Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
olive wrote:
The social contract say also We will never make the system require the
use of a non-free component. It is reasonable to think that the use of
Debian requires the GFDL documentation.
Even assuming the above it is reasonable is true[0], the following
Simon Huerlimann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] I'll advice guys I introduced to
Debian to also write such a mail once they get into similar situations,
though.
Unless they can add some new argument as to why a manual under
an FDL-1.2 adware licence actually follows the DFSG, simply
writing
olive wrote:
The social contract say also We will never make the system require the
use of a non-free component. It is reasonable to think that the use of
Debian requires the GFDL documentation.
Even assuming the above it is reasonable is true[0], the following
does not hold:
If Debian
Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Please only quote those portions of the text to which you are replying.
I have removed the text that you quoted.
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 09:46 +0400, olive wrote:
The social contract say also We will never make the system require the
use of a non-free component. It is
Patrick Herzig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 20/02/06, Simon Huerlimann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(...)
Simon, are you trolling?
Not intentionally.
(...)
Another reason was the following paragraph from autoconfs README.Debian:
No documentation, because the Debian project has decided that
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 14:02 +0400, olive wrote:
Brian M. Carlson wrote:
Everything is always possible. Even understanding how a program works
without source by disassembling it. If a free program depends on an
non-free library you can reimplement the free library.
ITYM the non-free
Simon Huerlimann wrote:
Hi Frank
On Monday, 20. February 2006 18:08, Frank Küster wrote:
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you explain that you would like to
continue to use GFDL'ed (or OPL'ed, for that matter) documentation, but
refuse to add non-free to you sources list?
Because
What would be good would be a license field for DEB packages, as well
as being able to include packages from other repositories based on the
content of a field.
e.g.
Name: autoconf-doc
...
License: gfdl
and /etc/apt/preferences:
License: gfdl
Hi
I'm bitten by the removal of the autoconf documentation. I wanted to do some
bugfixing in a configure.in script. But as I'm currently offline, I don't
have access to the needed documentation. Well, then... No more FOSS
development for today.
Thanx for Debian, anyway!
Gruss
Simon
Simon Huerlimann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
I'm bitten by the removal of the autoconf documentation. I wanted to do some
bugfixing in a configure.in script. But as I'm currently offline, I don't
have access to the needed documentation. Well, then... No more FOSS
development for today.
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Huerlimann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
I'm bitten by the removal of the autoconf documentation. I wanted to do some
bugfixing in a configure.in script. But as I'm currently offline, I don't
have access to the needed documentation. Well, then...
Hi Frank
On Monday, 20. February 2006 18:08, Frank Küster wrote:
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Huerlimann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
I'm bitten by the removal of the autoconf documentation. I wanted to do
some bugfixing in a configure.in script. But as I'm currently
Simon Huerlimann wrote:
Hi Frank
On Monday, 20. February 2006 18:08, Frank Küster wrote:
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Huerlimann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
I'm bitten by the removal of the autoconf documentation. I wanted to do
some bugfixing in a configure.in script. But
Please only quote those portions of the text to which you are replying.
I have removed the text that you quoted.
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 09:46 +0400, olive wrote:
The social contract say also We will never make the system require the
use of a non-free component. It is reasonable to think that
On 20/02/06, Simon Huerlimann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(...)
Simon, are you trolling?
Not intentionally.
(...)
Another reason was the following paragraph from autoconfs README.Debian:
No documentation, because the Debian project has decided that the GNU
FDL is not an acceptable license for
15 matches
Mail list logo
