No substantive changes suggested, merely matters of style
[Anthony Towns]
(0) Summary
Within the Debian community there has been a significant amount of
concern about the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), and whether
it is, in fact, a free license. This document attempts to
I'd like to propose a few, uh, editorial amendments ;-)
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 03:02:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
---
Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main
~~
(0) Summary
Within the
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 04:25:37AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
No substantive changes suggested, merely matters of style
...
Since this has already been seconded as-is here, I thought it best to
comment here instead of making random unauthorised edits to a wiki.
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 09:51:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 11:28:16AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Perhaps retitle it to
Why the current version of the GNU Free Documentation License is
not suitable for Debian main
Why the GNU Free
I'm confused. Where does it say that we have to go through the GR
process to issue a position statement for something the project has
already decided on?
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
* Anthony Towns:
Bcc'ed to -project, -legal and -private; followups to -vote please.
It's been six months since the social contract changes that forbid
non-free documentation went into effect [0], and we're still distributing
GFDLed stuff in unstable [1]. I think we should get serious about
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm confused. Where does it say that we have to go through the GR
process to issue a position statement for something the project has
already decided on?
How do we know
Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm confused. Where does it say that we have to go through the GR
process to issue a position statement for something the project has
already decided on?
How do we know the
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm confused. Where does it say that we have to go through the GR
process to issue a position statement for something the project has
already decided on?
How do we know the project has decided on it?
Not a flippant question. That's felt like it's been
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 13:30:32 -0800, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm confused. Where does it say that we have to go through the GR
process to issue a position statement for something the project has
already decided on?
How do we know the project
Hi,
I have taken the liberty of re-adding bits to the position
statement I considered important, and I would be happy to hear
reasons why they should not be in the position statement we publish.
manoj
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
Hi,
Firstly, a belated Happy new year to all of you, gentle
readers. Belated, since apparently a malfunctioning router ate my
previous announcement, honest.
At the end of voting, with 348 Ballots resulting in 305 votes
from 298 developers, Establish declassification procedure
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm confused. Where does it say that we have to go through the GR
process to issue a position statement for something the project has
already decided on?
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Together, the Developers may:
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 08:53:11PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
In addition to the simple restrictions of freedoms imposed by the
Invariant Sections, they also cause practical problems: [...]
This is a huge chunk of text for a dcoument that's already a bit
too long to be easily
14 matches
Mail list logo
