Georg said:
Software and documentation are quite different according to the way
they are treated by the legal system. Moral rights (on which this is
based) are seen much more strongly for documentation.
Under *some* countries using the *minority* Droit d'Auteur system, perhaps.
This is
For those who would prefer paragraph a), please consider the fact that
a CD that consists 3/4 of only source code may not be a very popular
thing for the majority of potential users, and also CD-magazines and
FTP mirrors try to avoid stuff that is not likely to EVER being used
or downloaded.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Klaus Knopper wrote:
Since this is a genuine open source project, subject to the GNU General
Public License, the source code for the KNOPPIX-specific packages is
available via the Internet at http://www.knopper.net/knoppix/sources/.
You may find the sources for the
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 08:59:45PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
For those who would prefer paragraph a), please consider the fact that
a CD that consists 3/4 of only source code may not be a very popular
thing for the majority of potential users, and also CD-magazines and
FTP
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 06:18:59AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Klaus Knopper wrote:
Since this is a genuine open source project, subject to the GNU General
Public License, the source code for the KNOPPIX-specific packages is
available via the Internet at
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Klaus Knopper wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 06:18:59AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Klaus Knopper wrote:
Since this is a genuine open source project, subject to the GNU General
Public License, the source code for the KNOPPIX-specific
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 11:47:57PM -0400,
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 50 lines which said:
Under *some* countries using the *minority* Droit d'Auteur system, perhaps.
...
Under the system used in the majority of the world,
I strongly object: Great Britain and
[This is starting to shift away from the GFDL so I modified the
subject. Georg, I can suppress you from the Cc: if you wish so.]
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 11:25:43PM -0400,
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 29 lines which said:
Naturally, I'm more familiar with the European
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 01:50:33AM -0400,
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 42 lines which said:
RFC authors do it all the time, by issuing updates to existing RFC
documents. They say Do it like this, except for this, this, and this.
No, that's generally only done
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 07:09:45AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Klaus Knopper wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 06:18:59AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Klaus Knopper wrote:
Since this is a genuine open source project, subject to the GNU
On 20030428T152631+0200, Klaus Knopper wrote:
technically, if you demand that they keep obsolete sources for 3 years
or longer, there would be no mirror left willing to keep old software
that long.
The three-year requirement does not apply if sources are distributed
along the binaries
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 06:45, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Therefore, the IETF is insane often :-)
No argument there.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 03:56:49PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
date of this CD-Rom.
Is this good enough? Shouldn't it be date of distribution?
So, where can I get the sources of emacs version 1.0?
Who did you get the binaries from,
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 12:31:42PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 11:47:57PM -0400,
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 50 lines which said:
Under *some* countries using the *minority* Droit d'Auteur system, perhaps.
...
Under the
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 06:48:36AM +0200, Klaus Knopper wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 08:59:45PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
For those who would prefer paragraph a), please consider the fact that
a CD that consists 3/4 of only source code may not be a very popular
thing for the
Klaus Knopper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 03:56:49PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
date of this CD-Rom.
Is this good enough? Shouldn't it be date of distribution?
So, where can I get the sources of emacs version
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:30:43AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Technically, I'm not even actively distributing any software at any time.
The mirrors are downloading and distributing it without any action
initiated by me. Or magazines publish Knoppix, in some cases even
without asking me.
I am creating a piece of documentation that is licensed under the GPL
(it must be licensed this way, because I have derived information from
glibc). I am also getting information from some Linux manpages. But a
few manpages have licenses like this:
.\ This is free documentation; you can
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 08:08:01PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
According to Dylan Thurston (see #154043), some files shipped
with GNU Emacs could be considered as non-free.
One of them is /usr/share/emacs/21.3/etc/LINUX-GNU.
The problem seem to come from the footer which mentions:
Klaus Knopper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:30:43AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Technically, I'm not even actively distributing any software at any time.
The mirrors are downloading and distributing it without any action
initiated by me. Or magazines publish
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
.\ The GNU General Public License's references to object code
.\ and executables are to be interpreted as the output of any
.\ document formatting or typesetting system, including
.\ intermediate and printed output.
The second paragraph is what I am most
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 08:39:08PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
What do I think? I think WHY-FREE is a very ironic name for something so
non-free. It should be removed, of course. I'm sorry if RMS will be
unhappy, but the DFSG does not make exceptions if people are unhappy.
Documentation
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What do I think? I think WHY-FREE is a very ironic name for
something so non-free. It should be removed, of course. I'm sorry if
RMS will be unhappy, but the DFSG does not make exceptions if people
are unhappy. Documentation *is* software, and
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 02:23:40PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
WHY-FREE is not documentation! it is a manifesto in which rms expounds
on his views on free software. it's _his_ opinion and as such it
should not be altered. this doesn't make it non-free.
this thread is getting weirder and
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 02:35:30AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
A copyright holder has legal standing to sue anyone he damn well
pleases.
Not true; questions like this are frequently decided in the early phases
of civil trials, and not always in favor of the plaintiff. Standing
is a legal
Alex Romosan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
WHY-FREE is not documentation! it is a manifesto in which rms expounds
on his views on free software.
It doesn't really matter whether it's documentation or not. The
question is, is it free?
it's _his_ opinion and as such it
should not be altered.
However,
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 02:23:40PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
WHY-FREE is not documentation! it is a manifesto in which rms expounds
on his views on free software. it's _his_ opinion and as such it
should not be altered. this doesn't make it non-free.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 01:37:15PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Klaus Knopper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:30:43AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Technically, I'm not even actively distributing any software at any
time.
The mirrors are downloading and
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alex Romosan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
WHY-FREE is not documentation! it is a manifesto in which rms expounds
on his views on free software.
It doesn't really matter whether it's documentation or not. The
question is, is it free?
people, dfsg, fsf,
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 05:07:03PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 02:35:30AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
A copyright holder has legal standing to sue anyone he damn well
pleases.
Not true; questions like this are frequently decided in the early phases
of civil
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 02:23:40PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What do I think? I think WHY-FREE is a very ironic name for
something so non-free. It should be removed, of course. I'm sorry if
RMS will be unhappy, but the DFSG does not make
Klaus Knopper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 01:37:15PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Klaus Knopper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:30:43AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Technically, I'm not even actively distributing any software at any
time.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 03:42:24PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 02:23:40PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
WHY-FREE is not documentation! it is a manifesto in which rms expounds
on his views on free software. it's _his_ opinion and
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You have turned the DFSG soundly on its head. In a world of
copyrights, all works are non-free *by default*; it is only if they
meet certain requirements, as detailed in the DFSG, that we consider
them free. Are you saying that the WHY-FREE op-ed piece
Alex Romosan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
WHY-FREE is not documentation! it is a manifesto in which rms expounds
on his views on free software.
It's pretty clearly documentation of a point of view and a way of looking
at the world. There are parts of it which someone may want to use to
document
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure, but for some of us, _software_ is a very broad category. For
me, it includes all works which can be encoded as a stream of bits.
wow, what can i say?! everything is software!? an infinite number of
monkeys, at an infinite number of keyboards will
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Alex Romosan wrote:
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure, but for some of us, _software_ is a very broad category. For
me, it includes all works which can be encoded as a stream of bits.
wow, what can i say?! everything is software!? an infinite number of
37 matches
Mail list logo
