On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:26:19 +0100
Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, I now understand that the company can be considered to be one
licensee, thus passing copies around within the company is not
distributing. Thus GPL'ed software can be modified for use inside the
company. The only
On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:46:36 +0100
Thomas Seyrat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# BabelWeb should not be used as a lucrative tools without author
# autorization.
Except for the bad english, I do not know what to think about this :
the point 6 of DFSG insists on the fact that the license must
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 16:01:53 -0500
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian does not redact its mailing list archives.
It seems from looking at the URL posted that this is an unusual
situation -- the request is coming from someone whose e-mail address
appears on the To: line of a message
On 02 Sep 2002 01:33:54 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This probably just means that if they want to go after somebody,
they have to go after the person who posted the message and seek
damages.
What possible damages
On 04 Dec 2002 03:11:25 +0100
Sunnanvind Fenderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I started thinking on the Apple license again. Unlike the GPL, which
is a copyright license, it appears to be an end user license agreement
which you have to agree with prior to downloading the code or
something like
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 01:51:59 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steven Barker) wrote:
I'd like the advice of this list as to whether data under that license
would be DFSG free. I think the license is a pretty straightforward
copyleft, though at least the translated version has some unclear
language.
On 14 Dec 2002 03:08:03 -0500
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Part 8, I'm sure, will cause problems - it has in the past, but I
can't remember in what context; it may just be that some zealots
made some hubub a while back that. I don't really recall.
I can't manage to google
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:50:17 +0100
Daniel Bonniot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What can we do with the www.distributedfolding.org software, which is
under this license (http://www.distributedfolding.org/license.html):
It's not DFSG-free, for one. The first paragraph fails DFSG #6; it only
grants
On Mon, 12 May 2003 22:08:08 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) wrote:
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I agree with all your points. I think we should move forward moving
those docs to non-free. It'll mean a few packages from non-free on
my systems, but if that's what
On Tue, 13 May 2003 09:45:57 +0200 (CEST)
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
En réponse à David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As long as I am a GNU Emacs user, I object to see the Emacs manual
going to non-free. Currently, it is provided by the emacs package
and I'm able to read
On Tue, 13 May 2003 20:38:51 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) wrote:
Could we consider some invariant sections as non-problematic?
Invariant sections aren't the only part of the license that's
problematic, they're just the most obscene. So far, I've seen them used
in a way that I found
On Tue, 13 May 2003 22:26:32 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) wrote:
Agreed. I doubt anyone will be motivated enough to write a
Free typesetting application ... oh, wait.
I doubt anyone will be motivated enough to write a robust set of
graphics drivers for *nix ... oh, wait.
I
On Tue, 13 May 2003 22:33:38 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) wrote:
You're asking us to keep non-Free documentation in main. The
difference between that and asking to include components in main
is irrelevant and a lawyer's point.
Again, you do consider DFSG applies to
On Tue, 13 May 2003 23:52:20 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) wrote:
It is relevant because RMS is Emacs's project leader, so he is
this upstream we have to bargain with, isn't he?
It is not relevant to the question, is Emacs documentation Free?
That's entirely based on the license.
On Tue, 13 May 2003 23:35:10 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So does this mean I can include my shareware fonts and my
for-educational-use-only documentation in my next package upload?
The software is free, so I guess it's ok to let
On Tue, 13 May 2003 23:40:52 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) wrote:
How about all the various non-GFDL-licensed documentation? There
certainly is a lot of it, and much of it is Free. Take a look at the
LDP.
And assuming that what drives people to write Free Software is
On Wed, 14 May 2003 16:40:13 +0200 (CEST)
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems obvious to you that documentation is software. It is
not to me. Simply.
That's fine, but does that mean that you think it's okay for them to
be
non-Free in some form or another? (Either by
On Sat, 24 May 2003 19:19:50 -0400
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A political essay is (typically) written by certain persons to
persuade the public of a certain position. If it is modified, it does
not do its job. So it makes sense, socially, to say that these cannot
be modified.
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 20:10:39 +0200
Klaus Reimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if this text is good enough. Also I'm
not a native english-speaker so maybe this is not really good english.
So I would be glad about improvements of the above text.
The text looks good
On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:28:31 +1000 (EST)
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, what do they want to allow, and what don't they want to allow?
I think it's pretty clear they're looking for a Sleepycat arrangement;
free for Free Software, go to them if you want alternate
On 13 Jun 2003 01:15:38 +0200
Joachim Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and one's
own changes to Works written by others.
Isn't that effectively this
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 16:21:35 -0500
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Comments?
One thing I don't think that's entirely clear is about the labelling of
your changes. The GPL specifies that you must put a notice in a given
file detailing the date and nature of the changes.
Such may or may
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:10:23 +0100
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 04:21:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
4) The freedom to change the Work for any purpose[1], to distribute
one's changes, and to distribute the Work in modified form. Access
to the
I was mildly confused with Branden's response to my message, and I've
been asked by two other people privately what the conclusion of the
debate was, so I'll just summarise quickly here the discussion Branden
and myself had on IRC. I checked with Branden, and he's perfectly happy
with the summary
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:02:56 -0400
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
large part of original message excluded because it's not relevant to
my question
I intend to make the effort some day, but first I have to finish GPL
version 3, which faces other difficult questions.
There have
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 13:57:11 -0400
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That was one question. The other, and more important, question was:
Do you happen to have any idea as to how much time will be given for
community review?
Please remember that this is not a cross
On Sun Jul 06, 03:07am -0400, Michael D. Crawford wrote:
I just submitted an article entitled Which License for Free
Documentation? to http://advogato.org/
I have several documents that are licensed under the GFDL. While I'm not
sure I agree with your position about the GFDL, I can
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:36:03 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (A Mennucc1) wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 05:29:13AM -0400, David B Harris wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:21:25 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (A Mennucc1) wrote:
this is a call for help
we have done quite a lot of work on mplayer
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:28:36 -0400
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is clear for me, why FDL appears: it is needed to help technical
writers earn money by writing free documentation for free software
and to help publishers of free
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:13:12 -0500
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As the discussion about FDL and the RFCs continues, I have seen various
people attempt to disect the DFSG, or to redefine software in a highly
loose manner, or to question DFSG's applicability to non-software items.
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 01:40:56 -0700
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that this is even necessary. Suppose, for example, we
chose to solve the documentation problem by creating a new archive
section for documentation. Documentation that meets the DFSG would
preferably still
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:09:54 -0500
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:51:39 -0500
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. If DFSG should apply to documentation, what should be the disposition of
GFDL according to DFSG? (This is the question you asked.)
I don't think that the answer to question two can be relevant unless we have
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:14:31 -0500
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest that even if the GFDL did not allow modification of the invariant
sections, if it at least allowed removal of them, we would be in much better
shape. It would, for instance, allow people to better take the
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:11:07 -0500
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
addresses the problems which affect all GFDL documents: the
requirements for transparent formats, and the anti-DMCA clause (the
ban on technical access control measures). It also doesn't
That doesn't seem to me to
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:25:27 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Less likely, though I certainly wouldn't say it's impossible, is a judge
ruling that without providing electricity, a working computer with a CD
reader, and a technician
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 16:54:53 -0500
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If make or were stricken, and perhaps some clarification added to
ensure that secure transport channels between distributor and
distributee were not a problem, this particular problem might go away.
I disagree, the
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:55:05 +0900 (IRKST)
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
JM the freedom of _users_ and _authors_. It is in the best interest of
JM users to receive unstripped version of manual. It is also in the
JM best interest of authors.
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:11:57 +0900 (IRKST)
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exactly, I still not see any non-stupid demonstration of the
contrary. I prefer not to state anything else.
My $HOME is on an encrypted filesystem. If I have any GFDL
documents on that filesystem, I'm in
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 08:51:36 +0900 (IRKST)
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
of the copies you *make or distribute*
Emphasis mine. The language is pretty clear.
---/text/dossie/gfdl/fdl.txt--
You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either
commercially or
On 28 Aug 2003 03:22:47 +0100
Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-(which makes passes at compilers) written
+(which makes passes at compilers) written
the difference is in the trailing whitespace, but that's irrelevant.
These changes were made to part of an Invariant section of
On 28 Aug 2003 03:50:16 +0100
Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
You now have a copy of the latest upstream documentation under the
original DFSG-free licence, and entirely legally too.
I don't particularily condone this kind of work-around. It goes
against the wishes of the
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 02:50:09 -0400 (EDT)
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be fair to say that Debian has decided that the GFDL is not
free according to the DFSG. This opinion has only been getting
stronger and more unified over time. However, there is a significant
minority
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:38:08 -0400 (EDT)
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David B Harris said:
Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-(which makes passes at compilers) written
+(which makes passes at compilers) written
I agree that this is an ambiguous case; one side would want
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 22:22:42 -0400
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I, and, to a large extent, other members of this list, are concerned
that, beyond the non-trivial freedom aspects, texts under the GFDL
will begin to suffer the same fate that code licensed under the
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 21:55:07 -0400
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This clause has a direct effect on all users,
restricting the use of e.g. encrypted filesystems.
That's a new one on me. I don't think the GFDL restricts
the use of encrypted filesystems.
I have mentioned
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 13:08:14 -0400
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IIRC, the specific section that most people are refering to is:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading
or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.
This
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:30:22 +0200
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This license is from the Creative Commons at
http://creativecommons.org/license/results-one?license_code=by-saformat=text
It is designed to apply to text or similar works
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 09:57:31 -0400
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I explained in a message here, a couple of months ago, that this
difference in wording does not really lead to a difference in
consequences.
Um, yes it does. Importantly, it allows for more
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 15:03:49 -0400
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They may cause practical
inconvenience for some kinds of uses, but no more than that. The
issue is basically the same as the issue of the preamble of the GPL.
Yes, they do. They say you may not
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:37:37 + (UTC)
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2003-09-27, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have occasionally received requests in private mail for some links
to a document summarizing Debian's position on the GNU FDL as it
relates to the
51 matches
Mail list logo
