On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 09:47:42PM -, MJ Ray wrote:
How are you not free to create derivative parts of the documentation
section and distribute it under the same terms (ie with invariants in
tow)? The invariant sections are not part of the documentation (and
they must not be
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We wouldn't even consider this argument if someone were applying it to
a C compiler or OS kernel.
Wouldn't we? Could a C compiler could still contain a free software
linker and not be wrong to call the linker free software? Just like
this, it wouldn't
Hi guys,
No, this is not a mail about large-scale bugs I intend to file about
packages using the FDL. It's about 'how do I relicense stuff in non-FDL
licenses'.
In the past few years, I wrote some manpages and one larger document
which I all licensed under the FDL. Although I did not read the
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What do you (or other list members) think of the pickle-passing
clause?
If a license had a clause requiring that anyone who received the work
(or any derivative work) must also receive a pickle, the work (i.e.,
the software itself) would be non-free, yes.
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 06:26:17PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
No, this is not a mail about large-scale bugs I intend to file about
packages using the FDL. It's about 'how do I relicense stuff in non-FDL
licenses'.
In the past few years, I wrote some manpages and one larger document
which
Scripsit Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My question is: what's the right way to do this? If all contributors
agree, can I just drop the FDL from my 'legalese' paragraphs, replacing
it with a reference to the GPL,
Yes.
or do I have to mention the fact that previous versions were
licensed
My question is: what's the right way to do this? If all contributors
agree, can I just drop the FDL from my 'legalese' paragraphs, replacing
it with a reference to the GPL, or do I have to mention the fact that
previous versions were licensed under the FDL? Do I have to wait for a
new update
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 11:09:13AM -, MJ Ray wrote:
We wouldn't even consider this argument if someone were applying it to
a C compiler or OS kernel.
Wouldn't we? Could a C compiler could still contain a free software
linker and not be wrong to call the linker free software? Just
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, this is not a mail about large-scale bugs I intend to file about
packages using the FDL. It's about 'how do I relicense stuff in non-FDL
licenses'.
The next logical step is 'how do I rename Debian GNU/Linux' to 'Debian
Linux', I presume.
To my
--- Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To my knowledge, only a very vocal minority of Debian Developers
argues for the removal of documentation licensed under the GFDL (and
even their views are far from consistent).
No one has surveyed DDs on this question, have they?
You guys might be
Sorry, Wouter, I shouldn't have complained about
your approach. Your request for help actually makes sense (it's just
an ordinary relicensing question, after all).
Fear of having to switch to FreeBSD provokes some rather clueless
reactions on my part. I'm sorry.
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 10:40:50PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, this is not a mail about large-scale bugs I intend to file about
packages using the FDL. It's about 'how do I relicense stuff in non-FDL
licenses'.
The next logical step is
Op za 19-07-2003, om 22:40 schreef Florian Weimer:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, this is not a mail about large-scale bugs I intend to file about
packages using the FDL. It's about 'how do I relicense stuff in non-FDL
licenses'.
The next logical step is 'how do I rename
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 06:26:17PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
No, this is not a mail about large-scale bugs I intend to file about
packages using the FDL. It's about 'how do I relicense stuff in non-FDL
licenses'.
In the past few years, I wrote some manpages and one larger document
which
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wouter Verhelst wrote:
In fact, I have been considering one point the GNU project has pointed
out by creating the FDL: the fact that software on the one hand and
'normal' writings on the other hand are two completely different things.
I believe that many Debian
## DISCLAIMER. The following is not legal advice, but a
general recitation of the law. Seek counsel of an
attorney in your jurisdiction for legal advice.
--- Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] からのメッセー
ジ：
Andrew Stribblehill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
The sole maintainer collaborated with
16 matches
Mail list logo
