On Saturday 19 April 2003 18:36, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:37:28 -0500,
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Not if people don't second my motion, or propose something similar.
It may be that we're content to complain but lack the will to act.
For what it is
Yven Johannes Leist wrote:
On Saturday 19 April 2003 18:36, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:37:28 -0500,
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Not if people don't second my motion, or propose something similar.
It may be that we're content to complain but lack the will
Yven Johannes Leist wrote:
On Saturday 19 April 2003 18:36, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:37:28 -0500,
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Not if people don't second my motion, or propose something similar.
It may be that we're content to complain but lack the will
|| On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 09:27:43 -0400
|| Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
psg No if it were released under the GPL. Compare to:
psg I'm sorry, but if somebody wrote something into SOFTWARE that
psg was important to him and you didn't like it and removed it to
psg distribute
|| On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 09:06:51 -0400
|| Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GFDL deeks to do the same thing. Only this time you find
yourself in the position of middleman and have to take care to not
violate the rights of either party.
psg Quite the opposite actually. Any
|| On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
|| Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you referring to documentation under the GFDL? Why would that
have to be removed?
mr Not all GFDL documentation, only that which contains invariant
mr sections which cannot be removed or modified.
I
|| On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 15:05:48 -0400
|| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
bts A reference card has a subset of commands, chosen for
bts usefulness, elegance, or aesthetic appeal. It has succinct
bts descriptions, which are a creative effort. It is definitely
bts copyrightable
|| On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:34:17 +0100
|| Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although I have said it before, I'll say it again: I don't
consider the GFDL to be perfect, but from the free documentation
licenses I have seen so far, it seems to be the most solid one for
the
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 11:30:17AM +0200, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
psg I don't want to ship the 5MB documentation with my 100KB GUI,
psg just the few paragraphs that matter.
That seems too genereralized to be useful.
It seems hard to imagine a situation where an obviously very long and
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 03:05:48PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
But the issue here is not copying or modifying an existing card, but
deriving a reference card from the Emacs manual.
If the documentation was licensed under the BSD license, wouldn't you
still have to include the full license
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 01:51:22PM +0200, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
Given that a document is under a license that permits modification,
any redistributor could add anything and then say that removing it
would hurt his or her moral rights.
Any license trying to allow modification/removal of
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:37:28 -0500,
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 09:10:00AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
Good luck with that, and I look forward to hearing from you and/or
other FSF representatives soon. I hope it's not terribly much
longer, as the
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 10:52:55AM +0200, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
The GFDL offers the users and distributors such as Debian a higher
degree of legal security, however, as someone who has not used the
possible measure of invariant section will have a much harder time
suing for violation of his
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 03:05:48PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
But the issue here is not copying or modifying an existing card, but
deriving a reference card from the Emacs manual.
If the documentation was licensed under the BSD license, wouldn't
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 09:10:00AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
Good luck with that, and I look forward to hearing from you and/or other
FSF representatives soon. I hope it's not terribly much longer, as the
current semi-consensus is likely to congeal into an actual necessity to
remove un-free
|| On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 09:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
|| Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mr Indeed. Ensuring that Debian remains free is the primary reason
mr for this list's existence, and it can be an emotional topic.
True. All of us are probably feeling strongly about freedom.
The fact that
|| On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 10:37:57 -0400
|| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
bts You've heard all this before, but I haven't seen you answer it.
bts Why does the GFDL prohibit me from making an emacs reference
bts card from the manual? Sure, I could make a one-sided card where
bts
Georg C. F. Greve [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|| On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 10:37:57 -0400
|| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
bts You've heard all this before, but I haven't seen you answer it.
bts Why does the GFDL prohibit me from making an emacs reference
bts card from the
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
mr I hope it's not terribly much longer, as the current
mr semi-consensus is likely to congeal into an actual necessity to
mr remove un-free emacs documentation from Debian.
Are you referring to documentation under the GFDL? Why would that
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 01:59:37PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
If the manifesto marked as invariant? I didn't know that!
It doesn't seem to be in the visible info text, but the top of
each of the info files has a GFDL blurb.
I grepped for Invariant in my emacs-21 info files. The main
|| On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 09:31:26 -0400
|| Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
psg It doesn't perserve freedom at all. It grants any redistributor
psg the right to add unremovable rants to the loss of the user's
psg freedom.
So you are afraid of somebody adding a part that you don't
Georg C. F. Greve [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm sorry, but if somebody wrote something into a document that was
important to him and you didn't like it and removed it to distribute
that as a newer version of the document, you'd be violating that
persons Copyright.
Err, what complete BS.
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 10:52:55AM +0200, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
I'm sorry, but if somebody wrote something into a document that was
important to him and you didn't like it and removed it to distribute
that as a newer version of the document, you'd be violating that
persons Copyright. GNU
Georg C. F. Greve [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Although I have said it before, I'll say it again: I don't consider
the GFDL to be perfect, but from the free documentation licenses I
have seen so far, it seems to be the most solid one for the reasons
I've described.
What do you mean by a free
Georg C. F. Greve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Especially the GPL is striking a new balance between the rights of the
author and the freedoms of the users that puts both above the wishes
of middlemen.
The GFDL deeks to do the same thing. Only this time you find yourself
in the position of
Georg C. F. Greve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|| On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 09:31:26 -0400
|| Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
psg It doesn't perserve freedom at all. It grants any redistributor
psg the right to add unremovable rants to the loss of the user's
psg freedom.
So you
[I've found this unsent message which I wrote yesterday]
Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You've heard all this before, but I haven't seen you answer it. Why
does the GFDL prohibit me from making an emacs reference card from the
manual? Sure, I could make a one-sided card where the
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 10:37:57AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
In addition, how does the FSF expect anybody other than itself to
distribute a GPL'd emacs with a GFDL manual?
Heh; maybe they don't. Maybe they're tired of all these Linux
distributions that should be calling themselves
|| On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 12:29:52 -0400
|| Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
psg My example is _not_ a GUI to text (e.g. like xpdf) but a GUI to
psg software. I'm more interested in hardcoding docs into software,
psg producing a derived work composed of both works.
I see. It wasn't
|| On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 14:15:25 -0400
|| Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
psg So you want us to pretend that the work these Artists do is free
psg because writing is so much more artistic than coding?
No.
And unlike most works of art -- for which aesthetics or
|| On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:30:17 +0200
|| Georg C. F. Greve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
gg That was also discussed about the GPL.
gg Many people were complaining that it wasn't free because they
gg couldn't take parts of GPL'ed software and compile them into
gg their proprietary software any
Georg C. F. Greve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|| On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:30:17 +0200
|| Georg C. F. Greve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
gg That was also discussed about the GPL.
gg Many people were complaining that it wasn't free because they
gg couldn't take parts of GPL'ed software and
Georg C. F. Greve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|| On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 12:29:52 -0400
|| Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
psg My example is _not_ a GUI to text (e.g. like xpdf) but a GUI to
psg software. I'm more interested in hardcoding docs into software,
psg producing a
Georg C. F. Greve [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
gg That was also discussed about the GPL.
gg Many people were complaining that it wasn't free because they
gg couldn't take parts of GPL'ed software and compile them into
gg their proprietary software any way they liked.
I just realized that
On Tue, 15 Apr 2003, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
Unfortunately it seems that because of the history -- of which I was
not a part, by the way -- the issue is still very emotional to most
people on this list.
Indeed. Ensuring that Debian remains free is the primary reason for this
list's
Georg C. F. Greve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|| Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
br Your analysis ignores the fact that the GNU FDL does not permit
br Invariant Sections to be omitted entirely from the work when it
br is redistributed. If the GNU FDL did that, it would take a
|| On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:12:53 -0400
|| Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interpretation B -- which you probably meant -- is already
included in the analysis, as cutting out parts is also
modification.
psg If I write a GUI front-end for some software which has
psg
Georg C. F. Greve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|| On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:12:53 -0400
|| Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interpretation B -- which you probably meant -- is already
included in the analysis, as cutting out parts is also
modification.
psg If I write a GUI
On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 10:00, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
|| On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:12:53 -0400
|| Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
psg If I write a GUI front-end for some software which has
psg documentation under this license, can I take a few paragraphs of
psg the documentation
Georg C. F. Greve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But unlike prose, most software derives its justification to exist
From its function, not its aesthetics.
So let's not encourage the use of this license for software manuals.
It's not an essay, it's a manual.
The very same people who have been
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
If we ignore potential DMCA/EUCD/SW-patent issues, which are unrelated
to the issue at hand, it is always okay to write a GUI that can
display documents regardless of their license.
Sure, but it's clearly NOT ok to use some derived works of some
Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
If I have one piece of prose that I like, I usually do not have all
the prose I need/want. The same goes for documentation or music. In
fact hearing some piece of music usually motivates me to get more.
Huh? Invariant sections never give you more documentation. The
42 matches
Mail list logo
