O Mércores, 20 de Abril de 2005 ás 08:40:21 +0200, Jacobo Tarrio escribía:
Yes, in places it is too verbose, being that I'm not used to writing in
English :-)
(I think that I've been reading too many American laws, lately. The
provision hereunder, therefore, applies to all persons not under
Hi, all.
I am newbie and begin undestand debian community only now. Excuse me
for previous questions.
The matter looked simle. Exists several documentation of standarts in
format plain/text with license like Permission is granted to distribute
verbatim copies. Documents are useful and some
Olleg Samoylov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DFSG primary was developed for software and not adequate to text
documents, which not needed to be builded.
That's wrong, Bruce Perens intended the DFSG to apply to software and
documentation alike when he designed them. See his clarification here:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 01:44:04PM +0400, Olleg Samoylov wrote:
DFSG primary was developed for software and not adequate to text
documents, which not needed to be builded.
The DFSG was developed to be a standard of freedom. It's just as
applicable to documentation as it is for programs (and
After suggestions by Glenn Maynard, I rewrote most of the document to make
it simpler and remove redundancies that were repeated over and over ;-
I repeat my point: repeated exposure to American legal texts is bad for
non-native speakers ;-)))
The first two questions were merged into a
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the record, so long as implementations of software freedom are
copyright-based, documents from which fragments cannot legally be cut
and pasted into the software they accompany do not belong in main.
This applies most emphatically to the GFDL
O Mércores, 20 de Abril de 2005 ás 11:20:36 -0300, Humberto Massa escribía:
s/software/programs and\/or libraries/g
Darn, I had managed to avoid it in the previous version :-)
--
Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
O Mércores, 20 de Abril de 2005 ás 14:53:18 +, MJ Ray escribía:
Q: Shouldn't we allow documents which describe standards or
personal opinions to be non-modifiable? Why should we need the
same freedoms as for programs?
That's a good one (although I don't like the last question very much,
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 11:43:33PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
[2] I'm not sure if slander or libel are the relevant laws, here.
It depends on the specifics of what you claimed they said. It could
also be fraud, or a variety of other jurisdiction-specific things. Not
desperately interesting for
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 02:53:18PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Finally, if there were any reasons to allow such a restriction in documents,
these reasons would allow it in programs too. For example, qmail's license
forbids distributing modified versions of it, since its author believes that
his
There have been some comments about mplayer, compared to ffmpeg
and other packages. The discussion here seems to have cooled,
so I have written a summary of the situation as I understand it.
Is it accurate? Please send me comments and/or improvements
(as plain text or patches, please). I'd also
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 01:44:04PM +0400, Olleg Samoylov wrote:
But. You must undestand and keep in mind. For normal people (not
specialized in freedom) things, such as putting gnu-standarts to
non-free, always looked very strange (said softly).
Keep in mind that normal people can install
Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
%% Copying of this file is authorized only if either
%%
%% (1) you make absolutely no changes to your copy, including name and
%% directory name
%% (2) if you do make changes,
%% (a) you name it something other than the names included in the
%%
13 matches
Mail list logo