, Python is a distribution of a language and standard
library, and has many licenses (with potentially conflicting terms). In
neither case is Under the same terms as Python acceptable.
These arguments apply mutatis mutandis to most languages I'm aware of.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I'm not bothered if people put under the same terms
as otherthing as we can do a reasonable substitution and I doubt
anyone would have a problem with that, would they?
I
on December 4th asking for clarification
on this, but haven't gotten a response yet.
Is this assesment accurate? Should I file bugs?
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
draft of such a document, at
http://people.debian.org/~piman/real-license.html . I'd appreciate
suggestions, as well as more concrete cases where people have seen
broken licensed under the same terms as foo statements. I'm sure
licensing problems aren't restricted to only popular languages. :)
--
Joe
, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER
RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF
CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN
CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED
of them I've written, but I borrowed the wording
from something else (I suspect in Debian), and I've encouraged people to
use this phrasing many times since.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. If the author does this, then we don't even need exceptions to
the GFDL, because the GPL alone is free.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 15:55, Roger Leigh wrote:
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Specifically, would it be possible to
1) Allow storage/transmission on encrypted filesystems/links to
counter the DRM restriction?
2) Not require forcing distribution of transparent copies with bulk
of
obligation in question, shall, is used in this clause and the
dealings one.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 14:14, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
The X license also says permission is granted subject to the following
conditions (note the plural);
What X license are you reading? I'm reading
http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html -- and it simply doesn't say
be there.
It is in the license that started this thread.
thread (which presumably is somewhere in the X.org source, and will be
in a future Debian X release). It is not found in the Open Group
license.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
On Sun, 2004-08-08 at 18:38, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:10:44AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 09:31, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:03:33PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
http
On Sun, 2004-08-08 at 17:44, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:33:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Now, that just means it *was* consensus. If it is no longer consensus
(and it better not be), we need to look at how such an egregious mistake
happened, and how we can prevent
On Sun, 2004-08-08 at 17:57, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:20:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 11:15, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The summary claims that clause 4 makes the license non-free.
...because we don't undestand what X-Oz means when they say
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 03:31, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-08-09 05:35:10 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clause 4 -- which you declared non-free in that thread *before* public
conversations with X-Oz, and Brian declared non-free at the start of
this thread -- is identical
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 04:59, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-08-09 10:38:45 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see the difference. I mean, I see the difference that one can
be
read as an assertion and the other can be read as a clause. But I
don't see how that affects any
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 11:02, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 03:31, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-08-09 05:35:10 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clause 4 -- which you declared non-free in that thread *before* public
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 03:45, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-08-09 06:17:17 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since February, -legal has had an official (as official as they get)
document claiming that even without further annoyances from X-Oz that
clause is non-free. Simon Law, who
him or her
money.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 14:17, Ben Pfaff wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Brian, stop calling the MIT and 3 clause BSD licenses non-free. If
anyone needed evidence that debian-legal has become overreaching
1. Don't Cc me, I am on the list.
On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 14:59, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:33:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 13:35, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Brian, stop calling
for games
or other media-heavy packages, and so understand the work habits
involved in such projects) are still considering all the issues, and we
don't have a definitive answer yet.
But your idea, and criteria, are stupid.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description
On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 23:32, Ryan Underwood wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:23:37PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
opinions aren't going to work for policy. For non-program files such as
multimedia or publications, there should be a master list of MIME types
and a voted-on list
is, with the
execption of whos names it protects, word-for-word identical.
Am I missing something?
Yes. Clause 3 is the GPL-incompatible non-free one. Clause 4 is standard
boilerplate, found in many licenses (it's also superfluous, being
written into copyright by default in US law).
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL
has become overreaching and
useless, it's here.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
with such
restricted software.
As much fun as it would be to describe X as not practical to work
with, you're flat out wrong. Please do reading and research before
continuing this thread.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 11:15, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 09:31, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:03:33PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 15:02, Simon Law wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 05:15:16PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 09:31, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:03:33PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
Debian Legal
by the people distributing
software under this and other licenses.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
the exact wording used in the XFree license)
(and the standard MIT/X11 licence, mostly copyrighted to
institutions/entities that no longer exist.)
And the 3 clause BSD license.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
, in the sense that you can apply
filters, cut, etc, Vorbis files just as well as wavs. And while I might
spend a long time fiddling with layers in an XCF, sometimes I merge them
before I save, because I expect to never edit it again.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description
anything
that could generate free .docs (no, AbiWord can't); I believe GCC can
generate free Gameboy binaries.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
on the outcome of GRs, it might change so that only the former
class has to be removed.
Either way, firmware not licensed under a GPL-compatible license needs
to be removed.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
the SC/DFSG and release with them. I think
this is also a bad idea, but it's feasible. If 3) and 4) are copyright
infringement, then we must remove them as well.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
to me, and none of them resemble each other.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 02:26:05PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
I agree with Michael Poole insofar as this message. Here's an attempt at
an unbiased summary:
There are four classes of firmware:
[...]
Current policy is that firmware types 1, 3
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 15:54, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Primarily GR 2004-003, which just got its first CFV.
By which of course I meant GR 2004-004, which is only *about* GR
2004-003.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 22:42, Michael Poole wrote:
Joe Wreschnig writes:
Step by step, tell me where you start to disagree:
If I write a program that contains the entire ls source code as one
large C string, and then prints it out, that is a derivative work of the
ls source.
I
rather than one with tens of thousands in its bank account.
Why should we accept this argument for firmware when we didn't accept it
for KDE? And wouldn't the small group with no money, unable to defend
itself, make a much easier target?
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description
it for KDE, so why
is it okay for the kernel?
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[Moving to -kernel and -legal instead of -kernel and -devel.]
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 12:56, Humberto Massa wrote:
@ 16/06/2004 14:31 : wrote Joe Wreschnig :
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 09:41, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 09:01:52PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
At best
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 17:18, Michael Poole wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:21:38PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
[firmware as mere aggregation]
Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
Out of curiosity, could you please show
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 18:48, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
[snip]
When you compile a kernel, the firmware is included in it. When you
distribute that compiled binary, you're distributing a work derived from
the kernel and the firmware. This is not a claim that the firmware
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 18:32, Michael Poole wrote:
Joe Wreschnig writes:
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 17:18, Michael Poole wrote:
A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00130.html
Unfortunately for Mr. Richter, Linux
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 21:59, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Step by step, tell me where you start to disagree:
If I write a program that contains the entire ls source code as one
large C string, and then prints it out, that is a derivative work of the
ls source.
If I write a program that contains
in the US, because of the implied
warranties that are disclaimed by most licenses.)
[0] http://www.norvig.com/license.html
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
a C program's makefile generates an unreadable
executable from multiple source files, Moosic's generates an
unreadable base64 encoded set of Python bytecodes.
If you apt-get source moosic, you get the individual source files for
moosic, as you desire. There's no bug here.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL
will not walk out on stage
(print messages during use of the software) to advertise your
filesystem.
We do follow that model, it does work, and it is the right thing to do.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
but the
copyright holder) cannot distribute applications linked against the
library. I find that the authors that are aware of licensing issues, are
also the kind who prefer not to grant GPL exceptions.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
but with different
spells, and you're legally in the clear (that doesn't mean you won't be
sued -- it means you're likely to win any such suit).
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
the Open Publication
License (with no options exercised).
If I looked harder I could find more.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 01:08, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 14:13, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-09-23 00:45:52 +0100 Andrew Saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[2] Okay, this was just an extreme example. However: since I
personally
(or rarely, public software, freeware, or some other
term), as do my friends and classmates.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
requirement.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
of programs embed documentation within them, and
for IMO perfectly valid reasons.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 17:18, Dylan Thurston wrote:
On 2003-09-16, Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your problem is here. Quote more carefully next time.
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To the readers of this message: if you
over this many times.
debian-legal clearly believes that the GFDL does not meet the DFSG.
Passing the DFSG is the *only* way anything can get into Debian. If you
want something else to get into Debian, you need to propose definitions
or guidelines on -project as a GR.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL
Indeed; you should read it thoroughly one of these days. It's an
excellent example of the correct way to write a free *software* license,
rather than a free program license, or free documentation license.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 17:59, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:49:06AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 14:49, Mathieu Roy wrote:
I would say that the LPPL is not equal. Because it requires you to
change the name of the files you modify and that's
. Or rather, I hope no one does.
Debian sure doesn't.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
languages do not, or that was what
I gathered from the discussion. It is, however, a direct problem in many
other programming environments.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
. Emacs? I don't even want to think about it.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
? This is not a
rhetorical question; I am honestly interested in both your opinion on
this question, and your opinion on my answer to it above.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 21:50, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-08-28 03:41:47 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use documentation in the strictest sense here
[...] free publication license. Sorry for the confusion.
Documentation is not a subset of publication to you? A new twist
a few people
are trying to keep in Debian regardless of their freeness, this ad hoc
solution will be just as unpopular as removing all FDLd documentation
from main. So we might as well do it right, and remove it all.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description
*really* don't see the point of invariant sections. Either you can
do a simple cipher of them and not infringe, or you have to use the
highest quality fonts and printing methods available...
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
, and he has
made it very clear that he has no intention of changing the GNU FDL.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 03:08, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Quoting Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to
distribute something else than software.
The social contract says Debian will remain 100% free software. Not that
Debian's
documentation *license*, doesn't mean it was the first to come up
with free documentation *criteria*.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Just because the FSF is the first to release a free documentation
*license*, doesn't mean it was the first to come up with free
documentation *criteria*.
Even that is not true. The OPL (Open Publication License), predates
the GNU FDL.
The GNU FDL was written in part
not share.
So Debian doesn't have the freedom to *not* distribute GNU manuals? This
makes no sense.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
a non-issue.
Your arguments get stupider with each new message of yours I read. Let's
fix that.
*plonk*
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
we discussing FDL, clearly non-free software is still disributed
by Debian.
While Debian is working hard to maintain a complete free software
operating system, clearly non-free software is being advocated by you,
and published by the Free Programs-But-Not-Documentation Foundation.
--
Joe
no matter what policy; I hear it's written
so expertly that the author doesn't want anyone else perverting his
vision of the code.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
of Debian Free
Documentation Guidelines outlining the necessary freedoms for
documentation needs to be proposed and voted on.
No one has yet done this, for various reasons.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
that it was the GPL that would be modified.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
example is unimportant.
Do you think this was the fault of open source movement (or those
misinformed by their rhetoric), or perhaps was it someone concerned
about disk or physical (e.g. number of printed pages) space?
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description
) already. Maintainers must
review the source code they package.
It also doesn't solve the main problem, which is that for some reason
clearly non-free documentation (the GNU manuals) are being distributed
in main.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 04:54, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
This is in policy (and the social contract) already. Maintainers must
review the source code they package.
I realized after I sent this that it doesn't convey what I actually
meant. Maintainers must not put non-free software in main. The only
-- is this change to the GFDL happening? Does it actually address
Debian's concerns, or are invariant sections and transparent formats
going to remain?
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
as it gets enough manpower.
Since I see no way to reconcile GPL-compatibility and maintaining the
invariance of invariant sections, should I believe this is not the case
(and possibly never was)?
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
is like saying I can't
integrate Windows source into the Linux kernel because it's a license
incompatibility. Strictly, it is, but no one would ever call it that
because the incompatibility is so great that we classify Windows as
non-free and stop caring about it at all.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL
thankfully, you've hopefully guaranteed that
no one else involved in any side of this debate will take you seriously.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
one that read it that way...
Hopefully RMS clarifies this in his replies.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
on distributing non-free documentation to accompany their free
programs.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 19:46, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
O Domingo, 24 de Agosto de 2003 ás 19:36:20 -0500, Joe Wreschnig escribía:
How about the GPL v2? The source code for a work means the preferred
form of the work for making modifications to it; binary or object code
is anything
, and that the source has to be in the *FSF's* preferred form for
modification.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
opinion.
Part 2. Status of Respondent
Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true.
[ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian
Constitution as of the date on this survey.
=== CUT HERE ===
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
says, which kind of software is supported by Debian.
If this software is supported by Debian, you should have no qualms about
moving the FSF's manuals and RFCs there.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
signals are partly analogue, FYI...)
Except for the newer digital TV broadcasts, completely analogue.
^^^
What?
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 02:49, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 18:38, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 22:39, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
That's an overly-expansive view of software. You would include
anything that is digital in that description -- audio CDs, DVD
to be disputable on this list.
Repeating over and over FDL seems to be disputable on this list does
not make the FDL disputed, it just makes you contridictory.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Somewhat late in this...
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 14:03, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Tuesday, Aug 5, 2003, at 18:39 US/Eastern, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
If I hack the hell out of some yacc/lex output and put that in my
program, the yacc/lex files aren't the source anymore, the C code is.
Same
of their lungs. Then we can all laugh at the terrible
wording of this GR, as the free enough crowd's true goal - the
inclusion of the FSF's manuals in main, regardless of freedom - comes
to light.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
(specifically, the stuff from the FSF) is
clearly non-free.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
versions of software (by which I mean
any stream of bits) in a form that is convenient to modify. Amazingly,
there are a lot of people that find MS Word documents, or assembler
source, convenient to modify. Likewise, many people find SGML
inconvenient.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED
. If possible,
recommend that people use the GPL (or keep the dual-license).
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
one, you can't remove it.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 14:59, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Tuesday, Aug 5, 2003, at 05:19 US/Eastern, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
IMO the GPL is purposefully vague on this point; if someone (not just
the copyright holder) can show reasonably that they preferred a certain
form for modification
to get the opinion that the only
thing in the GFDL I'm objecting to is invariant sections. There's a lot
more, but invariant sections are the most odious to me.)
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
