On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
Anyway, whenever some form of a work is the preferred one for
modifications (i.e.: source form), but, at the same time, is
inconvenient to distribute, well, the work is inconvenient to distribute
in a Free manner! This is an unfortunate technical
Ken Arromdee escribe:
This means that there are many content creators who don't want to release
source, not because they want to restrict their users, but because they
don't think the hassle is worth it--it's a much greater hassle for a much
smaller benefit, than releasing the source of a
Ismael Valladolid Torres [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the case of artistic creation
Careful. This doesn't distinguish programs from other intellectual
creations; there is a huge amount of artistry in programming.
it also happens that one can't tell where source ends.
Which is why the GPL's
Ben Finney escribe:
Careful. This doesn't distinguish programs from other intellectual
creations; there is a huge amount of artistry in programming.
Sure from a programmer's point of view, but just ask an artist who
knows something about programming which amount or artistry is there in
each one
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:54:33 +0100 Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
[...]
In the case of artistic creation it also happens that one can't tell
where source ends. Take as an example a photography. The source of
the photography involves the place where it was taken. But not only,
it also
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:50:16 +0100 Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
Ben Finney escribe:
[...]
If, instead, we *define* the source of the work so that it's as
the GPL defines it, then all these impossible-to-provide
environmental factors you cite are not required. All that's required
to
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:51:55 -0700 (PDT) Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
Anyway, whenever some form of a work is the preferred one for
modifications (i.e.: source form), but, at the same time, is
inconvenient to distribute, well, the work is inconvenient to
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Francesco Poli wrote:
If the
work is inconvenient to distribute free, then we should be telling the
author distributing it free is probably not what you want to do.
I don't think the Debian Project (or debian-legal contributors) should
promote non-free software.
On
Please don't send copies of list messages to me via email, I didn't
ask for them and it's annoying to receive them. Please follow
URL:http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct.
Ismael Valladolid Torres [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney escribe:
Careful. This doesn't distinguish
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've read up and found the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses are
specifically disallowed by Debian (well GFDL with non-invariant
Actually I understand that the ftpmasters have approved content licensed
under CC 3.0, which is widely considered to be free (one of the
10 matches
Mail list logo
