put
Dale a copy of this license into the common reference area?
On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
into the common reference area?
Dale == Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dale On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Dale == Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dale There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of
Dale the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put
Dale a copy
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 03:00:37PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
into the common reference area?
Who should I talk to about this?
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 02:36:28PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
3. I placed my book under this license with the express understanding
that it was considered free. Now I'm hearing noise that this is a
non-free license. While I disagree, that is often irrelevant.
4. If we still
There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
into the common reference area?
Who should I talk to about this?
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
into the common reference area?
No, it would be premature. There's a draft for a
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
into the common reference area?
Who should I talk to about this?
Why put a
Dale == Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dale There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of
Dale the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put
Dale a copy of this license into the common reference area?
Depends. Would you say that at least 1% of
21 matches
Mail list logo
