Well, listening to Georg Greve it sounded like the FSF wanted an
official statement from Debian regarding the problems with
non-removability of invariant sections. In my very humble opinion,
Debian should try giving them that before taking (what would appear to
be) the more hostile actions
Hi fellows,
is there anything like a Debian Free Software License? A license that is
modelled after the DFSG? For me as free software developer, that would be a
nice to have. I couldn't find a discussion about something similar in the
list archives. Is this worth a discussion? Regarding the
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 02:47:20PM +0200, Joerg Wendland wrote:
Hi fellows,
is there anything like a Debian Free Software License? A license that is
modelled after the DFSG? For me as free software developer, that would be a
nice to have. I couldn't find a discussion about something similar
Joerg Wendland [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
is there anything like a Debian Free Software License? A license that is
modelled after the DFSG? For me as free software developer, that would be a
nice to have. I couldn't find a discussion about something similar in the
list archives. Is this worth a
On 20030416T094049-0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
* Why you shouldn't use the GFDL:: Debian doesn't recommend using this
license.
And what if this new section listing reasons _not_ to use this license
were made... invariant!
If we were to add to each GFDL'd document a section (invariant
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Wendland [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
is there anything like a Debian Free Software License? A license that is
modelled after the DFSG? For me as free software developer, that would be a
nice to have. I couldn't find a discussion about something
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 09:40:49AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Consider this a suggestion to maintainers of packages that contain
documentation that are under the GFDL, especially if it contains
invariant sections. Imagine if an Emacs user visited Info and saw this:
* Menu:
*
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 20030416T094049-0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
* Why you shouldn't use the GFDL:: Debian doesn't recommend using this
license.
And what if this new section listing reasons _not_ to use this license
were made... invariant!
If we
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS, on 2003-04-17, 14:41, you wrote:
It might undermine the DFSG if Debian were to recommend its own
licences.
Sure, but I did not say recommend a license but having a license that
does not only fit the DFSG but reflects the DFSG and Debian's sense of
free software in general.
--- James Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] からのメッセー
ジ：
I have been teaching an information law course for a
[...]
I wanted to add that I would be glad to welcome other free
and open source software developers to the course. I
didn't intend to limit this section just to debian core or
other developers.
Branden Robinson writes:
Are you gravely opposed to external changelogs, as might be generated
by, say, cvs2cl -- even if those changelogs have to be distributed along
with the modified files of the Derived Work?
yes, we are. This is not how the LaTeX world works. The
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 12:44:32PM +0200, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
Well, listening to Georg Greve it sounded like the FSF wanted an
official statement from Debian regarding the problems with
non-removability of invariant sections. In my very humble opinion,
Debian should try giving them
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 09:10:00AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
Good luck with that, and I look forward to hearing from you and/or other
FSF representatives soon. I hope it's not terribly much longer, as the
current semi-consensus is likely to congeal into an actual necessity to
remove un-free
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 02:47:20PM +0200, Joerg Wendland wrote:
is there anything like a Debian Free Software License? A license that is
modelled after the DFSG? For me as free software developer, that would be a
nice to have. I couldn't find a discussion about something similar in the
list
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
c. In every file of the Derived Work you must ensure that any
addresses for the reporting of errors do not refer to the Current
Maintainer's addresses in any way.
This is somewhat new ground for a DFSG-free license. Is it *really*
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 02:34:36PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Debian can't legally distribute such an info document. Because the
GFDL is incompatible with the GPL, it is prohibited to even
create an info document from GFDL'd texinfo source. See #183860.
Hrm, if that's the case, we can't
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And what if this new section listing reasons _not_ to use this license
were made... invariant!
I think writing such a new section is a reasonable thing, but of
course, we can't make in invariant without violating our own
principles.
Scripsit Joerg Wendland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sure, but I did not say recommend a license but having a license that
does not only fit the DFSG but reflects the DFSG and Debian's sense of
free software in general.
I think it would be stretching the truth to say that Debian, as a
project, has any
Scripsit Sunnanvind Fenderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, listening to Georg Greve it sounded like the FSF wanted an
official statement from Debian regarding the problems with
non-removability of invariant sections.
I don't think the FSF is prepared to change their licensing practise
no matter
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 10:53:30AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
c. In every file of the Derived Work you must ensure that any
addresses for the reporting of errors do not refer to the Current
Maintainer's addresses in any
|| On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 09:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
|| Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mr Indeed. Ensuring that Debian remains free is the primary reason
mr for this list's existence, and it can be an emotional topic.
True. All of us are probably feeling strongly about freedom.
The fact that
|| On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 10:37:57 -0400
|| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
bts You've heard all this before, but I haven't seen you answer it.
bts Why does the GFDL prohibit me from making an emacs reference
bts card from the manual? Sure, I could make a one-sided card where
bts
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 04:16:57AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 02:34:36PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Debian can't legally distribute such an info document. Because the
GFDL is incompatible with the GPL, it is prohibited to even
create an info document from GFDL'd
Georg C. F. Greve [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|| On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 10:37:57 -0400
|| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
bts You've heard all this before, but I haven't seen you answer it.
bts Why does the GFDL prohibit me from making an emacs reference
bts card from the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
c. In every file of the Derived Work you must ensure that any
addresses for the reporting of errors do not refer to the Current
Maintainer's addresses in any way.
This is somewhat
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
mr I hope it's not terribly much longer, as the current
mr semi-consensus is likely to congeal into an actual necessity to
mr remove un-free emacs documentation from Debian.
Are you referring to documentation under the GFDL? Why would that
On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
This is the stuff of which nasty flamewars and misspelled Slashdot
headlines are made, hence my unwillingness to do it, but it is clear to
me that letting this issue languish in ambiguity isn't good for us or
our users.
I agree both with your
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that above we also addressed the concern by (I think Walter)
concerning 5a2 so that it now only requires run-time identification
if the original used runtime identification
Thank you. It is extremely close. It doesn't quite allow me to take
out
Walter Landry writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that above we also addressed the concern by (I think Walter)
concerning 5a2 so that it now only requires run-time identification
if the original used runtime identification
Thank you. It is extremely close. It
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry writes:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that above we also addressed the concern by (I think Walter)
concerning 5a2 so that it now only requires run-time identification
if the original used runtime
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 01:59:37PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
If the manifesto marked as invariant? I didn't know that!
It doesn't seem to be in the visible info text, but the top of
each of the info files has a GFDL blurb.
I grepped for Invariant in my emacs-21 info files. The main
Walter Landry writes:
5a1 is not a free alternative. 5a2 approaches that, but it has to
cover _every_ occasion where 5a1 fails, not just most of them.
I don't think it is acceptable that you take a list of ors, judge each of
them individually and conclude that each of them is not 100%
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 03:09:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I propose that we:
* draft a comprehensive critique of the GNU FDL 1.2, detailing
section-by-section our problems with the license
(Branden, didn't you construct such a critique a while ago?
I remember reading
Scripsit Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think this proposal is the right thing to do, especially the hard work
of creating the documents before filing bugs. Unfortunately, I am
unwilling to take on the task myself, though I'm happy to provide feedback
and sections of text where I can.
34 matches
Mail list logo
