Manoj Srivastava dijo [Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 03:42:02PM -0500]:
Hi folks,
It's been a few days since my last message. I have added a print
style sheet, so one can use a free Browser (mozilla) to print the
position statement. I have added a couple of new examples, an
inchoate software
Hi folks,
It's been a few days since my last message. I have added a print
style sheet, so one can use a free Browser (mozilla) to print the
position statement. I have added a couple of new examples, an
inchoate software documentation freedoms list, and I have started an
outline of the
Hi,
I have updated the position summary page with responses from
RMS to some of the concerns (thanks to Bob Hilliard for bringing them
to my attention), added a nascent Overview section (which currently
only has links deeper into the page), and general spell check and a
few
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Beginning in 2001, concerns regarding the compatibility of the
GNU Free Documentation License with the Debian Free Software
Guidelines came to the attention of the debian-legal mailing list.
[...]
Unfortunately, most of this discussion
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:07:04 +0200, Andreas Metzler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for your patience. The URL of the document is:
URL:http://people.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
Great work. But if this is supposed to be read by
Hi folks,
Beginning in 2001, concerns regarding the compatibility of the
GNU Free Documentation License with the Debian Free Software
Guidelines came to the attention of the debian-legal mailing list.
In early 2002, the Free Software Foundation announced that it
would
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
into the common reference area?
Who should I talk to about this?
Please check
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:46:23AM -0700, Martin Quinson wrote:
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
into the common
moving things into an
area designated for common, free, licenses, don't you think?
Well, if you insist ;-)
Actually, on more reflection, (asside from whether or not the GNU Free
Documentation License is Free) the whole purpose of the common license
area was to reduce the file space consumed
, that is often irrelevant.
4. If we still have no free documentation license. I'm not sure how we
can make demands for good documentation.
As usual, this issue has been beaten to death on a list you don't read.
Please review the archives of debian-legal for the past several months
Dale Scheetz wrote:
So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they
contain clauses that can be used, and will be considered
non-free.
Your objection is true of the OPL, but RMS argues
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00017.html
that that is not true
begin Dale Scheetz quotation:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
As usual, this issue has been beaten to death on a list you don't read.
Please review the archives of debian-legal for the past several months.
In a nutshell:
1) The current version of the GNU FDL is
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:12:06PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses
that can be used, and will be considered non-free.
It is software that is or is not DFSG-free, not licenses.
The simple fact is, a work licensed under version
Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
the license are not exercised. Using this language, any proprietary
license becomes free as long as none of the proprietary sections are
inforced by the author...
The license is
Le lun 08/04/2002 à 19:12, Dale Scheetz a écrit :
So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain
clauses that can be used, and will be considered non-free.
I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
the license are not exercised. Using this
This one time, at band camp, Dale Scheetz wrote:
So, in fact, both of these licenses are non-free, as they contain clauses
that can be used, and will be considered non-free.
I find it ... foolish to declare a license to be free IFF some clauses of
the license are not exercised. Using this
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 02:50:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
A work licensed under GNU FDL, version 1.1, which consists entirely of
Invariant Sections either has no license or is wholly unmodifiable.
Most people on debian-legal agree that this renders the work DFSG-free.
Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 05:06, Joseph Carter ha scritto:
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
into the common
On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Dale == Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dale There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of
Dale the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put
Dale a copy of this license into the common reference area
On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
into the common reference area
Dale == Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dale On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Dale == Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dale There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of
Dale the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put
Dale a copy
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 03:00:37PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
into the common reference area?
Who should I talk to about
have no free documentation license. I'm not sure how we
can make demands for good documentation.
As usual, this issue has been beaten to death on a list you don't read.
Please review the archives of debian-legal for the past several months.
In a nutshell:
1) The current version of the GNU FDL
There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
into the common reference area?
Who should I talk to about this?
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
into the common reference area?
No, it would be premature. There's a draft
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 05:57:43PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of the GNU Free
Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put a copy of this license
into the common reference area?
Who should I talk to about this?
Why put
Dale == Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dale There are an ever growing number of packages that make use of
Dale the GNU Free Documentation License. Isn't it about time to put
Dale a copy of this license into the common reference area?
Depends. Would you say that at least 1
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 08:30:08PM -0400, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
I think we have a problem here. The DFSG clearly does not apply to
documentation, just like the GPL. As the FSF created a new license, we need
to create guidelines to what we consider a free documentation, as in free
speech..
Personally, I have to wonder if this type of thing is DFSG-free:
I think we have a problem here. The DFSG clearly does not apply to
documentation, just like the GPL. As the FSF created a new license, we need
to create guidelines to what we consider a free documentation, as in free
speech.. =)
Should this new license be included in base-files?
--
Jordi Mallach Pérez || [EMAIL PROTECTED] || Rediscovering Freedom,
ka Oskuro in RL-MUD || [EMAIL PROTECTED]|| Using Debian GNU/Linux
http://sindominio.net GnuPG public information: pub 1024D/917A225E
telnet pusa.uv.es 23
Jordi wrote:
Should this new license be included in base-files?
That seems very premature. Best wait until
1) It is a common-license
2) debian-legal has vetted it
Personally, I have to wonder if this type of thing is DFSG-free:
If you publish printed copies of the Document numbering more
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:54:20AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
Jordi wrote:
Should this new license be included in base-files?
That seems very premature. Best wait until
1) It is a common-license
2) debian-legal has vetted it
Personally, I have to wonder if this type of thing is
32 matches
Mail list logo
