Re: (DRAFT 3) FAQ on documentation licensing

2005-04-20 Thread Jacobo Tarrio
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

I begin undestand debian community (comments to FAQ)

2005-04-20 Thread Olleg Samoylov
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

Re: I begin undestand debian community (comments to FAQ)

2005-04-20 Thread Martin Dickopp
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:

Re: I begin undestand debian community (comments to FAQ)

2005-04-20 Thread Glenn Maynard
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

(DRAFT 4) FAQ on documentation licensing

2005-04-20 Thread Jacobo Tarrio
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

Re: [Fwd: Re: Bug#304316: section non-free/doc]

2005-04-20 Thread Matthew Garrett
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

Re: (DRAFT 4) FAQ on documentation licensing

2005-04-20 Thread Jacobo Tarrio
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

Re: (DRAFT 4) FAQ on documentation licensing

2005-04-20 Thread Jacobo Tarrio
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,

Re: (DRAFT 3) FAQ on documentation licensing

2005-04-20 Thread Andrew Suffield
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

Re: (DRAFT 4) FAQ on documentation licensing

2005-04-20 Thread Andrew Suffield
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

Draft Debian and mplayer FAQ

2005-04-20 Thread MJ Ray
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

Re: I begin undestand debian community (comments to FAQ)

2005-04-20 Thread Raul Miller
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

Re: Question about freeness of XyMTeX license [2nd try]

2005-04-20 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
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 %%