On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 09:47:42PM -, MJ Ray wrote:
How are you not free to create derivative parts of the documentation
section and distribute it under the same terms (ie with invariants in
tow)? The invariant sections are not part of the documentation (and
they must not be
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We wouldn't even consider this argument if someone were applying it to
a C compiler or OS kernel.
Wouldn't we? Could a C compiler could still contain a free software
linker and not be wrong to call the linker free software? Just like
this, it wouldn't
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What do you (or other list members) think of the pickle-passing
clause?
If a license had a clause requiring that anyone who received the work
(or any derivative work) must also receive a pickle, the work (i.e.,
the software itself) would be non-free, yes.
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 11:09:13AM -, MJ Ray wrote:
We wouldn't even consider this argument if someone were applying it to
a C compiler or OS kernel.
Wouldn't we? Could a C compiler could still contain a free software
linker and not be wrong to call the linker free software? Just
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 06:47:18PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
If it's electronically (YM digitally?) stored, then I say it's software.
I see no reason to make this word a synonym for computer programs,
and in practice I see people refer to a large variety of digitally
stored data as
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:59:00PM -, MJ Ray wrote:
You disagree that the documentation part of a GFDL-covered work is
acceptably licensed?
Yes. It is encumbered with invariant sections. That clearly doesn't
meet DFSG#3, and it doesn't qualify for the exception in DFSG#4.
I do not talk
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:59:00PM -, MJ Ray wrote:
You disagree that the documentation part of a GFDL-covered work is
acceptably licensed?
Yes. It is encumbered with invariant sections. That clearly doesn't
meet DFSG#3, and it doesn't qualify
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is my license which requires you to buy a jar of pickle relish every
time you run the program a free software license?
The act of running the program is not restricted by a copyright
licence, so would that even be a
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday, Jul 6, 2003, at 18:39 US/Eastern, MJ Ray wrote:
I think that GFDL is only called a free documentation licence which
is probably technically accurate, even if I don't like it.
The only sense in which the GFDL is a free documentation
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:59:00PM -, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday, Jul 6, 2003, at 18:39 US/Eastern, MJ Ray wrote:
I think that GFDL is only called a free documentation licence which
is probably technically accurate, even if I don't like it.
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is my license which requires you to buy a jar of pickle relish every
time you run the program a free software license?
The act of running the program is not restricted by a copyright licence,
so would that even be a valid licence? If not, it's clearly
On Monday, Jul 7, 2003, at 09:14 US/Eastern, Florian Weimer wrote:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.
That's basically a copyleft scheme.
I think that's what it was meant to be.
On Sunday, Jul 6, 2003, at 18:39 US/Eastern, MJ Ray wrote:
I think that GFDL is only called a free documentation licence which
is
probably technically accurate, even if I don't like it.
The only sense in which the GFDL is a free documentation license is
that I didn't have to pay to
Le sam 05/07/2003 à 22:41, Nathanael Nerode a écrit :
Why not to use the GNU FDL:
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
This is really a good summary about the invariant sections/cover texts
issue. However, it is very unclear to me that even without them, the
GFDL is free.
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.
Without clarification from the author of each document about how he
interprets this statement, I don't
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's basically a copyleft scheme.
No, it's not. The GPL doesn't restrict what I do with copies I make
(but don't distribute). The GFDL does. See the example in:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200307/msg00051.html
--
James
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
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
Branden said:
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 02:17:55PM -, MJ Ray wrote:
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This reminded me to ask: I haven't seen anything recently on the
topic of
what to do about GFDLed Debian packages. What's the current state
of
this discussion?
I think Branden
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 04:41:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Branden said:
We should probably go ahead with another draft of that document, yes.
Right, so is anyone doing that?
I have not been. I have also been feeling guilty about not doing so.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 04:41:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
Why not to use the GNU FDL:
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Wow. Most Apropos Sig Ever. :)
I like that document. Everyone concerned about the GNU FDL issue should
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 not sure it was ever claimed
that a GFDL document was free,
Just noticed a comment in the Linux Kernel summary at
http://kt.zork.net/kernel-traffic/kt20030627_220.html#4 : It appears the
Linux kernel devs are avoiding the GFDL.
This reminded me to ask: I haven't seen anything recently on the topic of
what to do about GFDLed Debian packages. What's the
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This reminded me to ask: I haven't seen anything recently on the topic of
what to do about GFDLed Debian packages. What's the current state of
this discussion?
I think Branden published a proposed summary, which provoked some
discussion. I believe we are
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 02:17:55PM -, MJ Ray wrote:
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This reminded me to ask: I haven't seen anything recently on the topic of
what to do about GFDLed Debian packages. What's the current state of
this discussion?
I think Branden published a
25 matches
Mail list logo
