Re: existing FDL documentation won't hurt

2001-11-26 Thread Bernd Warken
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 06:54:12PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 11:59:47PM +0100, Bernd Warken wrote: Some time ago, there was a discussion to make documents under the GNU Free Documentation License (FDL) unfree for Debian. Some time ago, there was an actual

Re: existing FDL documentation won't hurt

2001-11-26 Thread Sunnanvind
-Original Message- From: Bernd Warken [EMAIL PROTECTED] So there should be a note in the Debian wekkly news to make things clear. That's what most people read. There was a link.

Re: PROPOSED: interpretive guidelines regarding DFSG 3, modifiability, and invariant text

2001-11-26 Thread Sunnanvind Fenderson
I don't see why. It is pretty obvious to me that the existing DFSG provides no exceptions to clause 3. Ah, so it wasn't a misunderstanding after all. I wasn't confused. I think it's pretty obvious that there is at least some confusion on this issue. I've seen at least three confused people

Re: existing FDL documentation won't hurt

2001-11-26 Thread Bernd Warken
On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 03:45:59PM +, Sunnanvind wrote: -Original Message- From: Bernd Warken [EMAIL PROTECTED] So there should be a note in the Debian wekkly news to make things clear. That's what most people read. There was a link. Yes, but unfortunately, the links

Re: PROPOSED: interpretive guidelines regarding DFSG 3, modifiability, and invariant text

2001-11-26 Thread Richard Stallman
Such material may not exceed 16 binary kilobytes (16,384 bytes) when viewed in plain-text form (treating all adjacent white space characters as one byte). GNU Emacs comes with more than 16k of such material. Much more. And that is not even counting the material that is part of the