Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 05/06/07, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs)
are probably covered under Fair Use. [...]
This is England calling.
Would the FSF have to sue under US law or UK law an
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you want to fix? The reasons for why free software needs
free documentation or would you like to fix the suggestions on how
to give funds to the FSF? You think you know better than the FSF
what
On 05/06/07, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs)
are probably covered under Fair Use. [...]
This is England calling.
Would the FSF have to sue under US law or UK law an offender in the
UK? I'm genuinely ignorant about this
Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso writes:
On 05/06/07, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs)
are probably covered under Fair Use. [...]
This is England calling.
Would the FSF have to sue under US law or UK law an offender in the
UK?
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Jordi
Gutierrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On 05/06/07, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Small excerpts (e.g. an Emacs reference card from the Emacs info docs)
are probably covered under Fair Use. [...]
This is England calling.
Would the FSF have to sue
Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Kinda, but not really. It seems that Debian's objections against the
GFDL are highly academic and unlikely to arise in practice. I mean,
how many of those objections have actually worked against Wikipedia,
the largest collection of
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 12:10:36 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
[...]
Not even RMS or the FSF calls the FDL a Free Software licence.
Indeed: see the last sentence of
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg01221.html
[...]
FSF:
On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
Debian decided to make it a problem for itself and for its users.
the maintainer (and the developers) recognized that
users may need or want such documentation, even though it does not
meet
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the maintainer (and the developers) recognized that users may need
or want such documentation, even though it does not meet the DFSG,
so the documentation was made available in non-free.
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 07:16:30PM -0500, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
Kinda, but not really. It seems that Debian's objections against the
GFDL are highly academic and unlikely to arise in practice. I mean,
how many of those objections have actually worked against Wikipedia,
the largest
On 03/06/07, Adam Borowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 07:16:30PM -0500, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
Kinda, but not really. It seems that Debian's objections against the
GFDL are highly academic and unlikely to arise in practice. I mean,
how many of those objections
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
I have yet to see a practical example of a situation that actually
happened that justifies Debian's concerns against the GFDL.
The practical example is the fact that we cannot make extracts of
GFDLed documentation even for manpages without
On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
I have yet to see a practical example of a situation that actually
happened that justifies Debian's concerns against the GFDL.
The practical example is the fact that we cannot make extracts
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
On 03/06/07, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
I have yet to see a practical example of a situation that actually
happened that justifies Debian's concerns against the GFDL.
The
On 26/05/07, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jordi, please follow the code of conduct for the mailing lists
URL:http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct.
Specifically, don't send a separate copy of list messages to me, as I
haven't asked for that.
Oops, sorry. I forget. Other
Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In practice, the GFDLed docs can be copied and modified as much as
they need to be
The DFSG requires that *any* modification be allowed to the work, and
that the result be redistributable under the license. This is not the
case for the FDL, and
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 10:15:06AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
The document author, by placing only *some* parts of the work under
the GPL, is essentially determining for the recipient what parts they
will find useful to combine with other parts of the software. Prose
descriptive parts could be
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The GPL also requires that any derivative work that one distributes
must be licensed under the GPL terms. This is incompatible with
taking part of a work under a different license and combining it
with the GPL work to distribute.
This is true only, of
On 25/05/07, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The lot of complex clauses ... that would be cumbersome and
unnecessary is greatly outweighed by the huge simplification that
comes from having *all* software in a package -- programs,
documentation, data -- licensed the same way, as already
Jordi, please follow the code of conduct for the mailing lists
URL:http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct.
Specifically, don't send a separate copy of list messages to me, as I
haven't asked for that.
Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I keep hearing about how
Thanks for all your feedback, but the GPL also has some clauses that are
not applicable to documentation as pointed out at:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals
I thought of using the Boost license:
http://boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt
but it is not listed at:
Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks for all your feedback, but the GPL also has some clauses that
are not applicable to documentation as pointed out at:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals
If you re-read that section, it mostly addresses the FSF's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I remember reading that the GFDL is not DFSG-free (due to some clauses
regarding invariant sections or something) so I would like to know what
As long as you do not use these optional clauses it is free like any
other DFSG license.
OTOH, you should ask yourself what is
Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked:
I remember reading that the GFDL is not DFSG-free (due to some clauses
regarding invariant sections or something) so I would like to know what
is a DFSG-free license for documentation, since a project I am working
on wants to license its
Hello list.
I remember reading that the GFDL is not DFSG-free (due to some clauses
regarding invariant sections or something) so I would like to know what
is a DFSG-free license for documentation, since a project I am working
on wants to license its documentation in a DFSG-free way.
Thanks.
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 08:09:33 Ben Finney wrote:
The consensus (not unanimous, but consensus nonetheless) of
debian-legal is that the DFSG, regardless of which of its clauses are
exercised, is non-free for any software, including documentation.
(I assume you meant GFDL here instead of DFSG.)
26 matches
Mail list logo
