Re: Header fields and followup address
* Ben Finney: > Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> PS: What's wrong with using a Mail-Followup-To: header? > > (That's “header field”. Remember, folks: an email message has, as > specified in RFC 2822, exactly *one* header, consisting of multiple > fields.) Oh, this belongs to -curiosa because 1) RFC 822 actually uses "headers" as a shorthand for "header fields", 2) the construction field name + "header" and the phrase "RFC 822 header" referring to a header field are used in several RFCs (1327, 1505, 2156, 2298, 2919, 3282, 3297, 3458, just to name a few), so it can hardly be considered ungrammatical as far as the English language is concerned, > I can see two reasons: > > It's non-standard. It is not one of the standard header fields, so its > name should start with ‘X-’, and its implementation is user-defined in > the absense of a standard. and 3) RFC 2822 abolished X- extension headers. Oops. > The poorly-written document proposing it > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98dec/I-D/draft-ietf-drums-mail-followup-to-00.txt> > failed to pass, and expired in 1998, so it's unlikely it will ever > *be* standard. Your message contains several other non-standard headers. The Debian list software adds several more. > It's essentially obsolete, at least for the purpose of mailing lists, > since RFC 2369 fields that allow the “reply to list” function are > deployed in essentially every mailing list manager. Let's agitate to > fix the “reply to list” functionality where we find it lacking (I'm > looking at you, Thunderbird) before we agitate for non-standard field > implementations. The RFC 2369 headers don't work with cross-posting. Mail-Followup-To does. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Public Domain for Germans
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Why have the free license as fallback? > I advise you to simplify: Work *with* the fact that you've got copyright, > and license the work accordingly. After all this seems to be the best, although I like the Idea to give up copyright. So do I. I encourage both of us to continue to agitate for a change in law in our nations and worldwide so that copyright is *not* the difficult-to-eradicate default. Just don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Just as Europe doesn't have the concept of "fair use", the US doesn't have the concept of "moral rights". I know some people would hate to be associated with software they'd written (I didn't want my name in credits for some software I wrote, but that was largely because, imho, I was severely hampered in doing the job properly by management dictat), but the point of "moral rights" is to prevent *you* from removing *my* name from *my* work. In other words, it is the (imho reasonable) European way of preventing you from falsely passing off my work as yours. Much as you might disagree with HOW they've done it, you can't reasonably object to WHY they've done it. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU Free Documentation License v1.3
Hello. If the consensus is that GFDL 1.3 is as DFSG-compliant as it 1.2 was, then I would like to include it in common-licenses in base-files for lenny (in addition to 1.2, that is) as a "bonus". Reasons: * The symlink GFDL is supposed to point to the latest version available. * Works under GFDL-1.2 (not "1.2 or newer") should not refer to the symlink but to the versioned license "GFDL-1.2". * It will make copyright-file compliance easier for packages in backports. No need to update base-files in backports.org just to add a new license as it happened in etch. So, if you have a strong reason why this should not be done, please speak now. Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU Free Documentation License v1.3
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:01 PM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My web browser is an IceWeasel with NoScript I guess that would be the problem. Unfortunately Web 2.0 exists and seems to be here to stay. I would guess that letting the gplv3 site run JavaScript would fix your issues. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU Free Documentation License v1.3
"Paul Wise" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > If your web browser cannot add comments for some reason (sounds pretty > broken if it cannot), you might want to use the contact form: [...] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] looks like the appropriate email address for > addressing your browser issues and [EMAIL PROTECTED] looks like the > appropriate email address to address license comments to. My web browser is an IceWeasel with NoScript, so I'm inclined to think the website is broken rather than the browser. I've been in touch with [EMAIL PROTECTED] for over two years about these bugs that reappear as fast as they are fixed. For example, http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?filename=gfdl-draft-1&Query= 'CF.NoteUrl' LIKE 'gfdl-draft-1' &Rows=&StartAt=1&Order=DESC displays (albeit with oddities like "showing newest 1-0") but how does one reach that address? If I start at http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gfdl-draft-1.html then click "search" and then the "Search" button, it responds:- Not Found The requested URL /comments/readsay.html was not found on this server. Apache/1.3.33 Server at zaphod.gnu.org Port 80 (URL is http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/readsay.html?Query=&Order=DESC&OrderBy=id&Rows=) I'll contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] to ask about the FDL committees. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Public Domain for Germans
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (05/11/2008): > You can't make something PD in Germany, that just doesn't work with > our laws. > > You should also NOT create new licenses / new words for things, that > makes it just unneccessarily complex, for example if people want to > bundle stuff together. Even if the intention is to give others full > rights to do whatever they want to do with it. Use existing things, > the world has more than enough of it. WTFPL (http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/) to the rescue? Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
