Le mardi 11 avril 2006 à 21:39 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis a écrit :
Several other people have already pointed out how bad this is. Sure,
you can distribute it — on punch cards.
This means we couldn't *technically* comply with the terms of the
license. Just like it's already the case for the
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 4/12/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I keep asking why some people claim that the FDL wasn't drafted to
prohibit all copy-control measures, as that seems to be a crucial
question in this, and nobody answered yet AFAICT.
You might claim that
On 4/13/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your question, as stated, asks for an explanation for a state of affairs
which does not exist.
My question is: why do some people claim that the FDL wasn't drafted
to prohibit all technical measures that obstruct or
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 4/11/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nevertheless, neither of us would be made happy by a detailed
repeat of it on -vote. You'd remain unconvinced and I'd be
annoyed by the lost time.
Your comment, here, does not agree with the meaning conveyed by
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Following the result to GR 2006-001, the following modifications will be
made to the Debian Free Software Guidelines:
Let's not make a bad situation worse. These two modifications would, I
think, open a large enough hole in the DFSG to drive a MS EULA through.
At
On 4/12/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 4/11/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nevertheless, neither of us would be made happy by a detailed
repeat of it on -vote. You'd remain unconvinced and I'd be
annoyed by the lost time.
Your comment,
Raul Miller wrote:
I was not convinced by this rebuttal.
Nevertheless, neither of us would be made happy by a detailed
repeat of it on -vote. You'd remain unconvinced and I'd be
annoyed by the lost time.
Furthermore, I'm not sure what issue(s) you feel references are needed
on.
The drafters'
On 4/11/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
I was not convinced by this rebuttal.
Nevertheless, neither of us would be made happy by a detailed
repeat of it on -vote. You'd remain unconvinced and I'd be
annoyed by the lost time.
Your comment, here, does not agree with
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 4/7/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I keep asking why some people claim that the FDL wasn't drafted to
prohibit all copy-control measures, as that seems to be a crucial
question in this, and nobody answered yet AFAICT.
Power switches can be used as
On 4/10/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 4/7/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I keep asking why some people claim that the FDL wasn't drafted to
prohibit all copy-control measures, as that seems to be a crucial
question in this, and nobody
On 4/7/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I keep asking why some people claim that the FDL wasn't drafted to
prohibit all copy-control measures, as that seems to be a crucial
question in this, and nobody answered yet AFAICT.
Power switches can be used as copy control measures.
If copies are
On 1916-3.820-5.730(4sf), Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[So a GR can state that pi=3,]
No.
Language, and interpretation thereof, is not an exact science. Math is.
The representation of maths is not much more exact than language
in some ways. Two half-daft observations from a
Le vendredi 07 avril 2006 à 00:20 +0200, Jacobo Tarrio a écrit :
Well, no. If the author makes that promise, we may just as well wait
until
that happens and the package is free. It's not like we've run out of
software to package :-)
Now, please re-read Manoj's email and think again
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 09:04:35AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
After the vote of GR 2006-001, we end up with an unclear situation about
the GNU Free Documentation License. While documents using this license
are considered free provided they don't use invariant sections, the DFSG
don't
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 09:04:35AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
At the end of DFSG #2, the following text should be added:
The license may restrict distribution to some kinds of media if
it is still possible to distribute the source code
After the vote of GR 2006-001, we end up with an unclear situation about
the GNU Free Documentation License. While documents using this license
are considered free provided they don't use invariant sections, the DFSG
don't contain the necessary modifications. Therefore, I'm proposing the
following
* Josselin Mouette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060406 09:05]:
After the vote of GR 2006-001, we end up with an unclear situation about
the GNU Free Documentation License. While documents using this license
are considered free provided they don't use invariant sections, the DFSG
don't contain the
* Josselin Mouette [Thu, 06 Apr 2006 09:04:35 +0200]:
While documents using this license are considered free provided they
don't use invariant sections, the DFSG don't contain the necessary
modifications.
Because none are needed. Amendment A would have been 3:1 otherwise.
--
Adeodato Simó
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006, Andreas Barth wrote:
What's that for, now? Obviously the majority (and also the secretary)
wasn't the opinion the DFSG needs to be changed. Could you please just
accept the decision being done, and can we go back to work?
Well since obviously the majority was of the
On 6 Apr 2006, Sam Hocevar stated:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006, Andreas Barth wrote:
What's that for, now? Obviously the majority (and also the
secretary) wasn't the opinion the DFSG needs to be changed. Could
you please just accept the decision being done, and can we go back
to work?
Well since
Le jeudi 06 avril 2006 à 08:07 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
Rubbish. The opinion I have seen bandied around is that the
two issues are a problem with the GFDL, and have been acknowledged as
such by the FSF, and are going to be fixed real soon now
™. Pragmatically, it does not
El jueves, 6 de abril de 2006 a las 09:04:35 +0200, Josselin Mouette escribía:
At the end of DFSG #2, the following text should be added:
The license may restrict distribution to some kinds of media if
it is still possible to distribute the source code and compiled
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At the end of DFSG #2, the following text should be added:
The license may restrict distribution to some kinds of media if
it is still possible to distribute the source code and compiled
code together on at least one
Le jeudi 06 avril 2006 à 09:50 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At the end of DFSG #2, the following text should be added:
The license may restrict distribution to some kinds of media if
it is still possible to distribute the
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
First, I disagree that such a change is necessary (if it were, the GR
itself would already include the needed changes and require 3:1
supermajority).
Second, these amendments would make this example license DFSG-free:
[...]
Indeed. Would
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le jeudi 06 avril 2006 à 09:50 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At the end of DFSG #2, the following text should be added:
The license may restrict distribution to some kinds of media if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 06.04.2006 um 19:06 schrieb Sam Hocevar:
As a special exception, the license may forbid use of
technical measures to restrict access or use of the software
itself, as long as the license author promises that such a
clause will
El jueves, 6 de abril de 2006 a las 19:06:50 +0200, Sam Hocevar escribía:
Indeed. Would such a wording be acceptable:
As a special exception, the license may forbid use of
technical measures to restrict access or use of the software
itself, as long as the license author
Le jeudi 06 avril 2006 à 20:02 +0200, Jutta Wrage a écrit :
Before you make any change to the DFSG, you'd better discuss and vote
about Accepting FDL needs/does not need a DFSG change. Vut in my
point of view thsi question was already coverd by the GR.
So a GR can state that pi=3, and if
Le jeudi 06 avril 2006 à 21:10 +0200, Jacobo Tarrio a écrit :
El jueves, 6 de abril de 2006 a las 19:06:50 +0200, Sam Hocevar escribía:
Indeed. Would such a wording be acceptable:
As a special exception, the license may forbid use of
technical measures to restrict access or
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 10:15:08PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
So a GR can state that pi=3,
No.
Language, and interpretation thereof, is not an exact science. Math is.
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
El jueves, 6 de abril de 2006 a las 19:06:50 +0200, Sam Hocevar escribía:
Indeed. Would such a wording be acceptable:
As a special exception, the license may forbid use of
technical measures to restrict access or use of the software
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 10:15:08PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
So a GR can state that pi=3,
No.
Language, and interpretation thereof, is not an exact science. Math is.
But the interpretation of licenses is something rather different from
either
El jueves, 6 de abril de 2006 a las 22:15:49 +0200, Josselin Mouette escribía:
Well, no. If the author makes that promise, we may just as well wait until
that happens and the package is free. It's not like we've run out of
software to package :-)
Now, please re-read Manoj's email and
El jueves, 6 de abril de 2006 a las 23:12:20 +0200, Sam Hocevar escribía:
Well, no. If the author makes that promise, we may just as well wait until
that happens and the package is free. It's not like we've run out of
software to package :-)
Oh. I really must have been on another
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rubbish. The opinion I have seen bandied around is that the
two issues are a problem with the GFDL, and have been acknowledged as
such by the FSF, and are going to be fixed real soon now
™. Pragmatically, it does not make sense to remove
36 matches
Mail list logo
