I just submitted an article entitled Which License for Free Documentation? to
http://advogato.org/
I have several documents that are licensed under the GFDL. While I'm not sure I
agree with your position about the GFDL, I can understand why you feel that way,
so I posted the article to ask
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 06:45:07PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I strongly object to this unless you're willing to mark the very
section[1] you describe as motivating your proposal as _very_ draft.
I say this because it is *not* representative of current consensus on
debian-legal.
Notice
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) The GNU FDL does not satisfy the DFSG even if there are no Invariant
Sections or Cover Texts.
A few minutes earlier Branden Robinson wrote:
Why not to use the GNU FDL:
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Wow. Most Apropos
Michael D. Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just submitted an article entitled Which License for Free
Documentation? to
http://advogato.org/
I have several documents that are licensed under the GFDL. While
I'm not sure I agree with your position about the GFDL, I can
understand why you
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 01:55:40AM -, MJ Ray wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like that document. Everyone concerned about the GNU FDL issue should
read it.
Unfortunately, it makes the error of confusing the word documentation
with the word document, I think. I'm
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 12:06:24PM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) The GNU FDL does not satisfy the DFSG even if there are no Invariant
Sections or Cover Texts.
A few minutes earlier Branden Robinson wrote:
[...]
Will the real
On Sun Jul 06, 03:07am -0400, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
I just submitted an article entitled Which License for Free
Documentation? to http://advogato.org/
I have several documents that are licensed under the GFDL. While I'm not
sure I agree with your position about the GFDL, I can
Bob Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) The GNU FDL does not satisfy the DFSG even if there are no Invariant
Sections or Cover Texts.
A few minutes earlier Branden Robinson wrote:
Why not to use the GNU FDL:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't see how I was being inconsistent, if that's what you're saying.
Acknowledgements and Dedications are not Invariant Sections or Cover
Texts.
I overlooked the Acknowledgements and Dedications in the
referenced document. My bad.
Do
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find such a defense of the GFDL to be the height of sophistry.
If you found that to be a defence of the GFDL, I want some of your drugs!
I think that GFDL is only called a free documentation licence which is
probably technically accurate, even if I
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:38:39AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
This is a DSFG-free, GPL-compatible, vaguely BSD-like license. No
problem there.
... until and unless we learn that the author applies the obnoxious UW
interpretation of alter it and redistribute it. Our default
interpretation
Bob Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you believe the GFDL is DFSG compliant it there are no
Acknowledgements, Dedications, Invariant Sections or Cover Texts?
No. This part of section 2 is particularly problematic:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
I've been meaning to do this for some time...
For any and all works which I have licensed under the terms of the GNU
Free Documentation License, I hereby relicense under the terms of the
GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software
Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
13 matches
Mail list logo
