dom wrote:
>
> It seems pixabay has now changed its license - it used to be CC0
>
> Is the new license a Debian compatible "free" license - i.e. something
> Debian would recognise as following the Debian Free Software
> Guidelines ?
>
> https://pixabay.com/en/servi
It seems pixabay has now changed its license - it used to be CC0
Is the new license a Debian compatible "free" license - i.e. something
Debian would recognise as following the Debian Free Software
Guidelines ?
https://pixabay.com/en/service/terms/#license
Reproduced the license from
On 13/06/15 06:36, Walter Landry wrote:
Ángel Gonzálezkeis...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/06/15 23:22, Walter Landry wrote:
I would strongly disagree here. Requiring documentation of any sort
in addition to the source code is a big step. This is not a minor
thing.
I don't think requiring that
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:41:07 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:48:19PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
Hello debian-legal regulars,
I would need to ask your consensus opinion on the non-freeness of the
Academic Free License (AFL) v3.0.
Hi Francesco,
I think
On 13/06/15 15:45, Francesco Poli wrote:
As also noted by Walter Landry, there's a crucial difference w.r.t.
Apache v2: the latter license requires to preserve attribution notices
within NOTICE files; the AFL v3.0 requires instead to preserve *any*
descriptive text identified as an Attribution
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:45:54 +0100 Simon McVittie wrote:
On 13/06/15 15:45, Francesco Poli wrote:
As also noted by Walter Landry, there's a crucial difference w.r.t.
Apache v2: the latter license requires to preserve attribution notices
within NOTICE files; the AFL v3.0 requires instead to
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
Here are a few comments about the license.
- point 3) is poorly worded, but assuming it is well-intented, it is Free.
I would strongly disagree here. Requiring documentation of any sort
in addition to the source code is a big step. This is not a
Ángel González keis...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/06/15 23:22, Walter Landry wrote:
Charles Plessyple...@debian.org wrote:
Here are a few comments about the license.
- point 3) is poorly worded, but assuming it is well-intented, it is
- Free.
I would strongly disagree here. Requiring
On 12/06/15 23:22, Walter Landry wrote:
Charles Plessyple...@debian.org wrote:
Here are a few comments about the license.
- point 3) is poorly worded, but assuming it is well-intented, it is Free.
I would strongly disagree here. Requiring documentation of any sort
in addition to the
Hello debian-legal regulars,
I would need to ask your consensus opinion on the non-freeness of the
Academic Free License (AFL) v3.0.
My personal conclusion is that this license includes non-free
restrictions and is also problematic with respect to Debian mirror
infrastructure.
My own analysis [1
Le Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:48:19PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
Hello debian-legal regulars,
I would need to ask your consensus opinion on the non-freeness of the
Academic Free License (AFL) v3.0.
Hi Francesco,
I think that there is a broad consensus to accept the AFL as Free license
in a DFSG-free
manner, or remove the non-free file from the package).
Here's the complete text of the license, as quoted in the subversion
package debian/copyright file [1].
My personal comments will follow shortly.
Academic Free License (AFL) v. 3.0
This Academic Free License (the License
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:12:08 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
My personal comments will follow shortly.
My own personal analysis of this license is included below.
Academic Free License (AFL) v. 3.0
[...]
3) Grant of Source Code License. The term Source Code means the
preferred form
Frank Gevaerts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
When I packaged foobillard 3.0a, I correctly removed the included
non-free larabie ttf fonts, but I accidentally forgot to remove the
associated README.FONTS file, which contains the license for these
fonts. Is this
Hi,
When I packaged foobillard 3.0a, I correctly removed the included
non-free larabie ttf fonts, but I accidentally forgot to remove the
associated README.FONTS file, which contains the license for these
fonts. Is this considered serious enough to warrant a new .orig
tarball? I do not expect a
[debian-legal, how do other packages handle the md5 stuff?]
Joe Wreschnig writes:
Package: python
Severity: serious
The license for the Python profiler[0] does not allow it to be copied or
modified independently of other Python programs. This is a violation of
DFSG #3 (and also is just
doko wrote:
[debian-legal, how do other packages handle the md5 stuff?]
Joe Wreschnig writes:
Howeer, /usr/share/doc/python2.4/copyright does not include this
license. In fact, almost none of the licenses at
http://www.python.org/doc/current/lib/node822.html are included. At
least
Package: python
Severity: serious
The license for the Python profiler[0] does not allow it to be copied or
modified independently of other Python programs. This is a violation of
DFSG #3 (and also is just stupid). This bug affects likely every version
of Python in Debian (and that ever was in
So can you say why
it is a problem with my license, and not with Apache's and PHP's?
Nobody is going to say that, because we think it's a problem with all those
licenses.
It was a problem with Apache's license. It was not noticed for a long time.
Eventually it was noticed, and it was *fixed*
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 12:15:50AM +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
This clause is perfectly acceptable as a part of the Apache 1.1 license.
As the Apache 1.1 license is OSI certified, and has certainly been used
by software distributed as a part of
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
I am totally fine if people put it in distributions as php4-xdebug.
AFAIK freebsd's ports already have this, and so will Mandrake in the
forseeable feature. It would be silly of me to prohibit this, and this
is what IMO the license never intended
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
This is much broader. For example, I cannot write a derivative called
Brian's Xdebug or Xdebug manual or even A third-party manual for
Xdebug.
The manual is no problem, that's not a derived product.
It could very well be a derivative; a manual
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
The trouble, I think, is that derived product has a legal meaning
(in the context of copyright) contrary to your common-sense
interpretation. Anything other than an exact copy of the source code
you distribute (or, if you distribute binaries,
Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
This is much broader. For example, I cannot write a derivative called
Brian's Xdebug or Xdebug manual or even A third-party manual for
Xdebug.
The manual is no problem, that's not a derived product.
It
Scripsit Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
Debian packages frequently contain changes from the upstream
versions. (These patches are generally sent upstream, but the
Debian maintainer will often apply a patch without waiting for a
new upstream
The trouble, I think, is that derived product has a legal meaning
(in the context of copyright) contrary to your common-sense
interpretation. Anything other than an exact copy of the source code
you distribute (or, if you distribute binaries, exact copies of them)
-- even an unpatched
me Universal Commercial Code
s/Universal/Uniform/ (whoops)
This and other Model Acts, on which a lot of state laws in the US are
based, may be found at http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/ulc.htm .
Cheers,
- Michael
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 11:10:11AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
This is much broader. For example, I cannot write a derivative called
Brian's Xdebug or Xdebug manual or even A third-party manual for
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 11:10:11AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
This is much broader. For example, I cannot write a derivative called
Brian's Xdebug or Xdebug
An idea parallel to fair use is present in the Berne Convention,
under the name fair practice:
Article 10 (1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work
which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided
that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Jan Minar wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 09:06:45PM +0100, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Jan Minar wrote:
From the PHP license (http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt):
4. Products derived from this software may not be called PHP, nor
may PHP appear
Those debian people should really think of getting more software
engineers, not managers and laywers to help out. This would help the
distro more.
And their absurd abusive semantics of the word free is also
irritating. Do they really think that BSD is more non-free than GPL or
Artistic?
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Alexander Schmehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Jan Minar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [041219 20:04]:
AFAICT, the only non-free section is:
quote href=http://www.xdebug.org/license.php;
4. Products derived from this software may
Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Excluding a singleton name is fine. I'd even go so far as to say any
excluding any countable set is fine. Excluding an uncountable class of
names is not.
First of all, let me first say that I agree that DFSG4 can lead to
permitting rather
Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If that's the case, why didn't you rename the Apache and PHP packages?
If you want to mangle Xdebug's name in a package name, so should it be
done for PHP and Apache, as it's the same license.
Absolutely correct; serious bugs should be filed against those
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
[..] The license may require derived works to carry a different name or
version number from the original software. [..]
=
I didn't looked at the rest of the license, but I don't think this
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If that's the case, why didn't you rename the Apache and PHP packages?
If you want to mangle Xdebug's name in a package name, so should it be
done for PHP and Apache, as it's the same license.
Absolutely
Derick -
The trouble, I think, is that derived product has a legal meaning
(in the context of copyright) contrary to your common-sense
interpretation. Anything other than an exact copy of the source code
you distribute (or, if you distribute binaries, exact copies of them)
-- even an unpatched
On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 08:34:49PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Find something that allows me to exclude people from using Xdebug+ or
RealXdebug for names of derived products. That is exactly what I mean
with this clause. I don't see why this should render something non-free.
The source is
Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
Package: php4-xdbg
Description: debugging aid for PHP scripts, based on xdebug
Xdbg is a debugging aid for PHP scripts. It provides various debug
information about your script...
[further description]
.
The upstream
Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
[..] The license may require derived works to carry a different name or
version number from the original software. [..]
=
I didn't looked at the rest of the license, but I don't
Hi.
I've been referred to xdebug on #postgresql @ freenode, but I will try
to avoid it because:
(1) It's not in Debian
(2) The license is non-free
Although the license is non-free as in annoying more then in
philosophical,
(3) It's not even in the Debian's non-free section
AFAICT, the only
L.S.,
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Jan Minar wrote:
AFAICT, the only non-free section is:
quote href=http://www.xdebug.org/license.php;
4. Products derived from this software may not be called Xdebug, nor
may Xdebug appear in their name, without prior written permission from
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi!
* Jan Minar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [041219 20:04]:
AFAICT, the only non-free section is:
quote href=http://www.xdebug.org/license.php;
4. Products derived from this software may not be called Xdebug, nor
may Xdebug appear in their name, without prior written permission from
[EMAIL
Alexander Schmehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi!
* Jan Minar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [041219 20:04]:
AFAICT, the only non-free section is:
quote href=http://www.xdebug.org/license.php;
4. Products derived from this software may not be called Xdebug, nor
may Xdebug appear in their name, without
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 11:38:16PM +0100, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
* Jan Minar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [041219 20:04]:
AFAICT, the only non-free section is:
quote href=http://www.xdebug.org/license.php;
4. Products derived from this software may not be called Xdebug, nor
may Xdebug appear
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 08:27:31PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Excluding a singleton name is fine. I'd even go so far as to say any
excluding any countable set is fine. Excluding an uncountable class of
names is not.
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00023.html for a
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Alexander Schmehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Jan Minar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [041219 20:04]:
AFAICT, the only non-free section is:
quote href=http://www.xdebug.org/license.php;
4. Products derived from this software may not be called Xdebug, nor
may Xdebug appear in
Package: apt-howto
Version: 1.7.7-3
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.2.1
The Debian documentation policy (http://www.debian.org/doc/docpolicy) reads:
| All manuals of the Debian Documentation Project (DDP) will be released
| under DFSG-compliant licenses
On the other hand the APT HOWTO
and non-GPL. However, this non-free license
still *arises* as the result of a failed attempt to apply the GPL.
I might perhaps have phrased it more stringently, but I preferred
trying to avoid confusing the maintainer with too pedantic
distinctions that are not really necessary for understanding
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 03:04:09PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
The notice in the LICENSE file specifies a non-free license. GPL is
usually free, but when, as here, it is applied only under the
condition that one links with (a certain version of Qt) it is not
free. The restriction means
Package: kernel-source-2.4.25
Version: 2.4.25-1
Severity: serious
The file drivers/usb/emi26_fw.h carry the license below:
/*
* This firmware is for the Emagic EMI 2|6 Audio Interface
*
* The firmware contained herein is Copyright (c) 1999-2002 Emagic
* as an unpublished work. This notice
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004, Bill Allombert wrote:
The file drivers/usb/emi26_fw.h carry the license below:
/*
* This firmware is for the Emagic EMI 2|6 Audio Interface
*
* The firmware contained herein is Copyright (c) 1999-2002 Emagic
* as an unpublished work. This notice does not imply
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 05:41:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
We've already had this survey. Can you perhaps say why you are taking
yet another, why you think the conclusions might be different, and
what you think the survey is intended to show?
I believe he was responding to the
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 04:39:05PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
IMHO This is _not_ appropriate for debian-devel-announce. It's not a soapbox,
please keep your messages purely informational in the future. (If I haven't
critizied others for doing the same thing, sorry. Maybe it was because your's
Branden Robinson wrote:
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 10:47:45PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-08-28 21:51:41 +0100 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Op do 28-08-2003, om 20:02 schreef MJ Ray:
Ye gods! Who knew that software was such a contentious word?
Agreed. Perhaps we should...
... Oh, wait. I already suggested
On 2003-08-30 23:27:44 +0100 Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...and I said yes, but you should do it properly and define all the
words,
just to be on the safe side. Got anything new to say, or is the day
stuck
again?
If someone proposes to go out for a walk because it's such a
CC me on replies. Thanks.
Branden Robinson writes...
A little over one week ago, I posted a survey[1] to the debian-legal
mailing list, requesting the opinion of subscribers regarding one of a
pair of related questions that have been asked with increasing frequency
on that list, and in a few
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2003-08-29 05:40:37 +0100 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Here are the results of the survey.
possible non-
developers developers developers
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:17:46PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Thursday, Aug 21, 2003, at 01:09 US/Eastern, Branden Robinson wrote:
[why to the mailing list...?]
So people can verify the results for themselves, and will be less likely
to accuse me of falsifying the results.
Or so I
On 2003-08-29 14:57:26 +0100 Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is only meaningful if the sample is unbiased.
Oh, that's a bit strong. It would still have some meaning, just not
one that's useful ;-) The question is: is it an unbiased sample of
those who would vote in a GR on this
On 2003-08-29 15:36:42 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are several issues.
- This survey was made during aout, where more than usually people can
be on vacation -- yeah, I was :)
I was on holiday for some of August too. I suspect that is
uncorrelated with views on FDL.
I conclude that there is a probability of less than 1 in 1000 that the
above total vote for option 1 would have been obtained by pure chance
if there was no majority for option 1 over all others.
This is only meaningful if the sample is unbiased. Since the survey
was announced on
On 2003-08-29 05:40:37 +0100 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Here are the results of the survey.
possible non-
developers developers developers
On 2003-08-29 16:09:45 +0100 MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] I can't see either happening.
Should have read either change. Sorry to point it out, but there
are some picky people in this thread.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le ven 29/08/2003 ? 10:42, Fedor Zuev a ?crit :
Of course. You did not know? It is a completely your
problem.
You probably wanted to say something, but the following explains
all:
You are not aware?
Hey, I know you! You are Jean-Claude Van
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Joe Wreschnig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030828 19:50]:
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 03:55, Andreas Barth wrote:
So, as a ad-hoc statement it seems to me that the only way in the
spirit of the Social Contract is to accept GFDL-docu if certain
restrictions are
Op do 28-08-2003, om 20:02 schreef MJ Ray:
Ye gods! Who knew that software was such a contentious word?
Agreed. Perhaps we should...
... Oh, wait. I already suggested we'd do so.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie --
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I conclude that there is a probability of less than 1 in 1000 that the
above total vote for option 1 would have been obtained by pure chance
if there was no majority for option 1 over all others.
This is only meaningful if the sample is
Scripsit Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- It's represent only the point of view of people at debian-legal
while the scope of the issue is way more general than that.
The survey was announced in DWN before the polling booth closed.
During the last year, DWN has ran several stories about the
Le ven 29/08/2003 à 16:36, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
- This survey was made during aout, where more than usually people can
be on vacation -- yeah, I was :)
Yeah, so it deprived us of your stupid arguments.
What a shame.
- It's represent only the point of view of people at debian-legal
A little over one week ago, I posted a survey[1] to the debian-legal
mailing list, requesting the opinion of subscribers regarding one of a
pair of related questions that have been asked with increasing frequency
on that list, and in a few other forums around the Internet.
Does the GNU Free
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Le ven 29/08/2003 à 10:42, Fedor Zuev a écrit :
Of course. You did not know? It is a completely your
problem.
You probably wanted to say something, but the following explains all:
You are not aware?
Hey, I know you! You are
* Joe Wreschnig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030828 19:50]:
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 03:55, Andreas Barth wrote:
So, as a ad-hoc statement it seems to me that the only way in the
spirit of the Social Contract is to accept GFDL-docu if certain
restrictions are not used (except for a license text, which
of the problems.
Every free license have its scope of applicability, outside
of which it may turn to non-free license. For example, if you
license a music phonorecord under GPL, you get pretty non-free
phonorecord with funny license. And you can begin from GPL-covered
literary work.
*shrug
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:36:42PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
- This survey was made during aout, where more than usually people can
be on vacation -- yeah, I was :)
Yes, I'm sure that if the survey was taken at a more appropriate time,
the majority of people who understand that the GFDL is
Le ven 29/08/2003 à 10:42, Fedor Zuev a écrit :
Of course. You did not know? It is a completely your
problem.
You probably wanted to say something, but the following explains all:
You are not aware?
Hey, I know you! You are Jean-Claude Van Damme, aren't you? Nobody can
be as purely
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is
Andreas Barth wrote:
Comment: documentation is not software, and DFSG is made with software
in mind.
Actually, the DSFG _was_ made with documentation in mind.
Bruce Perens wrote:
I intended for the entire contents of that CD to be under the rights stated
in the DSFG - be they software,
On 2003-08-28 09:55:58 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Comment: documentation is not software, and DFSG is made with software
in mind. [...]
Please read
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg00690.html
for more information on what was in mind when DFSG
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:35:16AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Why have we another sudden influx of people who haven't read any of
the history on this? (Rhetorical. I think we can guess.)
I'll answer it anyway: it's because our conclusions are reaching a
wider audience, which means we have more
(Ignoring the fact that your statement about the DFSG was untrue, which
has been pointed out elsewhere...)
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 03:55, Andreas Barth wrote:
Having said this, we must now try to work without the special rules as
good as possible, unless someone proposes these rules in time for
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030828 12:50]:
On 2003-08-28 09:55:58 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Comment: documentation is not software, and DFSG is made with software
in mind. [...]
Please read
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg00690.html
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:49:18PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:22:49PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
There, IMHO, is a subtle difference between a creating
derivative work, and using a part of work in the completely
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 06:08:47PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:35:16AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Why have we another sudden influx of people who haven't read any of
the history on this? (Rhetorical. I think we can guess.)
I'll answer it anyway: it's because our
On 2003-08-28 17:30:36 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I _have_ read the history. But in spite of Bruce words the DFSG just
doesn't apply plainly to e.g. documentation. [...]
You said DFSG is made with software in mind and implied that
documentation is not a subset of software.
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 06:08:47PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:35:16AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Why have we another sudden influx of people who haven't read any of
the history on this? (Rhetorical. I think we can guess.)
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
Proof:
e.g. look at DFSG 4:
[SNIP]
How does this match to docu?
Source code in this context refers to the prefered form of
modification which is transformed into the form or forms used by the
end user or viewer.
See SGML, texi, docbook, and pod for
On 2003-08-28 21:51:41 +0100 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Op do 28-08-2003, om 20:02 schreef MJ Ray:
Ye gods! Who knew that software was such a contentious word?
Agreed. Perhaps we should...
... Oh, wait. I already suggested we'd do so.
...and I said yes, but you should do it
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:22:49PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
There, IMHO, is a subtle difference between a creating
derivative work, and using a part of work in the completely
unrelated other work. But you, of course, may disagree. I just reply
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 05:15:10 +, Branden Robinson wrote:
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 05:15:10 +, Branden Robinson wrote:
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ ] The
[ Take #2; hoping to hit -legal this time, as my first attempt to
reply somehow ended up on -devel. Caffeine underrun, probably. ]
* Branden Robinson
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
under the same license under certain
circumstances. I'm not aware that this is true of anything we
regard as DFSG Free.
License incompatability is not an unusual thing for the free
software licenses.
Reread what he said. He cannot use content from one document in
another document *under
means I can't release it at all. This is plainly stupid. From a
pragmatic point of view, even if I could do so the combination of
invarient sections I may be forced to distribute may render the result
useless. It's a bad license, and it's a non-Free license.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Le lun 25/08/2003 à 09:22, Fedor Zuev a écrit :
When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect
to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad.
But it is different problem.
No, it is exactly one of the problems. Have you ever read the DFSG?
--
.''`.
1 - 100 of 300 matches
Mail list logo
