As for GPL 3, do you intend to use clauses similar to invariant sections
or to the technical measures stuff in GFDL section 2? This is a matter
of concern on this list.
That surprises me, since I believe I sent a message to this list
answering that precise question, two or three
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
This was mailed to me are you saying I have this virus? My
virus protection say I do not. I am just concerned, I am getting returned mail
of addresses I don't have in my book. Could you help me please?
Maxi Stubbs.
Antigen for Exchange found Body of Message infected with
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
Please point out which parts of Emacs documentation are
invariant. If I'm not mistaking, these parts express some personal
feelings. Personals feelings are not something that can be enhanced by
There are just two points in this flow, where
intentional (not as side effect of other considerations) efforts
(not including no-doing) to remove inapropriate texts can be
qualified otherwise: begin (author), and end (reader, user). All
other should be considered censorship.
So if you get a
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 10:01:40PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
The DFSG is free enough to be useful -- you still cannot just simply
modify it and redistribute it under the same name, do you? Or is that
exactly what mean build on? Am I able to publish a DFSG named DFSG
(if it's just because
On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 12:35 US/Eastern, Steve Langasek wrote:
Are you saying that the Sun code should be regarded as infringing
solely
because SCO is a company controlled by litigious, opportunistic
bastards
who have no qualms about filing suits with no legal basis for no other
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 Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 08:40:15PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Sort of the tentacles of evil thought exercise. This is what I was
always worried about when seeing that phrase. Sort of seems like a back
door being reserved.
Could this even happen?
As long as RMS live, it can't.
I can't
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
Saying something useless does not poof something useful.
s/poof/prove/
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
You argue that RMS is incorruptible?
I do.
I present as a counterargument the GFDL.
The GFDL did not reached a consensus as the GPL is in the free
software world, sure.
But I wonder which part of the ideas expressed by Richard on
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-08-27 05:52:57 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
But this is irrelevant. It is enough that _law_ (majority of
existed copyright laws) makes this difference. [...]
Just a small reminder that you've not presented such a law yet (at
all, I
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The KJV is not a program. But it is software. Software has a
different extension than programs.
An argument could even be made that the KJV is a program, only with a
set of ruless governing
* Sunnanvind Fenderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-08-28 20:03]:
I haven't been seeing my mail on debian-legal lately, maybe I have
some email troubles.. hopefully the CC will get through, though.
I received it at least.
(Gerfried, if my email to debian-legal doesn't get there, would you
kindly
paul cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
As long as RMS live, it can't.
I can't find any information on FSF's organization or bylaws, but I
understand the IRS requires non-profit 501(c)(3) corporations to have
approved articles of organization. I don't expect that the FSF's says
anything
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.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
The speech-nature of computer programs may be protected; the
functional nature of computer programs is likely to not be. The
courts appear to be favoring, at best, a portmanteau approach to the
question Is Code Speech?
Actually, the courts have
On 2003-08-29 19:05:58 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please point out which parts of Emacs documentation are
invariant. If I'm not mistaking, these parts express some personal
feelings. Personals feelings are not something that can be enhanced by
someone else.
I'm not convinced.
On 2003-08-29 19:36:24 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and so you can regive his speech (you can use the exact same wording
if you want).
I am pretty sure that you are wrong on this, too. Sorry.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 05:44:58PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
For the majority of people outside of this list software
is the synonym of computer programs. I do not see any
need to change it.
If you show such a person a CD with the game Terminus on it, and
ask them to describe what's on
On 2003-08-29 20:52:27 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To make this message more clear to the people on that list: Josselin
usually criticize every messages I post he seen on the website
I think some of this list would like to say: LEAVE YOUR HANDBAGS AT
THE DOOR. This list is
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The KJV is not a program. But it is software. Software has a
different extension than programs.
An argument could even be made that the KJV is a program, only with a
set of ruless governing people,
Quoting Mark Rafn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Here's a thought: Dual-licensed works can generally be forked to be under
either license. Doesn't this mean that the maintainer (or any distributor)
of a GPLv2 or any later version work could unilaterally re-release it
under pure GPLv2 without
The very text of the GFDL which you quote gives permission for
translations as the *only* kind of derivative work possible for
Invariant Sections: in particular, annotations are not permitted.
Either way, we've gotten way off on a tangent. The GFDL does not meet
the DFSG. I present two pieces
Quoting paul cannon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
How about this scenario:
1- A hostile group gets control of the FSF (treachery, trickery,
bribery, lawsuits, ...?)
2- They release a new version of the GPLv4, which states that this
software should be treated as released into the public
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There have been efforts in the U.S. to undo the effects of _Feist_
through legislation. One example is the Collections of Information
Antipiracy Act[1]. (I don't think that bill passed.)
However, such a law is also probably not Constitutional. The
If they can't modify it freely, and can't put it on their encrypted
filesystem, we feel it is not suitable for them.
Not to mention the fact that many contributors to Debian (translators
for instance) are not considered officially as Debian developers,
which makes Debian voting system
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 08:05:58PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Please point out which parts of Emacs documentation are
invariant. If I'm not mistaking, these parts express some personal
feelings. Personals feelings are not something that can be enhanced by
someone else.
Did you bother to check?
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 10:29:55AM -0600, paul cannon wrote:
Sort of the tentacles of evil thought exercise. This is what I was
always worried about when seeing that phrase. Sort of seems like a back
door being reserved.
Could this even happen?
I doubt it. If someone tried it, it could be
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 03:52:09PM -0700, Maxi Stubbs wrote:
This was mailed to me are you saying I have this virus? My virus protection
say I do not. I am just concerned, I am getting returned mail of addresses I
don't have in my book. Could you help me please?
If you're getting such a
Mathieu Roy wrote:
If you edit the GNU Manifesto and redistribute under the same name,
without telling clearly you modified it and what you modified, you
distribute a text which may be taken as someone's opinion while it's no
longer the case.
The. Same. Is. True. Of. Software.
My GPLed code can
On 2003-08-29 22:49:57 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are not about to list
which laws you can broke by doing that but whether the freedom the
GFDL
brings are enough or not.
Enough for what? We've concluded that it's not enough to be included
in Debian under the current
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 12:15:50AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Without him, things are more unsettled. To be honest, I have no strict
guarantees that the FSF cannot change but I hope that if someday the
FSF disregard the GNU project and the Free Software definition
promoted by RMS, people will
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
May be user will decide not to use Emacs at all, if he will
know, that Emacs and Manifesto written by the same man.
While the core of Emacs was written by RMS, the vast number of add-ons
were not. I doubt that they are _all_ in agreement with the FSF
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
You argue that RMS is incorruptible?
I do.
I present as a counterargument the GFDL.
The GFDL did not reached a consensus as the GPL is in the free
software world, sure.
But I wonder which
On Friday, Aug 29, 2003, at 12:19 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Do you think we already have the right to modify invariant text in the
GFDL?
Yes I do.
I can rewrite any idea expressed in any text, invariant or not.
You can do the same for the whole manual.
(I cannot rewrite any idea
On Friday, Aug 29, 2003, at 16:14 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
If you edit the GNU Manifesto and redistribute under the same name,
without telling clearly you modified it and what you modified, you
distribute a text which may be taken as someone's opinion while it's no
longer the case.
I
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
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While the core of Emacs was written by RMS, the vast number of add-ons
were not. I doubt that they are _all_ in agreement with the FSF adding
an invariant section, but they have signed over copyright so have no
control anyway.
All of the authors
On 2003-08-29 21:01:40 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
May I for instance take a copy of Debian and redistribute it by
_only_
changing the DFSG text, adding a line saying that the GFDL qualified
documentation as free documentation?
Probably (modulo any trademark guff), but if you
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, paul cannon wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug, 2003 at 06:43:48PM -0500, Rick Moen wrote:
...or (at your [the recipient's] option) any later version. The fact
that your refers to the _recipient_ means that Scott's worst-case
scenario of FSF issuing a screwball GPLv3 is not a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
If you edit the GNU Manifesto and redistribute under the same name,
without telling clearly you modified it and what you modified, you
distribute a text which may be taken as someone's opinion while it's no
longer the case.
And this may
On 2003-08-29 21:37:12 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact that Richard do not see freedom for documentation like
proeminent people of Debian do not mean that Richard is corrupted.
I have to agree with you here. I'm don't think that the fundamentals
of Richard's position on
On Friday, Aug 29, 2003, at 14:05 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Please point out which parts of Emacs documentation are
invariant. If I'm not mistaking, these parts express some personal
feelings. Personals feelings are not something that can be enhanced by
someone else.
Assuming your
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 10:25 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
The same goes from the Ancient tragedies. But it's already perfectly
possible to make a remake of any book, story or movie.
Only with permission of the copyright holder, or for public-domain
works.
Just go a try and remake a
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.
101 - 147 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
