--- Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] please
note that Richard Stallman does _not_ advocate different standards of
freedom for documentation and for software, according to, for instance,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00593.html
Any two things,
To my knowledge, only a very vocal minority of Debian Developers
argues for the removal of documentation licensed under the GFDL (and
even their views are far from consistent). You guys might be putting
the future of the project at risk, without actually realizing what you
are doing.
By 'normal' writings, do you include documentation? If so, please
note that Richard Stallman does _not_ advocate different standards of
freedom for documentation and for software, according to, for instance,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00593.html
Let me
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:49:04AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Virtually every person on this list finds the GFDL non-free in some
situation.
By on this list, you mean people that subscribed to this list?
If so, you're wrong. I suscribed and it don't makes me considering the
GFDL
Op zo 20-07-2003, om 10:49 schreef Mathieu Roy:
To my knowledge, only a very vocal minority of Debian Developers
argues for the removal of documentation licensed under the GFDL (and
even their views are far from consistent). You guys might be putting
the future of the project at risk,
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:49:04AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Virtually every person on this list finds the GFDL non-free in some
situation.
By on this list, you mean people that subscribed to this list?
If so, you're wrong. I suscribed
Andrew Stribblehill wrote:
The sole maintainer collaborated with another author in writing the
program, and they have joint copyright. He would like to get it
relicenced under a standard licence but the other author has now
died. Is there any way to get it changed?
Yes. If its a joint work,
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 11:23:12AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
And you have valid statistics that makes you think that I'm
_virtually_ the only exception?
The GFDL discussion has been going on for a long time; I'm sorry, but it's
just not reasonable to claim that there are a significant number of
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And you have valid statistics that makes you think that I'm
_virtually_ the only exception?
And you have valid statistics that make you think that you're not?
Analyse the list archive and see what you find.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:18:32AM +0100, J.D. Hood wrote:
That is not surprising, given that Debian, unlike the FSF, is not a
monarchy.
ITYM autocracy.
A monarchy is an autocracy where (under normal circumstances) the
monarch inherits their role, usually by blood relation or marriage.
--
--- Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:18:32AM +0100, J.D. Hood wrote:
That is not surprising, given that Debian, unlike the FSF, is not a
monarchy.
ITYM autocracy.
A monarchy is an autocracy where (under normal circumstances) the
monarch inherits
J.D. Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
--- Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:18:32AM +0100, J.D. Hood wrote:
That is not surprising, given that Debian, unlike the FSF, is not a
monarchy.
ITYM autocracy.
A monarchy is an autocracy where (under
--- Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the freedom the project cares about are almost the same.
[...]
This whole GNU FDL issue indeed show (minor) differences between
Debian and GNU but I'm not sure this issue allows us to say This one
is better than this other one in terms of freedom.
Op zo 20-07-2003, om 13:06 schreef Andrew Suffield:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:18:32AM +0100, J.D. Hood wrote:
That is not surprising, given that Debian, unlike the FSF, is not a
monarchy.
ITYM autocracy.
A monarchy is an autocracy where (under normal circumstances) the
monarch
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes. If its a joint work, either author can grant a non-exclusive
licence, without the other's permission. So the living author can do
that without asking the estate/heirs of the dead author.
This depends of the country. Here in Finland the authors
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:49:04AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
To my knowledge, only a very vocal minority of Debian Developers
argues for the removal of documentation licensed under the GFDL (and
even their views are far from consistent). You guys might be putting
the future of the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mathieu Roy wrote:
... Based on this, I believe that RMS would say that a program with
an unremovable, unmodifiable, 10,000 word Ode to my goldfish and
no other restrictions would be free software, although
inconvenient. I haven't seen anyone from Debian defend
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], J.D. Hood wrote:
I believe that RMS would say that a program with an unremovable,
unmodifiable, 10,000 word Ode to my goldfish and no other
restrictions would be free software, although inconvenient. I haven't
seen anyone from Debian defend that position yet.
18 matches
Mail list logo
