On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 02:45 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
What I was trying to show is that the relevance of a copyright case
brought against you in a jurisdiction outside of your immediate concern
is zero, for all practical matters; that means you can simply ignore it,
and nothing Bad will
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO.
Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention that
you're not a lawyer.
So, do you have anything to
Daniel Schepler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Saturday 12 August 2006 02:47 am, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Daniel Schepler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
According to the GPL, section 0:
The act of running the Program is not restricted...
And since dynamic linking is done at the time
Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, I *do* believe that d-l is a cesspit, and I for one am very
glad that in its current incarnation, it is not at all binding and has
no value other than being a debating socity --- a debating socity that
I am very glad that I can avoid, thank you
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure. SPI owns many of the machines that Debian owns. If any of these
machines are being used to distribute this software, as I think is
likely, then SPI could be liable.
Oh, very good point. I hadn't thought
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the GPL says you must include the full machine-readable/editable source
code, so if you can't do that in a given medium (say, a chip with 1KB
capacity) then GPL software is not free in any medium.
Of course, but that isn't an imposition on changes.
If
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
why are you obsessing with a convenience issue and pretending that it
has ANY BEARING AT ALL on freedom issues? it doesn't.
I think if you'll look at the header you'll see that this is about a
new practical problem. If you aren't interested in the
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 01:42:44PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
3a only says that a binary has to be *accompanied* with the source code.
Hence it can be on a separate medium. So you can distribute your 1KB
chip, stapled to a CD-ROM that contains the
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
once again: you *can* modify an invariant section by patching it. the
GFDL does not say you can not modify at all, it says you can not
delete or change these small secondary sections, but you can add your
own comments to them.
A patched version of the
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
don't be an idiot. you only have to keep the invariant sections if you
are DISTRIBUTING a copy. you can do whatever you want with your own
copy.
Right, so you can't *distribute* a copy on an ASCII-only medium, even
of the English translation of a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the best reason to ask or require contributors to licenses
their papers in a DFSG form is so that Debian can distribute the
papers as part of Debian.
I think this is an awful reason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that every package in Debian was
software. Are you confusing software and computer programs?
No, I just do not believe that this specious distinction
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying that Debian has too much documentation? What is the
non-computer-program which we have too much of?
No, I am saying that debian has too many stuff which is not programs nor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
Personally, I'd like to read the papers. It's a shame that Debian
can't distribute them to me.
Debian does not want, it's quite a different issue.
Debian does not want what? To distribute them? Hogwash. I'd be
happy to upload them.
--
To
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It seems to me that the papers at a Debian conference are almost all
related to programs in Debian.
You expect no contributions about release procedures, bug report
management, the NM process, dealing
I think the best reason to ask or require contributors to licenses
their papers in a DFSG form is so that Debian can distribute the
papers as part of Debian.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| The Covered Code is a commercial item, as that term is defined in
| 48 C.F.R. 2.101 (Oct. 1995), consisting of commercial computer
| software and commercial computer software documentation, as such
| terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (Sept. 1995).
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Um, it is true that the rules for interpreting the meaning of licenses
are more or less the same as the rules for interpreting contracts. It
does not follow that licenses are therefore contracts.
The words license and contract are indeed not
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At this point, there seem to be quite a
few people who agree that the FSF's stance (copyright-based license)
and the far-from-novel one that you advance (unilateral license /
donee beneficiaries) are untenable in the jurisdictions with whose
law
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry about that; I skipped a step or two. Your unilateral grant of
permission is not in fact a recognized mechanism under law for the
conveyance of a non-exclusive copyright license.
I'm sorry, can you point me to the statute here? The US
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[a lot of repetition that pretty much ignores what I said, and
especially where I said:]
So this is a tempest in a silly teapot. I'm happy to leave the thread
here, since the upshot is a no-relevance-to-important-issues.
So, since you ignored that
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The FAQ is not merely an interesting commentary -- it is the
published stance of the FSF, to which its General Counsel refers all
inquiries. Although I am not legally qualified to judge, I believe
that he can have no reasonable basis under the law
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
An action for copyright
infringement, or any similar proceeding under droit d'auteur for
instance, will look at the GPL (like any other license agreement) only
through the lens of contract law. IANAL, TINLA. I don't believe you
have succeeded in
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let's pretend that Debian actually has a significant amount of leverage
on this sort of issue, and that vendors see their drivers appearing in
contrib and want to do something about it. They /could/ open the
firmware and provide a toolchain for it.
John H. Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The only difference is in *performance*. If there are other differences,
then there is a bug in one of the two compilers. If you are equating
performance with functionality, then we are going to have a very hard
time communicating.
This is not
The growth of other commitments and my increasing disgust for the
anti-free positions of the FSF are causing me to reevaluate many of my
commitments.
As a consequence, I am signing off many of the Debian lists I have
been active on, most notably, debian-legal. I am still interested in
the
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The trademark restrictions could probably be written in such a way as to
fall under the spirit of the if you change it, don't call it foo
allowances.
We just need to be wary of any precarious slopes in doing so.
Agreed.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The copyright holder can be an individual or a group, but in any case
an entity recognized by the law.
Sure. But he doesn't have to identify himself, and certainly not by
his actual name.
I've
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, 287(a)[2] limits the damages that can be assessed against an
un-notified infringer, but doesn't change the illegality of the
infringing.
So what? We
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
So our policy is to not fret at all unless we have real reason to
worry.
Oh sure, but that's unrelated to the legality/illegality of infringing
a patent which was what I was discussing.
It's also
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
More importantly, the DFSG talks about required freedoms. If freedoms
for a work are actively being restricted by eg. trademark or patent law,
then the work is just as non-free as if they were restricted by copyright.
For example, if the Official Use
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Plagiarism and|or corruption of social, political and,
especially religious texts was unanimously considered harmful and
was punishable a millennia before invention of the first copyright
law[*]. This was solely in the interest of public, without any
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, 287(a)[2] limits the damages that can be assessed against an
un-notified infringer, but doesn't change the illegality of the
infringing.
So what? We have an existing policy.
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the english law definition of 'illegal' is 'illegal in England' or
'illegal in England or your locality' then this is a useage
restriction. Contrawise, if 'illegal' means only 'illegal in your
locality' it isn't a useage restriction.
Right. My
in USA, in 1991 year in Russia and
maybe even later in some other countries.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Computer Programs Political Writing
Started 1950600 BC
Copyright legally clear 1976
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 02:30, D. Starner wrote:
Okay, I have an Algol68 compiler written at Oklahoma State University
in 1971. (This is not a hypothetical - I have this code, and have
considered porting it to a more modern system, say Fortran
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:35:44PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
snip
The terms of use are to be construed in accordance with the Laws of
England.
It would be significantly inconvinient for a foreign user to be forced
to appear in a UK
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The first part seems to indicate that purposes that are illegal in
England are prohibited by the license. This is is a usage restraint,
as England might choose to make certain useages of information
illegal, whereas they remain legal in other countries.
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh, definetly. It's clearly open for interpretation, my issue is that
it's very vague and has to be interpreted. Eg, where do the laws of
England stop and the laws of the jurisdiction of the licensee begin?
The laws of England control *interpretation*
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The same (see above) point is not correct for political
speech. Unlimitedly modifiable political speech is _not_ a normal
mode of operation and never was.
Political speech has been around for about two thousand, six hundred
years, at least, in
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The laws of England control *interpretation* of the contract,
Just interpreting the GPL according to the laws of Germany might result
in further restrictions. For example, GPLed software released before
1995
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Such provision, IMHO, is contradicts to article 5 of Berne
Convention, when applied to copyright matters. Therefore, such
provision may make all license either illegal or unenforceable.
You are misreading the Berne Convention, here. The license
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The whole point of choice-of-law is that it doesn't do anything more
than answer the otherwise uncertain question whose law governs
this.
Or more acurately: 'whose law is used to interpret the meaning of this
license', which basically boils this
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free
software.
I should have said the GNU Project rather than the FSF, since the
GNU Project led to FSF and has always been larger.
When the GNU Project started, there was no
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, I think this creates a bit of cognitive dissonance. So,
presumably, does Bruce Perens, who has called upon us to kick non-free
to the curb.
I mean, come on. We expect people to intuitively understand
distribution as something other than
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That doesn't mean we regard people who were born British subjects as
eligible for the office of president today.
Some such people are, of course, since one can be a dual national.
The requirement is that you be a natural born citizen, not that you
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2003-09-30 05:25:50 +0100 Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This appears to be a variation on the If we can't all be rich then we
should all be poor idea, which I reject.
It's not. It's the level playing field idea.
It's not level.
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I didn't say that. I said we built the community, which we did by
pushing for free software when nobody else did. Of course, many
others have contributed since then.
I believe there was never a time when only the FSF pushed for free
software.
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have only criticized Debian for one thing, and that is the practice
of distributing non-free software (programs). This is something
Debian has done for many years, not something I imagine it might do.
I don't think you understand the distinction
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We want to have freedom over what we distribute in binary packages.
We are willing to tolerate noxious restrictions like the TeX ones only
because they do not impact what we can distribute in the binary
package: they only restrict the
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) Because the borders between the cases are ambiguous and uncertain.
I sent a message a day or two ago (perhaps after you sent this one)
which addresses that issue.
2) Because we want to be able to combine works from different sources,
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your casual suggestion to pick whichever seems better leaves out the
object: better for whom? For the Free Software community? For the
Free Software Foundation, whose goals are quite different?
That is a cheap shot, because it
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The point I am making is that Debian might indeed remove the political
essays from our manuals if they could be removed. A few months ago,
some people said here that if only the invariant sections could be
removed (even though they could not be
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you want to criticize the FSF based on things you can imagine we
might do, I am sure you can imagine no end of nasty possibilities.
The only answer necessary to them is that they are false.
You are criticizing Debian based on things you can
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think
it needs to be possible to use text from manuals in a program.
A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals.
And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as
text
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To be fair, the joke in poor taste is that we demand people speak English on
this list, but my thoughts on that are well-known --
http://ttt.esperanto.org/
Why, because more people speak Esperanto?
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You don't even have to go through that much of a hassle.
Old-Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That could of been forged.
Note to self: when forging Anthony DeRobertis, spell it could of.
Check.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
Bear in mind that Debian does distribute freely modifiable political
text, for which the original author is *dead*, and yet his original
words are still copied about substantially unchanged: the book of
Amos, for example, in package bible-kjv-text.
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, according to your defintion software is synonym to
digital information. Right?
Wrong. Software is synonymous with information.
Song written on CDDA is a software, whereas the song written on a
analog magnetic tape (exactly the same object from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
A good candidate would also be familiar with debian-legal's analysis
of the GFDL.
This would only be the case if we had to prove that invariant sections are
outside of the DFSG. I don't think we will have to argue about that,
it's pretty obvious.
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't agree that the latter is the important question. I think the
former is the question that matters. I am not sure if the GFDL is a
free software license, but I don't think the question matters.
When people said the GFDL is incompatible with
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This has been explained to you enough times that your attempt to
pretend it hasn't can no longer be attributed to ignorance.
I am not pretending anything--I consider the issue a red herring. So
I have addressed the issues I think are
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Everything in Debian is software; the official logo is not free, and
therefore is not in Debian.
Fortunately it is not necessary for me to understand this.
Many things are on Debian servers which are not part of the Debian
system. The
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) Because the borders between the cases are ambiguous and uncertain.
I sent a message a day or two ago (perhaps after you sent this one)
which addresses that issue.
By saying everything has ambiguous and uncertain borders. But hey!
We don't
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I value freedom in documentation just as much as I do for programs. I
value it so much that I designed the GFDL specifically to induce
commercial publishers to publish free documentation.
You don't value the freedom to modify
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
I am not saying that the DFSG is evil, just that it isn't free (and
our logos aren't either), and therefore can't be in a free OS (and so
also our logos can't).
Of course I meant GFDL where I said DFSG. Sorry for the
confusion.
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Adobe has patents which it claims apply to PDF and has licensed them only
for the purpose of creating compatible implementations.
http://partners.adobe.com/asn/developer/legalnotices.jsp
If you modified an application which implements PDF so
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have never considered the question of whether the GFDL is a free
software license. The question seems purely academic, since it is (1)
not meant as a license for programs, and (2) clearly an annoying
license to use for programs. So I don't know
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the whole docu would be DFSG-free, than there would be no cause to
remove polical statements.
According to Don Armstrong, a non-modifiable text cannot under any
circumstances be considered DFSG-free, so it would have to be removed
from
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We are talking about two different kinds of packaging. When I speak
of a packaging requirement I'm talking about a requirement that
applies to the form of a program or other work, but not the substance.
This a different kind of packaging from the
Stephen Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, you're not the only one with that impression. Personally, I'm ready
to killfille [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a bunch of trolls. The only reason I
haven't is that I think there are some people worth listening to who are
part of gnu, but you'd never know it
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think that nontechnical invariant comments do not make a program
non-free, but not for those reasons. The reason is that this is a
packaging requirement that doesn't really restrict you from making the
program substantively behave as you want it
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The DFSG lists three specific licenses that are meant to satisfy its
criteria. Nowadays some Debian developers tend to say that these
three licenses are listed as exceptions
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The text in the manual is usually not suitable for a doc string, and
vice versa. I don't copy text from the Emacs manual into a doc
string, even though the FSF as copyright holder for both could do so.
The problem is that you can't even re-edit it
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Debian project is dedicated to the Debian OS. Without this
collection of software, the Debian project is purposeless.
If the Debian project does not follow the rules that the Debian
project wrote itself for the Debian OS, the Debian project is
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My girlfriend photography sitting on my computer is not free
software. That's not something I think important to be shared.
And it can't be part of Debian as long as it's not free.
I'm not saying there should never be non-free stuff--only that the
DFSG
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:51:14PM +0200, Roland Mas wrote:
- un logiciel can even be used to mean a software program, whereas
the phrase a software sounds awkward to me in English (but then
again, I'm not a native English speaker, and maybe
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As far as the logo, the name Mathieu Roy isn't free in the
DFSG-sense. Neither is the Debian name. I don't see why the Debian logo
should be either.
I don't believe the logo needs to be free; I think the way it is being
handled is
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 08:32:55PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But Debian contains essays, logos, and licenses that cannot be
modified. These are not programs; are they software
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I value freedom in documentation just as much as I do for programs. I
value it so much that I designed the GFDL specifically to induce
commercial publishers to publish free documentation.
You don't value the freedom to modify the whole book. You
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think that section titles are a problem--it would not be
hard to put them in a program. But it is true that you cannot take
text from a GFDL-covered manual and put it into most free programs.
This is because the GFDL is incompatible with the
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell proposed another interpretation, in which certain
things that are included in the Debian package files are not part of
Debian for this purpose. That way, you don't have to apply the DFSG
to them.
No, I did not, and you know it. I
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Many free documentation licenses won't permit use of the text in
GPL-covered free programs, and practically speaking, this means I
can't use them in any of the programs I might want to use them in.
Whether the manual's text could be used in a free
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You've asked me to explain why the criteria for free documentation
licenses should be different from free software licenses (or, as you
would perhaps put it, free computer program licenses). I would rather
ask why they should be the same, since they
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you are aware of the existence of unmodifyable essays and logos in
debian main, please file an RC bug against the package in question.
You seem to be saying that if our political statements, which are
included as invariant sections,
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A few weeks ago someone was trying to argue that nobody would do
this, and that invariant sections were designed to solve a
nonexistent problem. Now we know the problem is not just
theoretical.
No, it's still a theoretical
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But if they were only removable without being
modifiable, then yes, removing them would be the only way to include the
accompanying documentation while still ensuring that all bits in Debian
guarantee the freedoms that we require.
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the whole doc was DFSG free, I believe no Debian maintainer
would remove the political statements one could find in it.
Two people have just said they would remove any essay that cannot
be modified.
DFSG prohibits such unmodifiable
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Someone else criticized the idea (though no one had proposed it) of
giving the FSF special consideration; now you seem to be saying just
the opposite, that you believe in giving the FSF less cooperation that
you would give to anyone else. The
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Many people, including the author of the DFSG, have stated that they
believe that the DFSG was intended to apply to documentation as well.
The number of people arguing that documentation should not fall under
the standards of freedom set out by the
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2003-09-22 16:05:31 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because you are confronted with a situation where your arguments, that
you repeat and repeat, do not convince your interlocutor (me in this
case)?
There are two ways to argue against
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks for mentioning that message to me; nobody had mentioned to me
before (at least since the start of 2003). It is a message from Bruce
Perens, suggesting that the DFSG should be taken to mean something
quite contrary to what it actually says.
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've decided not to do that. The development of GNU licenses is not a
Debian issue.
Neither is the inclusion of GNU manuals in Debian a FSF issue.
That's what I said--at least twice in the past week.
But you want to be part of the
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First off, hot coffee causes 2nd degree burns, not 3rd degree
burns.[1]
Ordinary temperature coffee does indeed cause 2nd degree burns. This
is not true however for coffee served at 180 degrees Farenheit.
Secondly, the punitive award by the jury of
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In that sense, there is nothing but software in Debian.
But Debian contains essays, logos, and licenses that cannot be
modified. These are not programs; are they software?
The essays and logos in question are in fact not part of Debian.
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The DFSG lists three specific licenses that are meant to satisfy its
criteria. Nowadays some Debian developers tend to say that these
three licenses are listed as exceptions to the rules of the DFSG, but
I think that is a misinterpretation. I think
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joe Drew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
1: Of course, you do hear about rather rediculous [sic] judgements from
time to time. That's because there are quite a few moronic lower court
judges out there. Most of those settlements
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is not allowed for a GFDL manual, is it?
The GFDL allows you to make any changes you like in the technical
substance of the manual, just as the TeX license allows you to make
any changes you like in the technical substance of TeX.
Yes,
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The DFSG says that we must have the right to modify everything, at
least by the use of patch files.
I cannot find that in the DFSG. If you are talking about this part,
PThe license may restrict source-code from being distributed
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Manuals are not free software, because they are not software.
The DFSG very clearly treats software and programs as
synonymous.
In that case, the DFSG prohibits their distribution outright.
1 - 100 of 963 matches
Mail list logo
