On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 07:41:51PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
I would like to do the same with C99, POSIX, and other standards.
I agree. I've whished more than once that I could just do
C-h i m posix. And I also agree that those standards should be
free. But when is it free? :)
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 07:02:15PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
To quote the RFC copyright notice from RFC 2026 Internet Standards
Process:
Just for the record, I don't think RFC 2026 is technical
documentation. It documents a social process, not a technical one.
But the same copyright
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 06:19:19PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
When I find a bug in the glibc manual, and read up POSIX to find
out what it should be, I have to close my eyes for a minute and try
to forget what I just read before writing a bug report. It would be
easier to move the
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 12:57:40AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 11:31:58PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
However, I don't see why that should give much problems. You don't
want to change to standards anyhow.
I would.
For example, I would take some of the RFC's,
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 04:58:10PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
IANAL, I don't know if adding texinfo markup to them is considered
making a derivative work or just distributing, you don't change the
text itself. Adding texinfo markup just changes how the text is
displayed, which is already
On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 12:20:50AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
1) It's a license text, and we don't reject a package for being non-DFSG
free as long as *only* its license text is non-DFSG-free. The license
text is only required due to copyright laws that presume that the
exercise of the
Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1b) Debian makes a moral stand on free software. Not free licenses,
or free books, or free tea, or free beer, or free-for-all wrestling,
with all their various meanings of free.
While some might think free beer is essential to free software, they
would be
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 16:45, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1b) Debian makes a moral stand on free software. Not free licenses,
or free books, or free tea, or free beer, or free-for-all wrestling,
with all their various meanings of free.
While some
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 06:12:21PM +, Oliver Elphick wrote:
If I recall, the original issue was about some RFC documents. I would
have thought it was essential that such things, which define the
standards we all use, should be protected from unauthorised amendments.
Or do you want
No, I am an unimpressed with the argument that standards documents must
be regarded as sacred, unalterable texts, lest the universe collapse
into primeval chaos.
Too late. :)
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 04:22:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
No, I am an unimpressed with the argument that standards documents must
be regarded as sacred, unalterable texts, lest the universe collapse
into primeval chaos.
However, I don't see why that should give much problems. You don't
However, free documentation *is* essential to free software.
On 4 Mar 2002, Oliver Elphick wrote:
If I recall, the original issue was about some RFC documents. I would
have thought it was essential that such things, which define the
standards we all use, should be protected from
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 11:31:58PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
However, I don't see why that should give much problems. You don't
want to change to standards anyhow.
I would.
For example, I would take some of the RFC's, cp from them, add texinfo
markup and include bits of them in
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 07:19:30PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 06:12:21PM +, Oliver Elphick wrote:
If I recall, the original issue was about some RFC documents. I would
have thought it was essential that such things, which define the
standards we all use, should
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 08:19:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
If I recall, the original issue was about some RFC documents. I would
have thought it was essential that such things, which define the
standards we all use, should be protected from unauthorised amendments.
In which
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 09:59:30PM +, Adam Olsen wrote:
On the subject of distributable but non-free documents like RFCs, I
think there's a big one that needs the be pointed out: the GPL.
Folks are well aware of this on debian-legal. You might want to check
the archives of that list
16 matches
Mail list logo
