MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What do you want to fix? The reasons for why free software needs
> > free documentation or would you like to fix the suggestions on how
> > to give funds to the FSF? You think you know better than the FSF
"Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 05/06/07, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs)
> > > are probably covered under Fair Use. [...]
> >
> > This is England calling.
>
> Would the FSF have to sue under US
In message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jordi
Gutierrez Hermoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On 05/06/07, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs)
> are probably covered under Fair Use. [...]
This is England calling.
Would the FSF have
Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso writes:
> On 05/06/07, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs)
>> > are probably covered under Fair Use. [...]
>>
>> This is England calling.
>
> Would the FSF have to sue under US law or UK law an offend
On 05/06/07, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs)
> are probably covered under Fair Use. [...]
This is England calling.
Would the FSF have to sue under US law or UK law an offender in the
UK? I'm genuinely ignorant about thi
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 12:10:36 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
> Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
[...]
> Not even RMS or the FSF calls the FDL a Free Software licence.
Indeed: see the last sentence of
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg01221.html
>
> > [...]
> >
Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> Kinda, but not really. It seems that Debian's objections against the
> GFDL are highly academic and unlikely to arise in practice. I mean,
> how many of those objections have actually worked against Wikipedia,
> the largest collection of "s
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >the maintainer (and the developers) recognized that users may need
> >or want such documentation, even though it does not meet the DFSG,
> >so the documentation was made available in non-f
On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> Debian decided to make it a problem for itself and for its users.
the maintainer (and the developers) recognized that
users may need or want such documentation, even though it does not
mee
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> >> I have yet to see a practical example of a situation that actually
> >> happened that justifies Debian's concerns against the GFDL.
On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> I have yet to see a practical example of a situation that actually
> happened that justifies Debian's concerns against the GFDL.
The practical example is the fact that we cannot make extra
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> I have yet to see a practical example of a situation that actually
> happened that justifies Debian's concerns against the GFDL.
The practical example is the fact that we cannot make extracts of
GFDLed documentation even for manpages without in
On 03/06/07, Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 07:16:30PM -0500, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> Kinda, but not really. It seems that Debian's objections against the
> GFDL are highly academic and unlikely to arise in practice. I mean,
> how many of those objection
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 07:16:30PM -0500, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> Kinda, but not really. It seems that Debian's objections against the
> GFDL are highly academic and unlikely to arise in practice. I mean,
> how many of those objections have actually worked against Wikipedia,
> the largest
"Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In practice, the GFDLed docs can be copied and modified as much as
> they need to be
The DFSG requires that *any* modification be allowed to the work, and
that the result be redistributable under the license. This is not the
case for the FDL
On 26/05/07, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jordi, please follow the code of conduct for the mailing lists
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct>.
Specifically, don't send a separate copy of list messages to me, as I
haven't asked for that.
Oops, sorry. I forget. Other non-De
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 10:15:06AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> The document author, by placing only *some* parts of the work under
> the GPL, is essentially determining for the recipient what parts they
> will find useful to combine with other parts of the software. Prose
> descriptive parts could b
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The GPL also requires that any derivative work that one distributes
> must be licensed under the GPL terms. This is incompatible with
> taking part of a work under a different license and combining it
> with the GPL work to distribute.
This is true only, o
Jordi, please follow the code of conduct for the mailing lists
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct>.
Specifically, don't send a separate copy of list messages to me, as I
haven't asked for that.
"Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I keep hearing about how importa
On 25/05/07, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The "lot of complex clauses ... that would be cumbersome and
unnecessary" is greatly outweighed by the huge simplification that
comes from having *all* software in a package -- programs,
documentation, data -- licensed the same way, as already ad
Shriramana Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for all your feedback, but the GPL also has some clauses that
> are not applicable to documentation as pointed out at:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals
If you re-read that section, it mostly addresses the FSF's
Thanks for all your feedback, but the GPL also has some clauses that are
not applicable to documentation as pointed out at:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals
I thought of using the Boost license:
http://boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt
but it is not listed at:
http://wiki
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I remember reading that the GFDL is not DFSG-free (due to some clauses
>regarding invariant sections or something) so I would like to know what
As long as you do not use these optional clauses it is free like any
other DFSG license.
OTOH, you should ask yourself what is
Shriramana Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
> I remember reading that the GFDL is not DFSG-free (due to some clauses
> regarding invariant sections or something) so I would like to know what
> is a DFSG-free license for documentation, since a project I am working
> on wants to license its docum
"Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 22 May 2007 08:09:33 Ben Finney wrote:
> > The consensus (not unanimous, but consensus nonetheless) of
> > debian-legal is that the DFSG, regardless of which of its clauses are
> > exercised, is non-free for any software, including docu
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 08:09:33 Ben Finney wrote:
> The consensus (not unanimous, but consensus nonetheless) of
> debian-legal is that the DFSG, regardless of which of its clauses are
> exercised, is non-free for any software, including documentation.
(I assume you meant "GFDL" here instead of "DF
Shriramana Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I remember reading that the GFDL is not DFSG-free (due to some clauses
> regarding invariant sections or something)
The Debian project is in the strange situation that a license which
has many freeness issues[0] has been voted explicitly free withou
Hello list.
I remember reading that the GFDL is not DFSG-free (due to some clauses
regarding invariant sections or something) so I would like to know what
is a DFSG-free license for documentation, since a project I am working
on wants to license its documentation in a DFSG-free way.
Thanks.
28 matches
Mail list logo
