Re: (DRAFT 3) FAQ on documentation licensing

2005-04-20 Thread Jacobo Tarrio
O Mércores, 20 de Abril de 2005 ás 08:40:21 +0200, Jacobo Tarrio escribía: Yes, in places it is too verbose, being that I'm not used to writing in English :-) (I think that I've been reading too many American laws, lately. The provision hereunder, therefore, applies to all persons not under

Re: (DRAFT 3) FAQ on documentation licensing

2005-04-20 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 11:43:33PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: [2] I'm not sure if slander or libel are the relevant laws, here. It depends on the specifics of what you claimed they said. It could also be fraud, or a variety of other jurisdiction-specific things. Not desperately interesting for

Re: (DRAFT 3) FAQ on documentation licensing

2005-04-19 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 01:18:45AM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote: Don't worry, I won't resend the text until Monday (at least :-)). I'm allowing until next Wednesday (a full week since first publication) for comments, additions, removals, rewordings, etc. The latest revision is always

Re: (DRAFT 3) FAQ on documentation licensing

2005-04-16 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 01:18:45 +0200 Jacobo Tarrio wrote: A: It is included because this text contains the terms under which many components of a Debian system are distributed. Debian is legally required, then, to inform of these terms to the receiver of the components ? the only way is

Re: (DRAFT 3) FAQ on documentation licensing

2005-04-16 Thread Jacobo Tarrio
O Sábado, 16 de Abril de 2005 ás 18:49:15 +0200, Francesco Poli escribía: Here I don't know if it's me that sees it wrong or that symbol is really a question mark... I would do s/components \? the/components: the/ That's a dash (mdash;), that does not appear well because I cut-and-pasted