Hello!
On Tue, Jun 02, 1998 at 09:19:11PM +0200, joost witteveen wrote:
The document authors already can enforce a lot of things, keeping the
document free:
[...]
I want to hear valid reasons why this is not enough before I even think
about non-free documents in main!
Joost Witteveen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, that may well be true. But still the text of the GPL is clear:
you are not allowed to change it, whether you change the name of your
cahnged version or not.
You're saying that all those people who have licensed their software
under modified versions
On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Joost Witteveen wrote:
sed -e s/e/E/g /usr/doc/copyright/GPL /tmp/my-changed-gpl
I wouldn't be changing the copyright of any GPL-ed programme -- and I
don't want to change those copyrights. I just want to be allowed to
execute the above command. The text of the GPL
Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Talked myself into a corner. Someone dig me out?
Hmm, you raised some good points I hadn't thought about...
How about this quote:
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender
On Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 09:58:03PM +0200, Joost Witteveen wrote:
OK, that may well be true. But still the text of the GPL is clear: you
are not allowed to change it, whether you change the name of your cahnged
version or not.
I'll mail RMS about this and come back to this list when I get an
On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Jules Bean wrote:
Changing the GPL in your own home cannot be made illegal. Unless you have
signed a document agreeing not to - and none of us have. Distributing
modified versions of the GPL which claim to be the GPL is clearly illegal
(I hope none of you would argue
1) The document must be free but may require a change in the title for a
modified version (for example FSSTND would become Debians implementation
of the FSSTND or something without the acronym FSSTND at all).
2) Many authors don't want their work to be published out of their control.
This
Hello!
On Tue, Jun 02, 1998 at 09:19:11PM +0200, joost witteveen wrote:
The document authors already can enforce a lot of things, keeping the
document free:
[...]
I want to hear valid reasons why this is not enough before I even think
about non-free documents in main!
Uhm --
8 matches
Mail list logo
