|| On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:28:48 +0100
|| Patrick Ohnewein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
po Maybe the FSFE could buy a bulk of them, maybe even branded, or
po they but a plussy sticker on them and sell them to the fellows.
The question is how useful branding is for a device that disappears
|| On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:24:04 +0100
|| Patrick Ohnewein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
po At the end we did't have to do the porting, because they released
po the drivers already ported for the Linux 2.6 kernel. Here follows
po the communication:
That is excellent. Maybe you can post a
Anyway, this is all in theory...
And practically speaking now, if a piece of software has multiple
authors, each author can sue. You don't need the agreement of all
authors for that. So there are thousands of developers who can
actually sue when somebody infringes the copyrights
At Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:40:19 +0100,
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Anyway, this is all in theory...
And practically speaking now, if a piece of software has multiple
authors, each author can sue. You don't need the agreement of all
authors for that. So there are thousands of
FSF have released a video of the opening presentation of the GPLv3 launch:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/av/gplv3-draft1-release.ogg.torrent
And I've made a transcript:
http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html
...which I'd like to widely publicise to ensure that no one else wastes
there
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [skip much]
Ok. Then the sentence makes even less sense, since manuals are
not software, they cannot be classifed as non-free software, or
free software.
So, we agree they are not free software, but for different reasons.
To be precis, I'm
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 04:44:45PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Does or does not ftp.debian.org carry non-free software? Does or does
not ftp.gnu.org carry non-free software?
Clearly, the answer is `Yes. No'. You are jumping into the realm of
itsy bitsy semantics.
Nonsense. You're playing
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
FSF have released a video of the opening presentation of the GPLv3 launch:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/av/gplv3-draft1-release.ogg.torrent
And I've made a transcript:
http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html
...which I'd like to widely publicise to ensure that
Debian delivers on its promise: To get a 100% free software
distribution from debian, get the official distribution by download
or from any of the places listed on www.debian.org.
Then please explain what ftp.debian.org contains, I consider that a
broken promise. That you simply state
This is different, netfilter had presumable only a single
copyright holder (or a few), Harald Welte.
It has many contributors. While Harald is only suing for his
specific parts of code, on a practical level, there's enough of his
code in the core Netfilter to make it practically
A license like the GPL grants freedom to perform acts on something.
Given your definitions so far, what category of thing do you
believe a license like the GPL applies to? Software? Programs?
Data? Manuals? Some combination? Some other set? Please inform us,
so we know what you're
Now that we know what's I'm asking, can you answer the question:
why do you believe that a license restricting me from taking part
of your work that I find useful, and exercising the freedom to
modify, combine with my own work, and redistribute, is somehow a
free license?
Depends
That's why it's harmful. If it wasn't allowed by the license, it
could simply be prohibited by enforcing the license. If you don't
think the outcome (as I described in an extreme form) is harmful,
then we just have to disagree. I think it's harmful, so I don't
like the FDL.
That
None of what Alessandro described is harmful, it is explcitly
allowed by the license. You are claiming that there are problems
when there are none, it is like having people claiming that the
GPL has problems by disallowing a GPLed project being converted
into a non-free
The only person playing willynilly games is you who cannot accept
the plain truth that Debian does infact include non-free
software.
Of course it contains non-free software. Removal of FDL-only
licensed stuff was scheduled for the next release.
FDL licensed documentation isn't
On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 21:03 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
None of what Alessandro described is harmful, it is explcitly
allowed by the license. You are claiming that there are problems
when there are none, it is like having people claiming that the
GPL has problems by
Because you can't make a GPLed program non free against the authors
will.
Neither can you make a GFDLed document non-free against the authors
will/wishes...
I think it is better to simply agree to disagree about the GFDL, just
like one has to agree to disagree about BSD-like licenses vs.
On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 23:02 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Because you can't make a GPLed program non free against the authors
will.
Neither can you make a GFDLed document non-free against the authors
will/wishes...
Never claimed that, I explained that what I see problematic is that
Is it that you think FDL invariants are bad because itS effect
stopped you doing something that you might want to do, which was to
take back the odd new chapter that someone wrote who had released a
updated version of your work?
I think that the sections are infact a good thing. So I
19 matches
Mail list logo
