I think Henning was referring to the case where one wants to use small
portions of a GNU Manual verbatim.
This is not a very serious issue, since it isn't hard to rewrite a
small amount of text. You can also refer to it with a hypertext link
instead of copying it.
I don't think there is
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System)
has caused the Debian Bug report #121916,
regarding analog should be in non-free
to be marked as having been forwarded to the upstream software
author(s) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Huh? When did debian-legal become the upstream authors of
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think Henning was referring to the case where one wants to use small
portions of a GNU Manual verbatim.
This is not a very serious issue, since it isn't hard to rewrite a
small amount of text. You can also refer to it with a hypertext
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
That requirement imposes a maximum price that can be charged for a
copy of the program. Whether it blocks Debian or not isn't the point;
if I make a CD with only analog, and charge $20,000 for it, then I'm
violating the license, and that makes analog a
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
That requirement imposes a maximum price that can be charged for a
copy of the program. Whether it blocks Debian or not isn't the point;
if I make a CD with only analog, and charge $20,000 for it, then I'm
violating the
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 03:24:00AM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
This is not a very serious issue, since it isn't hard to rewrite a
small amount of text. You can also refer to it with a hypertext link
instead of copying it.
s/\text\/code/
Would you still feel the same way?
Perhaps the GNU
[Debian Policy group: I am not sure if the Debian Policy Manual is an
appropriate forum for any of the following material. I invite your
opinions.]
[Debian GNU Emacsen maintainers: I'd appreciate your assistance in some
fact-finding; see particularly the end of this mail.]
Summary:
Per recent
Joey == Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joey Moving on to the other objection, does you may not charge
Joey for the program itself, only for reasonable costs of
Joey distributing the program violate the DFSG? The DFSG
Joey requires that a program's license not prevent sale of
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 06:52:06PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
Joey == Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joey Moving on to the other objection, does you may not charge
Joey for the program itself, only for reasonable costs of
Joey distributing the program violate the DFSG? The
Hi, Debian people!
I think that maybe manuals that only fail DFSG 2, 3 or 6 -- such
as the Emacs Manual -- should not be classified as [non-free],
but as something new, between [main] and [non-free], because,
although they are not entirely free, they are at least freely
redistributable by
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure how meaningful that statement (you may not charge
for the program itself, only for reasonable costs of distributing the
program) even is.
What it certainly means, at least, is that you can't charge more than
is reasonable--which is a
I thought there was general agreement that a proportional limit was
better than a simple number. One disadvantage to a simple per-package
limit is that you can defeat it by splitting something up into more
packages. A proportional limit seems more sensible to me.
Also, I think it should be a
Hi Thomas!
On Sunday, 2. December 2001 04:05, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I thought there was general agreement that a proportional
limit was better than a simple number. One disadvantage to a
simple per-package limit is that you can defeat it by
splitting something up into more packages. A
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 05:51:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[Debian Policy group: I am not sure if the Debian Policy Manual is an
appropriate forum for any of the following material. I invite your
opinions.]
-policy is traditionally for technical policy, which the DFSG isn't. A
-legal
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 06:59:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
What it certainly means, at least, is that you can't charge more than
is reasonable--which is a limitation.
Historically, the Perl guys have finessed this point by defining
reasonable as whatever the market will bear.
In
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 02:14:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 05:51:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[Debian Policy group: I am not sure if the Debian Policy Manual is an
appropriate forum for any of the following material. I invite your
opinions.]
-policy is
On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 07:05:10PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I thought there was general agreement that a proportional limit was
better than a simple number.
Maybe this is how you feel, but I so far haven't seen general agreement
on anything. Especially now that Anthony Towns has
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think that the requirement you may not charge for distributing
a modified version of the program unless the source code [...] is publicly
and freely available violates the DFSG. It's not much different from
the GPL's requirements that the source
18 matches
Mail list logo
