[I think we basically agree, so I've marked this OT]
Documentation relating to software needs to be really free, in order
that we can manipulate it in far more interesting ways (such as
refcarding it, embedding it as online help, or updating it because of
advances in the program it
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 04:35:20PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am trying to package caml-light which comes with the attached licence.
My understanding of it is that it is not distributable by debian, since
it allow distribution of modified works
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:42:43PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
An additional question, is this the actual license? Or is it an
english translation of the actual license? [Looks like it was written
by a non-english common law attorney.]
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
My
On Thu, 15 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:42:43PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
Distribution of derivative works obtained by modifying the sofware or
integrating it in another software is allowed only if the
distribution consists
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 03:15:35AM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:42:43PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
Distribution of derivative works obtained by modifying the sofware or
integrating
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 08:20:57PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Well, I'm willing to go along with this, but it means adding yet another
exception to our no invariant text rule, in addition to the five I
already enumerated.
I'm having a hard time with the idea of calling a peice of text that
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 11:11:49AM +0200, Uwe A. P. Wuerdinger wrote:
Hi,
I just catched this conversation on the misc OpenBSD mailinglist.
Does this in any way afflict debian?
indeed seems to be a problem. Since it does not grant the rights to distribute
and sell the modified code, just the
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 02:39:15PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 11:11:49AM +0200, Uwe A. P. Wuerdinger wrote:
Hi,
I just catched this conversation on the misc OpenBSD mailinglist.
Does this in any way afflict debian?
indeed seems to be a problem. Since it does not
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 10:19:45AM -0500, Debian Press Team wrote:
Thank you for your interest in the Debian Project!
Debian Press Team,
Please don't spam the Debian Legal Team.
Thanks!
Please bug the spammer so it doesn't send mail with headers like:
From:
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it's part of emacs, then it's very clearly non-free software
and the whole thing should be removed from Debian (unless the
FSF doesn't have to follow everyone else's definition of
freedom).
The whole thing? Emacs itself?
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Documentation relating to software needs to be really free, in order
that we can manipulate it in far more interesting ways (such as
refcarding it, embedding
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 02:09:34PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 02:39:15PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 11:11:49AM +0200, Uwe A. P. Wuerdinger wrote:
Hi,
I just catched this conversation on the misc OpenBSD mailinglist.
Does this in any way
Jérôme Marant wrote:
Again, moving a program to non-free will motivate people to
write a free equivalent.
Actually, moving a program to non-free has historically been much more
likely to convey a message to the author of that program: WAKE UP!
When the author wakes up and realizes that their
Martin Schulze wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 10:19:45AM -0500, Debian Press Team wrote:
Thank you for your interest in the Debian Project!
Debian Press Team,
Please don't spam the Debian Legal Team.
Thanks!
Please bug the spammer so it doesn't send mail
En réponse à Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
No you don't care: you don't use Emacs.
I do. I even code for it. I use the manuals all the time, and I'm
bothered by the hypocrisy of it.
Peter, as a GNU Emacs user, I know this. This was not directed
to you.
--
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL
(My idea in participating in these debates is to provide
some areas to research assertions. I will not express a
legal opinion on the fact specific issues. I'm including
citations and snippets for people's reference, not to be
pedandic. People have been saying that's very helpful but
let me
En réponse à Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Emacs embbeds an info reader and makes possible to browse such
documentation. There is no link in the code AFAIK.
It was argued in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200304/msg00169.html
OK. I meant linked as
En réponse à Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Do you have to display the invariant section as well. It is legal
just
embedding the invariant section without displaying it?
You've got to be kidding. For one thing, who wants to jump through
that
hoop. For another, that would
En réponse à Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?iso-8859-15?q?J=E9r=F4me?= Marant)
Err, it is a regression isn't it? I've always considered it as part
of Emacs, and even its online help. It has always worked like that.
If it is part of Emacs, then the
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
En réponse à Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Emacs embbeds an info reader and makes possible to browse such
documentation. There is no link in the code AFAIK.
It was argued in
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
En réponse à Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Do you have to display the invariant section as well. It is
legal just embedding the invariant section without displaying
it?
You've got to be kidding. For one thing, who wants to jump
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 03:08:25PM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2003, Uwe A. P. Wuerdinger wrote:
I just catched this conversation on the misc OpenBSD mailinglist.
Does this in any way afflict debian?
This subject has already been discussed forever on debian-legal. The
Sorry for the noise.
Peter, I cannot reach you :-( I tried your both addresses.
Any idea?
Your message
To: Peter S Galbraith
Subject: Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
Sent:Thu, 15 May 2003 16:21:41 -0400
did not reach the following recipient(s):
Galbraith, Peter on
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK. I meant linked as with software, there is no code linking to
documentation.
I'm not so sure. The Info file isn't dumped raw into a buffer for
display. The info files provides offsets to each Info node such that a
browser that quickly jump
24 matches
Mail list logo
