editor we don't have?
Possibly; but I suspect that these files contain binaries, not
source code.
> Has anyone asked IBM yet?
I wrote once got no reply. I have just written again to
the guys who ported the driver to Linux.
--
Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
for a separate license for the DSP
files?
--
Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an "X" the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compa
acturers' traditionally refers to an industry,
not to a profession. You could say 'coal miners' or 'hatters'.
> 29. [...]
> The name is a bit of a joke, as the term comes from the
> Four Freedoms Speech delivered by Franklin Delano Roosevelt
> in which he ...
I suggest:
The term 'four freedoms' is a play on words used by the
American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in a speech in
which he ...
--
Thomas Hood
known unknowns. And each year we discover a few more of
those unknown unknowns.
To these immortal words of D. Rumsfeld, we need only add:
Having been discovered, the unknowns are no longer unknown,
but have become known knowns. And this causes us to have
doubts. There are things that we know we doubt, and things
that we doubt we know, and ...
--
Thomas Hood
crypted form of S then R is not the
preferred form unless the key is also provided. How would we state
this requirement? Do we require the licensee to provide tools for
generating *all* forms of the program in his possession so that we
can choose the one we prefer? That seems too burdensome. However,
I can't think of a weaker requirement that doesn't allow the licensee
off the hook too easily.
Enough for now. Thanks for the good feedback.
--
Thomas Hood
stion wasn't a bad one.
BTW I don't think that a *purely* information-theoretical
definition can be given. I just think that info-theoretical
concepts might be used in the definition in order to help
provide an objective basis for the preferred-to relation.
--
Thomas Hood
> 1) The freedom to use the Work for any purpose.
> 2) The freedom adapt the Work to one's needs. Access to the form of the
^to
>work which is preferred for making modifications (for software, the
>"source code"), if applicable, is a precondition for this.
> 3) The freedom
such
sections to promote software freedom. Debian is not willing to do
the same. Each organization will pursue its own vision of freedom
even though their visions are different. Documents with invariant
sections will go in "non-free", but this shouldn't prevent Debian and
the FSF fro
trusted with that task.
> I think the authors should be the ones to decide how to list
> the credits. Any end user should of course be free to delete
> all the credits he wants to.
It is becoming clearer that your software is not DFSG-free.
--
Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
o the opposite.
Thanks for the well written rant.
--
Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
11 matches
Mail list logo
