Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Finally, would you consider a manual that used the GNU FDL -- or claimed
to do so -- which marked a non-Secondary Section as Invariant to be
Free as in freedom?
No, it is not free. If any GNU package contains such a manual,
please
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I hope Debian won't adopt your views, but if it does, it won't be the
first disagreement between Debian and the FSF. Debian wrote its own
definition of free software which is different from ours. We also
disagree about Debian's practice of
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 04:08:33PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
What about Marcel Duchamp? Dammit, stop ignoring the question! For
Duchamp, violating the Mona Lisa was an integral part of the
artistic statement being made. Does that not count? Address the
case. So far it merely
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 01:49:03PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
I think it's an interesting case to consider because of the question of
whether an interface is copyrightable, but I think that discussion is
best left for another thread. In any case, I believe the generic
interface
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 04:39:30PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 02:35:05PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
I wonder how the arguments I pointed to came into being, then, if I
did not construct them.
Which arguments?
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] We also
disagree about Debian's practice of distributing and recommending
non-free software.
I'm sorry, but can you justify this statement, please? For part of
Debian to recommend non-free software is a breach of policy, which
says that Debian
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your message repeated over and over that you think the GFDL isn't
free, but didn't even try to justify that claim. I continue to
believe that the GNU FDL is a free documentation license.
This is not the question. Do you believe that the GNU FDL is a
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:21:13PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I would point out that the FSF has rewritten its views as well. For
example, I protested that the FSF's acceptance of invariant sections
contradicted its own reasing in the why free manuals are important
document; the
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:53:25PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
The GNU FDL does many other things, but you raised the issue of
invariant sections, so my response focused on that issue.
Just so you know, the Debian Project is also concerned about:
1) Cover Texts[1]
2) Acknowledgements and
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:53:27PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
Is the FSF willing to dual-license manuals that previously had no
invariant sections at all, such as _Debugging with GDB_, under the GNU
FDL and the traditional GNU documentation license simultaneously?
I don't see
RMS,
There are a few questions from previous mails that I consider important,
which you elided from your replies. I am intensely interested in your
answers to these questions, and I would greatly appreciate it if you
could take some time to answer them.
Your answers to my other questions have
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:32:25AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Well, all right, but this makes it more difficult for me to dismiss
substantive objections from dismissive or belittling remarks.
Err, s/to dismiss/to distingush/
I apologize for the error.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 07:29:46AM -, MJ Ray wrote:
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] We also
disagree about Debian's practice of distributing and recommending
non-free software.
I'm sorry, but can you justify this statement, please?
That we distribute it is
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 11:45:36AM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
Note that relicensing software under a different licence that you have
merely repackaged is not considered good form.
It's not just bad form.
It's not even valid if one has not made any original contributions to
the work. Matthew
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 10:54:36AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
You raised one point that I am concerned about:
* Debugging with GDB; GDB version 5 May 2000[1]
[1] This manual is an interesting case because it started out with no
invariant sections at all, but later adopted
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 01:59:36AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Good. Then perhaps you'll agree that saying This is licensed under the
GPL with the additional restriction that is an invalid statement,
because such a thing is not licensed under the GPL at all.
I think that you've misparsed
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As I said before: when the GNU GPL says this License and herein,
these terms are not variables. They are constants. They always and
forever will refer to the terms and conditions laid out within the same
document.
Perhaps GPLv3 should solve this
On Tue, 2003-05-20 at 05:15, Branden Robinson wrote:
I am uncomfortable with some of the ramifications but I am also
uncomfortable with totally declawing the GNU GPL by adopting and
interpretation of it that would let people wrapper and language-bind
their way out of the copyleft commons.
At
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2003-05-20 at 05:15, Branden Robinson wrote:
I am uncomfortable with some of the ramifications but I am also
uncomfortable with totally declawing the GNU GPL by adopting and
interpretation of it that would let people wrapper and
On Wed, 21 May 2003, Nick Phillips wrote:
Now what are you going to do with the overriding requirement that you
can't do baz? Let's see...
The result looks EXACTLY like:
Copyright 2003 Joe Blow.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
1) You can do
20 matches
Mail list logo
