On Jul 9, 2004, at 11:14 AM, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:54:05AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Package: ocaml
Version: 3.07.2a-2
Followup-For: Bug #227159
The compilers are also distributed under the QPL, which is
And ? What is the problem ? Even RMS and the FSF
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jan 21, 2004, at 21:27, Henning Makholm wrote:
It is not clear to me that this text talks about APIs at all.
It seems to be about the *internal* structure of a database, which -
in my opinion at
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For the RFCs, if Debian cannot live with different degree of freedom
depending on the nature of the software it brings (RFC are not
programs, and by nature, there is no point in being able to modify
freely a standard like RFCs)
Nonsense. You know well
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 01:00:54PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
uncertain about whether you should disable the automatic generation
of .elc files.
Why ? We clearly are not violating the GPL by doing so, so where is
the problem.
If
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:12:13PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 01:00:54PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
uncertain about whether you should disable the automatic generation
of .elc
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Brian Sniffen wrote:
Would the following be considered Free by anybody here?
If You institute litigation against any entity (including a
cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work
or a Contribution incorporated within the Work
Don Armstrong wrote:
If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a
cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work
or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct
or contributory patent infringement, then any patent
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Jakob Bohm wrote:
The main trick is to distinguish between the original full text SRFI
(the document) and the free software (document that excerpts or
derives from the document).
Sure, but if you take that tack, the prohibition of modification of
Ben Reser wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 10:28:10PM +0100, Jörgen Hägg wrote:
Somehow the swirl on this page seems familiar... :-)
http://www.elektrostore.com/
(The picture is here: http://www.elektrostore.com/Bilder/electro_loga.gif )
Hell that's not just familiar that's a blatent rip.
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
Every SRFI contains a reference implementation, and bears this
copyright notice:
Copyright (C) /author/ (/year/). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Dec 14, 2003, at 22:18, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
For someone to later pair it with Emacs has no creativity, so that
packager hasn't earned a copyright, but the pairing is under copyright
Yes, but if there is no copyright generated
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 15:16, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
That would seem to fit much better than derivative work, yes.
However I do wonder whether the combination of host and plugin
constitutes an original work of authorship? There seems
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have little patience for superstitious beliefs, and less still for
people who claim to be defending the tender feelings of the ignorant.
But why use names correlated with evil when other options are
available which interfere less with Debian's
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 15:34, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Right, but since the plugin author clearly intended it to fit with and
accompany the host, there's no creativity on the part of the combiner.
And we're well back into argue it in court territory
constitutes an original work of authorship? There seems to
be little creativity involved.
Sure there is -- but it's performed by the person who wrote the
plugin, as he sculpts the interface to fit to the host, and to provide
useful functionality to it -- not merely by itself.
-Brian
--
Brian T
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
A ''compilation'' is a work formed by the collection and
assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are
selected, coordinated
in general if you began by looking for an answer, instead of
guessing at one.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
frames as it runs -- which are
copyrightable. Where's the problem with this, exactly? Please
provide examples.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
.
But the combination of the host and the plugin is a derivative of the
plugin -- or is a compilation containing the plugin, or is a mere
aggregation containing the plugin, depending on the intent of the
author of that combination.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen
to distribute AIE and
INVERT will essentially be bound by the GPL with regards to AIE, even
though it is under the MIT/X11 license: they received it under the
terms of the GPL, not under the terms of the X11 license.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 01:36:46PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
The KDE folks have, from what I've seen,
been quite careful with licensing issues.
That sentence made me snarf. Do people not remember the history of KDE
and Debian?
Of course
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have thus, even with STENOG included, satisfied the terms of the
INVERT license.
Now, there is a potential problem. Remember that scripting language
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 11:10:05AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Now, there is a potential problem. Remember that scripting language
mentioned before? If someone were to write a script that used both
INVERT and STENOG, and then distribute that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
I don't know the details of who writes the SSL support for Konq or how
it's done, nor do I have any machines with Konqueror on them in front
of me right now, so I can't comment on that.
Ah, found
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
What I'm trying to find out is, whether or not it's allowed to write a
plugin, using GPL,d libraries, for a program with MIT license, for
which there also exists plugins using OpenSSL (or anything
GPL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
What I'm trying to find out is, whether or not it's allowed to write a
plugin, using GPL,d libraries, for a program with MIT license, for
which there also exists plugins using OpenSSL (or anything
GPL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
I don't know the details of who writes the SSL support for Konq or how
it's done, nor do I have any machines with Konqueror on them in front
of me right now, so I can't comment on that.
Ah, found it -- Debian KDE list, late July 2002: Konqueror
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
The thing is that, in my case, some very good functionality is
provided by plugins using GPL'd libraries. I want to make sure I can
distribute those plugins, at least as source. For reasons that should
be obvious, I'd rather not touch the GPL.
The
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This now gets into the hazy realm where it's best not to go - a court
could decide either way.
The argument is, approximately, that by shipping the whole lot
together you are creating a derived work that
Franck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
We are currently working on a web-developpement tool for a private
company.
The people who fund the project are okay to give opensource a try, but
they insist on some restrictions. (for the business model to be
sucessful).
The licence
for
many years (most recently, the 102nd Congress' H.R. 1790) which, if
passed, would protect typeface design. If such a bill is enacted, the
above opinion will be obsolete and incorrect.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED
GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:01:39 -0500,
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I'm confused -- and don't read Japanese. But let me get one thing
straight: what Hitachi distributed were strictly bitmap fonts, right?
No metafont, truetype, or postscript font outlines
to the GPL or
MIT/X11 licenses.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:35:10 +,
Andrew Suffield wrote:
[1 text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)]
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:52:01AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
At Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:36:40 +0100,
Osamu Aoki wrote:
One of
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:45:04PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
In the current patent-litigation context, a large stable of patents to
cross-license is considered a vitally important corporate defense
strategy.
*shrug* That's not our problem
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:43:01PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
There is also no way to be sure that the next minor upstream Emacs
release will still be entirely free software, and Debian has been
to mention inspirations and contributions *in the talk*.
So I would read this clause as requiring acknowledgement of
inspiration and origins in advertising material, sales pitches, and
documentation.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED
a
*little* more reasonable. But given that, for example, IBM has
contributed to Apache, I cannot sue IBM for patent infringement
without losing my license to use Apache.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org
their unrelated patents at no cost,
or give up their right to use (his patents in) Apache.
The two paths provided, then, are payment or arbitrary revocation of
the license. That's non-free.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
out a quick
settlement -- even if both patents on both sides are bullshit -- than
to slog through the courts.
This isn't nice, it isn't good, it isn't right -- but it isn't
Debian's fight, or Apache's, and this isn't the right way to solve it.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Added license@apache.org to this subthread, since my final question is
directed to them. Please CC debian-legal on replies.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:36:10AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
This isn't nice, it isn't good, it isn't right
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:36:10AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
If the lawsuit filed against you has *no* merit, that's true. But in
practice, given the current broken state of the American patent law
system, it's much, much cheaper to countersue
PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
5. Reciprocity. If You institute patent litigation against any
entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit)
alleging that a Contribution and/or the Work, without
modification (other than modifications
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MJ == MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MJ On 2003-11-15 04:14:44 + Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ wrote:
It only revokes the patent license, not the whole license.
Since Debian, to a large extent, only concerns itself with
Apache from anyone who doesn't agree.
Yes, this means unscrupulous or even just secretive companies can fork
Apache and integrate their proprietary, patented technology. That
would be unfortunate. But the freedom to do that is a necessary
freedom.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
And, as it happens, companies do grant free patent licenses: it's
common practice when working on a standard which must be approved by a
standards body with a RF policy: typically, the patent is licensed
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The argument proposed was attempting to say No company is ever going
to grant free patent licenses; I pointed out the argument applies
equally to software
And I point out that it doesn't. If the company patent their invention
at all, it must be
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Brian T. Sniffen
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And I point out that it doesn't. If the company patent their invention
at all, it must be because they intend to restrict people from using
it (or at least keep an option open
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 12:58:39AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
In the current patent-litigation context, a large stable of patents to
cross-license is considered a vitally important corporate defense
strategy.
Yes, but a patent could not be part
Marco Ghirlanda [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Knoppix should be distributing the source from the same location that
you would get the CD, so its still compliant with the GPL.
Really I couldn't find the sources of Knoppix anywhere.
http://developer.linuxtag.net/knoppix/ looks like a good place to
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marco Ghirlanda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This I don't understand. Seems like I have to create an ISO with only
the sources.
no. What you can do is add written offer to provide the sources to
whoever ask
regarding the laws and how they
interact with software.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
that this isn't an
issue. :-)
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
=1version=unstablerelease=all
- Debian Statement about GFDL:
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
more than copyright law does.
If you are cutting the file down enough that this becomes an
inconvenience, there's probably no copyright in those snippets.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 22:01, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Let's say Alice's installer uses secret-sharing or error-correcting
codes to meld the program and the documentation, then produce separate
works from them.
Like tar czf?
Not quite what I had
, but merely acting on physical
objects -- not making any creative or artistic changes -- I suspect
what he's doing is compliant with the GPL, especially if the
particular author says it is.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
it's pretty clear that Mr. Treindl does not want Swiss
Ephemeris to be free software: freedom to exploit the software for
commercial benefit is a necessary component of Debian's definition of
Freedom.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED
from it, or perhaps a separate license to the publisher.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
the bug fixes and new feature
added by Bob: she can simply disregard material X, no matter what it
is. She cannot use the material in Bob's documentation, though,
without importing repugnant or false statements. Bob has succeeded in
taking the documentation proprietary.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2003-10-13 19:58:58 +0100 Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alice distributes a program, under the GPL, and a documentation
package for that program under the GFDL. Because she is the copyright
holder, she distributes them together. Nobody else
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2003-10-13 19:58:58 +0100 Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alice distributes a program, under the GPL, and a documentation
package for that program under
other popular licensing models ;
--
Best Regards,
mds
mds resource
877.596.8237
-
Dare to fix things before they break . . .
-
Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much
we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .
--
Brian T. Sniffen
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
If you do not meet the requirements in the SEPL, for example if
- you develop and distribute software which is sold for a fee higher than a
reasonable copy charge
- or/and you develop and distribute
Gabucino [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
One version of VirtualDub could read ASF files, and that was quickly removed.
That was back in 2000, and I just checked: the news entries appear to have
fallen off the site.
There is a significant part to these patent enforcement
clause, and the definition of transparent
forms.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
it to document... wait, they'd be distributing Emacs,
and making the GPL available to users, and a dozen news organizations
would report that Microsoft was distributing Free Software and link to
the FSF web site. What's the problem, again?
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen
Debian is 100% Free Software as an advantage of
removing them, which is why you don't see a convincing case:
I don't see a convincing case here for removing them.
It is not uncommon to be unconvinced when all convincing arguments
have been neglected.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You have previously suggested we should consider whether documentation
is free, based on the four basic freedoms as specified on
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/ . That includes 'the freedom to run the
program, for any purpose'. Since a
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2003-09-26, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The conflict is around the need professed by FSF to hitch political speech
to the cart of software documentation, and the fact that Debian, while it
may have been designed in part to achive a social
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
The following persons have agreed to serve on a committee regarding the
FSF - Debian discussion:
Eben Moglen, Attorney for the Free Software Foundation.
Henri Poole, Board member, Free Software Foundation.
Benj. Mako Hill, Debian.
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
1. Is this MP3 file software or hardware?
This is one is definitely worse: you explicitely point out which
definition of the word software you think is the most usual, by asking
to refer
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While you are free to state the terms by which the GFDL should be
interpreted for GNU documentation, this is not always the case. We have
in the past seen cases where copyright holders have interpreted
seemingly unambiguous statements
? is itself biased.
Consider the alternatives:
1. Is this MP3 file software or hardware?
2. Can an MP3 file be Free Software?
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
our reasoning to
you and other GNU members who asked. We have asked for your reasoning
and been rebuffed.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
Carl Witty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Software is not a controversial word in English (roughly inverse of
hardware in one sense). Some people advocate a bizarre definition of
it in order to further
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:25:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
If it's licensed under the GPL, and no source is provided, then it can
not be distributed at all, not even in non-free, unless there never was
source to begin with. (I assume this
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think
it needs to be possible to use text from manuals in a program.
A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals.
And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as
text
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your casual suggestion to pick whichever seems better leaves out the
object: better for whom? For the Free Software community? For the
Free Software Foundation, whose goals are quite different?
That is a cheap shot, because it reflects
in Debian,
regardless of the freedoms these grant Debian's users.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
OK. I have a copy of Emacs here, licensed to me under the GNU GPL2.
I have made some modifications to it, and updated the changelogs and
history notes. I wish to give it to a friend. Section 2b requires
that I distribute my
and is an
awkward position from which to begin producing such a card.
[The closest I came was removing a single document from a collection
of documents, but then you have to follow the rules applying to
verbatim copying, which doesn't seem to grant us anything usefull.]
Don Armstrong
--
Brian T. Sniffen
containing the GPL on every Debian system?
I understand that these are questions with complicated answers, and I
appreciate your efforts to answer them.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
may distribute
my work under the CAL and I licence my work to you under the CAL.
If the e-mail exchange must be kept confidential, a statement from
Mr. Schwartz to this effect and listing the various copyright
holders who have given permission will do.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen
political tracts -- that without them being Invariant sections tied to
the documentation, they won't get enough air time to promote Free
Software -- somewhat confusing. It appears they'd get more exposure,
not less, from being Free as in Software.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think that section titles are a problem--it would not be
hard to put them in a program.
In a *binary executable* ?!?! That's what I'm talking about here.
I am not sure if you are right; this might be impossible or it might
be
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
None of these differences correctly classifies Hello as both a program
and documentation, as far as I can tell.
Hello is an example program.
Yes... and thus both program and documentation.
It is difficult
to deal with such
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 19:43 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I, um, think he meant me, given I *did* say there is a violation of
DFSG 2, since binary-only distribution is not permitted.
Ah! Yeah, that must be what I meant...
I'm
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 11:24 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to
violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit distribution in source code
as well as compiled form.
Brian, I'm
:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
: you can copy the data on the CD, but not the
packaging art. The packaging art is clearly not software -- it's not
even digital -- so this is much less of an issue.
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Brian W. Carver [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony DeRobertis writes:
I understand that; in fact, I was one of the many people who pointed out
that problem. But that's not what Brian said --- he said that there is a
violation of DFSG 2 since it does not permit 'distribution in source
code as
substance of TeX.
This is not true. There is no way for me to create a work of free
software which is a derivative work of the Emacs Manual.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
be created as a derivative work of a GFDL-licensed manual
with invariant sections.
Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to
violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit distribution in source code
as well as compiled form.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen
under the GPL, everyone will be free. In an
all-GFDL world, the mishmash of invariant sections mean that people
will still not be free, and we might be further from freedom than we
are now.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
The GFDL allows you to make any changes you like in the technical
substance of the manual, just as the TeX license allows you to make
any changes you like in the technical substance of TeX
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would appreciate if in future you would restrict you comments
to the need for the Invariant sections within the GFDL.
The issue at hand for Debian is whether to include GFDL-covered
manuals in the Debian GNU/Linux system. I am sticking to
often but not always
carries a connotation of executability, but never has such denotation.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
good use of this situation.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Monday, Sep 15, 2003, at 12:15 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
GPL 6 doesn't say that you may place restrictions on some copies, as
long as your provide an unrestricted copy as well. Instead it says you
may place no restrictions.
You
1 - 100 of 220 matches
Mail list logo
