--- Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] からのメッセ
ージ：
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 01:48:47AM -0500, Branden
Robinson wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 01:12:10PM -0500, Steve
Langasek wrote:
There are already libel and slander laws to
prevent damaging a
person's reputation through falsehoods.
--- Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] から
のメッセージ：
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
As I already explained several days ago, the right
to prevent
modifications does NOT exist for SOFTWARE.
Author's rights on SOFTWARE
are quite limited, even in Europe.
Moral rights are excluded for
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 03:06:18PM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
(Incidentally, copyright licenses are always considered invariant :)
Only as applied to a given work. Copyright protection need not be
asserted in the license document itself, and in fact does not appear to
be in older, simple
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:01:51AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
I happen to agree here. If the documentation is non-free, let's drop it
to non-free. Having an outdated and/or buggy documentation is worse than
having no documentation at all.
I disagree. I often pull my paper GNU manuals off
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 05:35:43PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Branden Robinson wrote:
[... mail rearranged...]
I don't see any flagrant DFSG violations in the above license, but I
think some requests for clarification might be a good idea.
So you're using BUG to mean this should probably be
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 01:41:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
BECAUSE THE CONTENT OF THE WORK IS FREELY MODIFIABLE BY ALL THIRD
PARTIES, THERE IS NO WARRANTY THAT ANY REPRESENTATIONS MADE WITH IN ARE
MADE BY, ON BEHALF OF, OR WITH THE CONSENT OF THE AUTHOR(S) OR COPYRIGHT
HOLDER(S). ANY
Le mer 14/05/2003 à 08:22, Branden Robinson a écrit :
I disagree. I often pull my paper GNU manuals off the shelf rather than
consult the on-line documentation. For most things I need to
accomplish, say with GNU Awk, the old paper manual is sufficiently
accurate and helpful.
Then maybe it
On Tue, 13 May 2003, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
This approach means that authors will be forced to accept
any kind of modifications, even those that directly go against
their artistic wishes. The US system thinks this is OK since
you got paid. The European system thinks this is
On 13 May 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
The funny thing is that none, or only a tiny portion of, the
non-free aspects of the GFDL would be of any aid to hardcopy
publishers.
[excellent examples of why GFDL is bad for publishers]
No, the we want to be nice to publishers theory is at best
a
On Tue, 13 May 2003, [iso-8859-15] J?r?me Marant wrote:
1) Are works under the GFDL with invariant sections free?
It depends on 2) If documentation is software then no.
It also depends on your definition of 'free', of course. What's yours?
2) Can Debian usefully distinguish
--- James Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] からのメッセー
ジ：
--- Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
から
のメッセージ：
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
As I already explained several days ago, the
right
to prevent
modifications does NOT exist for SOFTWARE.
Moral rights are excluded for software?
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If it's part of emacs, then it's very clearly non-free software and the
whole thing should be removed from Debian (unless the FSF doesn't have to
follow everyone else's definition of freedom).
The whole
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, to sum up: I don't care what RMS may or may not be doing at this
very moment. I don't care about your opinions towards GNU. The only
thing I care about is whether the GNU Emacs documentation is covered by
a non-Free license or a Free license.
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
He believes his invariant sections are an important soapbox for his free
software philosophies. In an apparent contradiction, he feels it's a
small price to pay
=?iso-8859-15?q?J=E9r=F4me?= Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not asking Debian to include components in main. Those components
are already in main. I'm asking to keep in main GNU documentations.
You're asking us to keep non-Free documentation in
Hello,
I am trying to package caml-light which comes with the attached licence.
My understanding of it is that it is not distributable by debian, since
it allow distribution of modified works only as pristine source +
patches, not binaries, and i will be going to discuss this with the
upstream
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
En réponse à David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
No, you'd have to attest that you've rewritten an existing guide
just because the license wasn't free. I'm dealing with guides
(hundreds of pages), not 5 pages HOWTOs or such.
*shrug*,
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am trying to package caml-light which comes with the attached licence.
My understanding of it is that it is not distributable by debian, since
it allow distribution of modified works only as pristine source +
patches, not binaries, and i will be going to
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am trying to package caml-light which comes with the attached licence.
A brief addendum to my previous reply: the non-free package qmail-src
might be a good model to follow as qmail has a similar restriction in
its licence.
Edmund
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Matthew Palmer wrote:
There is some stuff - specifications, standards, effectively electronic
copies of what would otherwise be 'standalone' documentation, which
doesn't have to be really free (for want of a better term) in order
for it to be truly useful to those who
On Wed, 14 May 2003 16:40:13 +0200 (CEST)
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems obvious to you that documentation is software. It is
not to me. Simply.
That's fine, but does that mean that you think it's okay for them to
be
non-Free in some form or another? (Either by
En réponse à Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 13 May 2003, [iso-8859-15] Jérôme Marant wrote:
1) Are works under the GFDL with invariant sections free?
It depends on 2) If documentation is software then no.
It also depends on your definition of 'free', of course. What's
An additional question, is this the actual license? Or is it an
english translation of the actual license? [Looks like it was written
by a non-english common law attorney.]
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
My understanding of it is that it is not distributable by debian,
since it allow
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Documentation relating to software needs to be really free, in order
that we can manipulate it in far more interesting ways (such as
refcarding it, embedding it as online help, or updating it because
of advances in the program it documents). This is
Scripsit Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exclude from publisher in all these cases a hypothetical zealous
author who is his own publisher and wants to make it inconvenient
for other people to publish hardcopies that compete with his own - he
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?iso-8859-15?q?J=E9r=F4me?= Marant)
Err, it is a regression isn't it? I've always considered it as part
of Emacs, and even its online help. It has always worked like that.
If it is part of Emacs, then the whole thing cannot be distributed
even in non-free. The
Scripsit Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Again, moving a program to non-free will motivate people to
write a free equivalent. But I can bet such thing is unlikely
to often happen with documentation.
The point of moving non-free documentation to non-free is not to
motivate people to write free
Scripsit Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 13 May 2003, [iso-8859-15] Jérôme Marant wrote:
1) Are works under the GFDL with invariant sections free?
It also depends on your definition of 'free', of course. What's
yours?
What's the definition of free documentation?
There is no
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 09:21:57AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mer 14/05/2003 à 08:22, Branden Robinson a écrit :
I disagree. I often pull my paper GNU manuals off the shelf rather than
consult the on-line documentation. For most things I need to
accomplish, say with GNU Awk, the
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Documentation relating to software needs to be really free, in order
that we can manipulate it in far more interesting ways (such as
refcarding it, embedding it as online help, or updating it because
of
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:32:49PM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You've listed some interesting kinds of restrictions.
Maybe some would be acceptable for documentation under certain
circumstances, out of DFSG of course.
Have any examples other than
If it's part of emacs, then it's very clearly non-free software
and the whole thing should be removed from Debian (unless the
FSF doesn't have to follow everyone else's definition of
freedom).
The whole thing? Emacs itself?
Yup.
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Peter S
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No you don't care: you don't use Emacs.
I use Emacs, but if part of Emacs has become not free software, Debian
must not hesitate to act to fix it. It's a shame and massively annoying,
but it's consistent with what Debian says in the social contract. Worst
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
I don't agree. Just take out the offending part.
The GFDL does not allow us to take out the offending part - it contains
sections which are not allowed to be removed.
I think this is want he meant.
If
Branden Robinson wrote:
It's annoying, but does not really make it not free, I hope. Remember
that we dealt with the FSF snail mail address changing; said address is
in the GPL and is in copyright statements that point to the GPL. Many
licenses and statements of copyright contain
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Mark Rafn wrote:
There is some stuff - specifications, standards, effectively electronic
copies of what would otherwise be 'standalone' documentation, which
doesn't have to be really free (for want of a better term) in order
for it to be truly useful to those who
On Wed, 14 May 2003, [ISO-8859-1] J?r?me Marant wrote:
En r?ponse ? Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 13 May 2003, [iso-8859-15] J?r?me Marant wrote:
1) Are works under the GFDL with invariant sections free?
It depends on 2) If documentation is software then no.
It
37 matches
Mail list logo
