Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:03:45PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
In other situations, we might want to incorporate parts of the manual
into the source (for tooltips, help texts, usage examples, etc..). We
certainly couldn't do that with a GFDL manual
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 01:51:08PM -0700, Hubert Chan wrote:
You are allowed to *accompany* your document with the license. But an
invariant section must be *part of* the document. [...]
In the case of a reference card (as I understand the DFSG), you
would not be allowed to just
Le dimanche 12 février 2006 à 22:16 +0200, Anton Zinoviev a écrit :
GFDL doesn't place any restrictions on the form of the printed
document. For example it can be a collection of unbound sheets of
paper plus some unbound pictures plus some bug maps plus a cup or two.
All you have to do in
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:30:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
But that isn't my point. My point is that you can't include the
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you want your binary to use pieces from the manual for help
strings, then your binary has to read these pieces from auxiliary file
which would be (speaking in the terms of GFDL) an opaque copy and
would be covered under GFDL.
Likely not. In all
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 09:48:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you want your binary to use pieces from the manual for help
strings, then your binary has to read these pieces from auxiliary file
which would be (speaking in the terms of
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the binary doesn't even depend on the auxiliary opaque copy for its
work then there is no reason to consider them combined works. Many
GPL-covered programs can print the text of GPL but this doesn't mean
that the text of GPL is part of these
At Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:33:54 +0100,
Frank Küster wrote:
Yavor Doganov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact that people expressed the opinion that Debian doesn't
consider non-free software as antisocial and unethical scares me a
lot.
There are several reasons why people are for Free
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 10:42:19AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
We're talking about a binary which is so integrated that it snarfs
bits of documentation and prints them as docstrings
The integration is not very tight. The binary can work without the
auxiliary file so it can not be
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:54:04 +0200, Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:07:00AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
The Emacs Manual requires rather more than one additional sheet of
paper. If a small footnote could handle it, that would be fine.
You can not
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:54:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It does prohibit some modifications which are useful.
Geez, reference cards. Useful!
You can make reference cards but if you make more than 100 copies you
have to accompany the reference cards with additional sheet(s) of
* Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060210 11:36]:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:54:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It does prohibit some modifications which are useful.
Geez, reference cards. Useful!
You can make reference cards but if you make more than 100 copies you
have
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:54:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It does prohibit some modifications which are useful.
Geez, reference cards. Useful!
You can make reference cards but if you make more than 100 copies you
have to accompany
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:52:33PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060210 11:36]:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:54:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It does prohibit some modifications which are useful.
Geez, reference cards. Useful!
You
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 12:03:45PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
You neglected to mention what happens about reference cards for
documentation with invariant sections. Reference cards for Emacs and
GCC would be most useful, but AFAICT both of these manuals have
invariant sections.
Yes, they
Yavor Doganov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 19:15:08 +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
And then, has nobody ever raised the rumor that the purpose of this GFDL
is non-free hullaboo is just to make sure that we will have our non-free
section, for ever?
I feel it the same way.
The
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:54:27PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It does prohibit some modifications which are useful.
Geez, reference cards. Useful!
You can make reference cards but if you make more than 100 copies you
have to accompany
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We all know that GFDL is incompatible with GPL, but if the sorce was
covered by BSD-like license there is no problem - you can satisfy the
requirements of the BSD license by additional invariant section.
But the resulting program would be a non-free
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:07:00AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
The Emacs Manual requires rather more than one additional sheet of
paper. If a small footnote could handle it, that would be fine.
You can not include the whole text of GPL in a footnote either, not to
mention that you are
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:07:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We all know that GFDL is incompatible with GPL, but if the sorce was
covered by BSD-like license there is no problem - you can satisfy the
requirements of the BSD license by
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:07:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We all know that GFDL is incompatible with GPL, but if the sorce was
covered by BSD-like license there is no problem - you can satisfy the
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If GDB were under BSD, you could:
1. Add docstrings to the sources of GDB in a way permissible by
GFDL. In particular the invariant sections should be present in
all opaque copies of the produced documentation. GFDL does not
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
But that isn't my point. My point is that you can't include the
GFDL'd material in any free program. (Or, by doing so, you render the
program non-free.) This is not controversial; even the FSF agrees.
This won't be true
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:34AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If GDB were under BSD, you could:
1. Add docstrings to the sources of GDB in a way permissible by
GFDL. In particular the invariant sections should be present in
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:34AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If GDB were under BSD, you could:
1. Add docstrings to the sources of GDB in a way permissible by
GFDL. In particular the
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:08:54PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:34AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If GDB were under BSD, you could:
1. Add docstrings to the
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is strange. :-) The program is covered under BSD license and you
say it is non-free.
No. The resulting program is covered under the BSD license and the
GFDL together.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Returning back to the topic, we have the following situation:
1. The binary form of GDB would be covered under BSD license
Wrong. Because the binary would be including text from the manual, it
would be covered under the GFDL too.
--
To
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:55:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
But that isn't my point. My point is that you can't include the
GFDL'd material in any free program. (Or, by doing so, you render the
program non-free.) This is not
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What makes this entirely disgusting, is that the bees have extremely
large overlap with the toads; the wasps with the frogs.
I'm not sure about it, of course just because I'm a toad and a wasp.
And then, has nobody ever raised the rumor that the
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 02:39:17PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
The first notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to do
whatever we want with it.
The second notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
adapt it to various needs and to improve it.
It
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 02:46:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The first notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
do whatever we want with it.
The second notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
adapt
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:47:21PM +0100, Laurent Fousse wrote:
Hello,
* Anton Zinoviev [Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:33:30AM +0200]:
During the the discussions in this and the previous month it became
clear there are two completely different notions of freedom among
us.
The first notion
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do not place limitations on various needs. Any modification that
is not just subjective wish but serves some practical purpose is
desirable.
So, once more, the prohibition on removing invariant sections prevents
many modifications which serve
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:19:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do not place limitations on various needs. Any modification that
is not just subjective wish but serves some practical purpose is
desirable.
So, once more, the prohibition
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:19:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do not place limitations on various needs. Any modification that
is not just subjective wish but serves some practical purpose is
* Anton Zinoviev [Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:18:59PM +0200]:
The strong point of the second notion of freedom is that 1. this
freedom is all we need for practical purposes (thats why FSF holds
this notion of freedom) and 2. this is the status quo in Debian.
The problem with this second
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 19:15:08 +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
And then, has nobody ever raised the rumor that the purpose of this GFDL
is non-free hullaboo is just to make sure that we will have our non-free
section, for ever?
I feel it the same way. This is not a campaign for freedom, but an
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 03:33:10PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
So I don't understand what you're trying to get at, or what possible
relevance this theoretical discussion could have to anything else we're
talking about.
If we have many documents covered under GFDL and all of them contain
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 10:59:09AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
GFDL explicitly permits licenses that disallow any combined works.
Sorry, I wanted to say DFSG explicitly permits.
Anton Zinoviev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 03:33:10PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
So I don't understand what you're trying to get at, or what possible
relevance this theoretical discussion could have to anything else we're
talking about.
If we have many documents
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:40:36AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
The problem with the GFDL with invariant sections is very, very simple: it
doesn't allow modifications of portions of the work. Either people
consider that non-free or not. People who don't consider that non-free
are probably
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:40:36AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
The problem with the GFDL with invariant sections is very, very simple:
it doesn't allow modifications of portions of the work. Either people
consider that non-free or not. People who
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The first notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
do whatever we want with it.
The second notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
adapt it to various needs and to improve it.
This is a false dilemma, of course.
Hello,
* Anton Zinoviev [Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:33:30AM +0200]:
During the the discussions in this and the previous month it became
clear there are two completely different notions of freedom among
us.
The first notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
do whatever we
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 05:16:24PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
Our discussion became too complicated and I am not sure on what we
agree and on what we disagree. I will try to explain my current
opinion in a separate message and if we have some disagreement we can
continue from there.
I
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Suppose we have a license X that makes use of this rule of DFSG. In
particular the X license gives us only the following permissions with
respect to the source code:
1. Permits to distribute and build unmodified copies of the source
of the
47 matches
Mail list logo
