On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 09:38:59AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Since the FSF's goal couldn't possibly be to attract a following of
loyal idiots, I conclude that invariant sections are an ineffective
strategy for reaching the FSF's target audience.
You're saying the FSF is less clever than
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm even not sure whether it's a problem to have an invariant part
in documentation. As my main area of work is History, I'm familiar
with books -some kind of documentation- that I cannot change
On 2003-08-29 14:28:54 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
1/ The statement that you were objecting to here does not use we
at all, so defining we is irrelevant.
I replied to Josselin who wrote the following:
If providing any sort of crap
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 03:17:12PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
I'm completely capable to read a book and make a summary, make a
speech about it ... there's no way to forbid that - since I have the
freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
Every scientific book is made of references,
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
1/ The statement that you were objecting to here does not use we
at all, so defining we is irrelevant.
I replied to Josselin who wrote the following:
If providing any sort of crap _we_ can was a service to our
users, there wouldn't be any
On 2003-08-29 14:17:12 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm completely capable to read a book and make a summary, make a
speech about it ... there's no way to forbid that - since I have the
freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
That is not a derived work. You can use proprietary
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
As evidence that the FSF's attempt to disseminate their philosophy by
piggybacking it on technical manuals using the GFDL is flawed, I present
the fact that none of the people that the FSF's views seem to have
reached via this vector are capable of
On 2003-08-29 13:52:39 +0100 Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only way you can write your own text based on the old one is if
the license permits you to do so. [...]
And we can have a fun debate about whether you can still call that
plagiarism but it's not really relevant to
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On 2003-08-29 14:17:12 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm completely capable to read a book and make a summary, make a
speech about it ... there's no way to forbid that - since I have the
freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
That is
On 2003-08-29 15:53:09 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because the DFSG is not DFSG compliant.
AFAICT, the DFSG is under the OPL with no options enabled and that
licence is considered DFSG-free. Am I missing something?
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:53:09PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Yes, and our goal is to always respect authors: by not distributing
works that they don't wish to make available under the terms of the
DFSG.
Including the GPL and the DFSG?
Because the DFSG is not DFSG compliant.
Other
Le ven 29/08/2003 à 15:28, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
1/ The statement that you were objecting to here does not use we
at all, so defining we is irrelevant.
I replied to Josselin who wrote the following:
If providing any sort of crap _we_ can
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm even not sure whether it's a problem to have an invariant part
in documentation. As my main area of work is History, I'm familiar
with books -some kind of documentation- that I cannot change
physically but I still can use fully (read, understand...
On 2003-08-29 13:03:28 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On 2003-08-29 12:04:18 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Readers of this list (not only developers) have stated their strong
belief that the GFDL does not follow the DFSG.
I'm a
Steve Langasek said:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:53:09PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Including the GPL and the DFSG?
Because the DFSG is not DFSG compliant.
Other organizations may derive from and build on this document. Please
give credit to the Debian project if you do.
On 2003-08-29 22:54:27 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Talking of licenses when thinking about how manuals and software can
be different or not complicates the debate more than I thought. [...]
No-one disagrees that they can be different, but you disagree that
they can be the same.
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On 2003-08-29 15:53:09 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because the DFSG is not DFSG compliant.
AFAICT, the DFSG is under the OPL with no options enabled and that
licence is considered DFSG-free. Am I missing something?
You're not, I tried to
On Friday, Aug 29, 2003, at 15:17 US/Eastern, Joe Moore wrote:
Is that license Debian-specific?
Obviously not.
There's permission there only for
non-Debian organizations to derive works.
Because Debian doesn't need permission to derive from or build on its
own documents.
18 matches
Mail list logo
