The two documents are incompatible, and the DFSG is very laxist and do
not protects completely freedom. FSDG protects freedoms : it resolves
issues : proprietary software is totally banned, patents are prohibited,
trademarks limited, etc.
GFDL is free, because Invariant Sections are free if used
On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 12:05:21 +0200
Solal solal.rast...@me.com wrote:
The two documents are incompatible, and the DFSG is very laxist and do
not protects completely freedom. FSDG protects freedoms : it resolves
issues : proprietary software is totally banned, patents are prohibited,
trademarks
The two documents are incompatible, and the DFSG is very laxist and do
not protects completely freedom. FSDG protects freedoms : it resolves
issues : proprietary software is totally banned, patents are prohibited,
trademarks limited, etc.
GFDL is free, because Invariant Sections are free if
On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 14:16:31 +0200
Solal solal.rast...@me.com wrote:
I see that you don't like the DFSG. But as already has been said: We
are Debian and follow our own contract and not a contact of some other
project/company.
I think if you have problems with the DFSG you should propose
On 27 April 2014 11:05, Solal solal.rast...@me.com wrote:
The two documents are incompatible, and the DFSG is very laxist and do
not protects completely freedom. FSDG protects freedoms : it resolves
issues : proprietary software is totally banned, patents are prohibited,
trademarks limited,
On 27 April 2014 13:16, Solal solal.rast...@me.com wrote:
The two documents are incompatible, and the DFSG is very laxist and do
not protects completely freedom. FSDG protects freedoms : it resolves
issues : proprietary software is totally banned, patents are prohibited,
trademarks limited,
On 25 Apr 2014 15:15, Solal solal.rast...@me.com wrote:
Why not just take the Free Software Definition[0] instead lose a lot of
time in specific guidelines.
I think use the Free System Distribution Guidelines published by the
FSF[1] is the best way. Use the FSDG instead of the DFSG will :
Why not just take the Free Software Definition[0] instead lose a lot of
time in specific guidelines.
I think use the Free System Distribution Guidelines published by the
FSF[1] is the best way. Use the FSDG instead of the DFSG will :
-Be more efficient instead of lose a lot of time in the DFSG.
Quoting Solal (2014-04-25 15:14:49)
Why not just take the Free Software Definition[0] instead lose a lot
of time in specific guidelines.
I think use the Free System Distribution Guidelines published by the
FSF[1] is the best way. Use the FSDG instead of the DFSG will :
-Be more efficient
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:14:49 +0200
Solal solal.rast...@me.com wrote:
Why not just take the Free Software Definition[0] instead lose a lot of
time in specific guidelines.
I think use the Free System Distribution Guidelines published by the
FSF[1] is the best way. Use the FSDG instead of the
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Sven Bartscher wrote:
nonfree [...], which we don't want to drop (as far as I know).
Some Debian members definitely wanted to drop it in 2004, not sure
about today though.
https://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002
11 matches
Mail list logo