On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:43:49 -0500, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This isn't avoiding it at all; the DFSG was not renamed to the Debian
Free Stuff Guidelines. It merely makes it clear that documentation is
included in software, at least as far as the SC is concerned.
I don't think
On 11 Feb 2005 01:15:42 GMT MJ Ray wrote:
The FSF have a vague definition of what they consider
free *documentation* and the main difference with free
software is I don't believe that it is essential for
people to have permission to modify all sorts of articles
and books.
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 10:58:46AM +, Andrew Saunders wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:43:49 -0500, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This isn't avoiding it at all; the DFSG was not renamed to the Debian
Free Stuff Guidelines. It merely makes it clear that documentation is
included
Josh King wrote:
Hi,
I searched Google and the archives for this, but never found a solid
answer. I, along with a few others, would like to start a website using
the Debian name in the domain (we're using DotDebian.org as a working
name for right now). The goal/intent of the site is to provide
Hi,
I searched Google and the archives for this, but never found a solid
answer. I, along with a few others, would like to start a website using
the Debian name in the domain (we're using DotDebian.org as a working
name for right now). The goal/intent of the site is to provide new user
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:04:08 -0600, Josh King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The goal/intent of the site is to provide new user friendly forums
This part sounds like unnecessary duplication of effort. There are
already a great many such forums in existence, not least
http://forums.debian.net. What
Andrew Saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] in light of the disagreements
between Debian and the FSF over what constitutes a Free license (the
GNU Free Documentation License being one prominent example[1]).
That's not the disagreement, as far as I can tell. I know we're
lazy, but free is
Josh King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there another license then that should be used in place of the GFDL?
Creative Commons? Something else?
I think the usual advice is for simple contributions to be licensed
under a permissive non-copyleft (like MIT/X11) and full manuals to
be put under the
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 02:38:07AM +, Andrew Saunders wrote:
I likewise believe that documentation is a subset of software, but the
interminable debates on the topic convinced me that GR 2004-03's
approach to resolving the ambiguity is the correct one - e.g. changing
1. Debian Will Remain
9 matches
Mail list logo
