Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 03:53:25PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
That's probably because Mail-Followup-To is not the solution.
you're a bit tiredsome with that. List-Post does not helps you to
specify that you want to be set as a Cc: or not when someones
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 03:53:25PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, sorry about that; I try to remember to use list-reply instead
of group-reply on Debian MLs, but I often forget. This matter would
be so much simpler if everyone's MUA would support and
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 19:25:08 +0100 Pierre Habouzit wrote:
the usual rule on lists I'm on, is that when M-F-T is set, it's what
should be used. Though, when none is set, you should assume the guy
who you are answering to is not subscribed, and politeness ask you to
set the Cc:
This does
On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 11:08:26PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
P.S.: Please do not reply to me and the list, as I didn't ask to be
copied.
Yeah, sorry about that; I try to remember to use list-reply instead
of group-reply on Debian MLs, but I often forget. This matter would
be so much simpler
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:06:04 +0100 Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 11:08:26PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
P.S.: Please do not reply to me and the list, as I didn't ask to be
copied.
Yeah, sorry about that;
Don't worry.
I try to remember to use list-reply instead
Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, sorry about that; I try to remember to use list-reply instead
of group-reply on Debian MLs, but I often forget. This matter would
be so much simpler if everyone's MUA would support and set
Mail-Followup-To. Alas, this seems not to be happening
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 05:36:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
GNU Free Documentation License
Discussion Draft 1 of Version 2, 25 September 2006
A Transparent copy of the Work means a machine-readable copy,
represented in a format whose specification is available to the
general public,
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 20:43:40 +0100 Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 05:36:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
Improvable: still suboptimal definition of Transparent copy
The definition of Transparent copy is improved with respect to
GFDL 1.2, but it's still
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you for showing my point.
I'm glad that I showed the point of Marco d'Itri: that he will post much
nonsense, from misattributed quotes, to accusations that people joining
debian-legal in 2003 introduced interpretations of the DFSG which had
apparently
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 11:33:53 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:18:35 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
I recommend the more precise:
Allows redistribution under non-free terms
I agree that this is more precise, but a tagline should be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't write that, fraudster.
Thank you for showing my point.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:18:35 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:22:22 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Allows non-free derivs ?
That's probably accurate too, yes.
OK, I'm going to use
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:42:05 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:22:22 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Allows non-free derivs ?
That's probably accurate too, yes.
OK, I'm going to use that tagline
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:18:35 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
I recommend the more precise:
Allows redistribution under non-free terms
I agree that this is more precise, but a tagline should be useful to
classify reported issues
You're referring to
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:22:22 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Allows non-free derivs ?
That's probably accurate too, yes.
OK, I'm going to use that tagline for my comments (as soon as I submit
them to the FSF).
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Allows non-free derivs ?
That's probably accurate too, yes.
--
MJR/slef
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:22:22 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Allows non-free derivs ?
That's probably accurate too, yes.
OK, I'm going to use that tagline for my comments (as soon as I submit
them to the FSF).
--
But it is also tradition that times
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:22:22 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Allows non-free derivs ?
That's probably accurate too, yes.
OK, I'm going to use that tagline for my comments (as soon as I
submit them to the
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
On the other hand, there's no warranty that each pseudonymous
contributor uses one pseudonym only: 'BlackStar' and 'RedBlood' could be
the same real person.
Hence, I don't know how much a pseudonym can help to identify a
contributor among other
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Come on. This everything is a cost meme is becoming silly.
The DFSG was not written with this meaning.
Come on! Stop beating your straw men! Nor were they written with the
intention to prevent only money demands that hit everyone every time!
Really? Can you show some
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Come on. This everything is a cost meme is becoming silly.
The DFSG was not written with this meaning.
I didn't write that, fraudster.
Come on! Stop beating your straw men! Nor were they written with the
intention to prevent
Le lundi 11 décembre 2006 à 15:43 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
Come on. This everything is a cost meme is becoming silly.
The DFSG was not written with this meaning.
Your continuous ranting about anything which is said on this list is
turning ridiculous.
Hint: a bad clause can be DFSG-free.
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:38:35 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
[...]
So, how come the LGPL is considered a copyleft license?
Or even the GFDLv2draft1, for that matter: it includes one or
two relicensing clause(s)...
This is a very good question and
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 22:47:32 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
I don't think it matters. Pseudonymous publication seems possible,
but we must watch out for developments on this uncertainty.
[...]
Hence, I'm not so sure that anonymous publication is
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Come on. This everything is a cost meme is becoming silly.
The DFSG was not written with this meaning.
Come on! Stop beating your straw men! Nor were they written with the
intention to prevent only money demands that hit everyone every time!
I think it's
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:28:13 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 22:47:32 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
I don't think it matters. Pseudonymous publication seems
possible, but we must watch out for developments on this
uncertainty.
[...]
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html says:
Copyleft is a general method for making a program free software
and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to
be free software as well.
It's telling, and disappointing, that the
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 22:47:32 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What follows is my own analysis of the first draft of GNU FDL v2.
I welcome any comments on my reasoning.
As you might expect from
my summary http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/fdl#general
I
On 12/10/06, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, does a Published by anonymous statement crearly and legibly
identify you as the publisher ?
I really doubt...
Hence, I'm not so sure that anonymous publication is possible.
As for pseudonymous publication (which is something different,
Hi all!
What follows is my own analysis of the first draft of GNU FDL v2.
I welcome any comments on my reasoning.
The full text of the draft is available at http://gplv3.fsf.org/
GNU Free Documentation License
Discussion Draft 1 of Version 2, 25 September 2006
THIS IS A DRAFT, NOT A
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What follows is my own analysis of the first draft of GNU FDL v2.
I welcome any comments on my reasoning.
As you might expect from
my summary http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/fdl#general
I agree with most of that reasoning, apart from:
[...] Both
31 matches
Mail list logo
