On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:29:18PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
So is it acceptable for the GFDL to prohibit me from performing these
two operations:
cp some-gfdl-licensed-document.txt ~/local-copy.txt
chmod 0700 ~/local-copy.txt
How do those two operations prevent you from making
Adam McKenna writes:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:29:18PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
So is it acceptable for the GFDL to prohibit me from performing these
two operations:
cp some-gfdl-licensed-document.txt ~/local-copy.txt
chmod 0700 ~/local-copy.txt
How do those two operations
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 03:07:05PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Adam McKenna writes:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:29:18PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
So is it acceptable for the GFDL to prohibit me from performing these
two operations:
cp some-gfdl-licensed-document.txt
Adam McKenna writes:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 03:07:05PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Adam McKenna writes:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:29:18PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
So is it acceptable for the GFDL to prohibit me from performing these
two operations:
cp
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/14/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a counter example: A word document is not the preferred form for
working
with .c source code, in the general case.
If he is using it for all future modifications, then it _is_ the
preferred
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think there's a discussion to be had about whether it's a legitimate
goal for a free software license to rule out proprietary formats such as
word documents. But I think it's quite clear that the GFDL does rule
out using word documents as source --
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:00:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using a pseudonym to make it harder to identify you is in clear violation
of the above-quoted requirement. You've indicated that it's difficult to
do so, but the intent of this
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 03:41:30PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Adam McKenna writes:
Prevent me, as the file owner? They don't. However, they do obstruct
or control the further reading and copying of the work.
Not in the context of copyright law, as Raul already pointed out.
I
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Prevent me, as the file owner? They don't. However, they do obstruct
or control the further reading and copying of the work.
Is it allowed to keep a hard copy of a GFDL document in a locked house?
That too prevents further reading and copying of the
Adam McKenna writes:
What he meant was, the operations you describe are not operations that
prevent users who already have a copy of the document from exercising their
rights as granted by the license and copyright law.
He's essentially saying that what you are describing is outside of the
Kalle Kivimaa writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Prevent me, as the file owner? They don't. However, they do obstruct
or control the further reading and copying of the work.
Is it allowed to keep a hard copy of a GFDL document in a locked house?
That too prevents further
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 05:02:54PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Plenty. 17 USC 107 defines fair use. Many non-US jurisdictions do
not have any fair use provisions under copyright law.
Give an example of one.
What part of copyright law states that you can only have one backup copy?
17 USC
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 05:02:54PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Plenty. 17 USC 107 defines fair use. Many non-US jurisdictions do
not have any fair use provisions under copyright law.
Give an example of one.
The United Kingdom legislation contains fair
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/15/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Same thing goes for a brick wall -- a brick wall can prevent
unauthorized copying, in the sense you're using.
I can see some difficulty in proving they are technological, but
if
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 11:34:58PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 05:02:54PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
Plenty. 17 USC 107 defines fair use. Many non-US jurisdictions do
not have any fair use provisions under copyright law.
Give an
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 11:44:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Rephrase: I don't agree the same goes for a brick wall because it's
not technological, but sillier decisions have been made before.
How exactly is a brick wall not technological? Do brick walls occur
naturally?
Why is distribution
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:41:29 +0400 olive wrote:
The greatest problem is that the GFDL is really badly written and
although I have always defended that it is free, it would be very
usefull if the FSF could one for all resolve these ambiguities.
I doubt that this will ever happen, now that
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Adam McKenna wrote:
I didn't mean give an example of such a jurisdiction, I meant give an
example of infringing, non-distributional copying.
Umm, copying that occurs in such a jurisdiction?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
For the fact that it is or not legitimate to restrict free document to
open format; I would say that IMHO it is at least acceptable since
otherwise it would make it unusable by someone who have decided to use
only free softwares. Another consequence would be that a derivative work
of a free
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One thing that springs to mind is to start doing summaries of traffic on
Debian-legal (again). Its has been tried before, but turns out to be too
much work for every victim^Wvolunteer so far.
I'm still posting them at http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 11:32:12AM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
I think the sentiment that produced this voting pattern was a desire
not to see any more emails about the GFDL. For example, Anthony Towns
wrote [1]:
I think Anton's amendment has received more than enough discussion
that it
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
The Project did not tell us why.
You could ask, you know.
You still can do that, you know, if you actually want the answer.
If we just ask, we're probably not going to get an answer. The way to
get an answer would be to propose a clarifying
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
it's evidence that the issues have been thought through enough for us
to make a clear decision.
Putting aside this statement which reinforces my belief, it turns out
that even if everyone had put FD as their second choice, Amendment A
still would have
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 03:39:46PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
The Project did not tell us why.
You could ask, you know.
You still can do that, you know, if you actually want the answer.
If we just ask, we're probably not going to get an
W
A Word document is never Transparent. From the GFDL:
A Transparent copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy,
represented in a format whose specification is available to the
general public ...
The Word format specification is not available to the public.
Word documents
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/14/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[File permissions]
Thereby, it can prevent unauthorised copying and meets the above
definition, as far as I can see.
Same thing goes for a wooden door -- a wooden door can prevent
unauthorized copying, in the
Scripsit Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Same thing goes for the atlantic ocean -- the atlantic ocean can prevent
unauthorized copying, in the sense you're using.
Are you arguing that the GFDL is free because it says that copying is
forbidden if the Atlantic Ocean exists?
--
Henning Makholm
Scripsit Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Encrypting a document (whether via GPG or HTTPS) sure seems like a technical
measure to obstruct the reading of copies.
In the general case, this is not a technical measure to enforce the copyright
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
W
A Word document is never Transparent. From the GFDL:
A Transparent copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy,
represented in a format whose specification is available to the
general public ...
The Word format specification is not
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 04:54:30PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
The Word format specification is not available to the public.
Here's something I'm confused about: the Gimp's native file format, XCF,
has, as far as I can tell, no specification, being intended for use with
the Gimp only. All I
Anthony Towns wrote:
So, debian-legal is us, leaving the rest of the project to be
them?
When I'm sending a message to debian-legal, yes, I often use us to
mean the participants on debian-legal. I intend only to save a little
typing, nothing more.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 09:54:15PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
So, debian-legal is us, leaving the rest of the project to be
them?
When I'm sending a message to debian-legal, yes, I often use us to
mean the participants on debian-legal. I intend only to save a little
On 3/16/06, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing that springs to mind is to start doing summaries of traffic on
Debian-legal (again). Its has been tried before, but turns out to be too
much work for every victim^Wvolunteer so far.
Way back in February last year, MJ Ray and I
* Glenn Maynard:
It requires preserving any section titled History, required adding
it if it's not there, and requires adding stuff to it.
I agree that this is quite annoying, but the GPL has similar
requirements, although the community at large does not comply with
them.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Anthony Towns wrote:
The Project essentially told us our conclusion ??? the GFDL is not free ?=
is wrong in the case where there are no invariant sections.=20
So, debian-legal is us, leaving the rest of the project to be
them?
Well, several of the loudest squallers over-interpreting the DFSG
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 01:09:43AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
The practical problems beyond the DFSG have always been something
we commented in, but not a direct freedom problem themselves. The
FSF used to do this too - see their criticism of obnoxious
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 08:46:16AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
It requires preserving any section titled History, required adding
it if it's not there, and requires adding stuff to it.
I agree that this is quite annoying, but the GPL has similar
requirements, although the community at
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 10:28:06AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Not a stupid label in general, but a stupid label for licences. There's
always a UW. Using the DFSG as some sort of licence certification
scheme is a really bad idea and organisations that try to do so should
die messily. Please let's
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 10:28:06AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Not a stupid label in general, but a stupid label for licences. [...]
Please let's concentrate on the software: it's worth looking
at licences, but software is the thing of interest.
[...] Copyright
Claus Färber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are two assumptions here that are wrong:
. US residents can only be sued in US courts.
. US courts can only decide on US copyright law.
Speaking of which, are there any cases in which a US court has made a
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 03:06:58PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
For the DRM issue to be significant, we'd have to have reason to
believe that a judge would not be familiar with the legal meaning of
the phrase technical measures in the context of copyright law.
Other meanings of technical measures
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For the DRM issue to be significant, we'd have to have reason to
believe that a judge would not be familiar with the legal meaning of
the phrase technical measures in the context of copyright law.
From the EUCD (2001/29/EC) Article 6 (3), we have in English
On 3/14/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For the DRM issue to be significant, we'd have to have reason to
believe that a judge would not be familiar with the legal meaning of
the phrase technical measures in the context of copyright law.
From the EUCD
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 03:06:58PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
For the DRM issue to be significant, we'd have to have reason to
believe that a judge would not be familiar with the legal meaning of
the phrase technical measures in the context
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 07:15:21PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Encrypting a document (whether via GPG or HTTPS) sure seems like a technical
measure to obstruct the reading of copies.
In the general case, this is not a technical measure to
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(I don't think any special attempt to prevent the technical measures
themselves are necessary, since the GPL's source requirements already
did that: an encrypted, locked, unmodifiable copy is not source.)
Ok, but the legal right to modify a
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3/14/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From the EUCD (2001/29/EC) Article 6 (3), we have in English English:
the expression technological measures means any technology, device or
component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 09:29:40PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(I don't think any special attempt to prevent the technical measures
themselves are necessary, since the GPL's source requirements already
did that: an encrypted, locked,
On 3/14/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
File permissions have little or nothing to do with enforcing copyright.
File permissions are an all or nothing mechanism. You either have
given a person a copy of the copyrighted material, or you have not.
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GFDL specifically says that it must clearly and legibly identify you.
Ambiguity and clarity are opposites, and pseudonyms do not identify you.
My dad's name is Ron Miller. Are you claiming that his name does
not identify him?
There's
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 10:37:07PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GFDL specifically says that it must clearly and legibly identify you.
Ambiguity and clarity are
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 03:06:58PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
And the Opaque issue only applies when the transparent copies are not
distributed. It's simple enough to include the transparent copies in
Raul Miller writes:
File permissions have little or nothing to do with enforcing copyright.
File permissions are an all or nothing mechanism. You either have
given a person a copy of the copyrighted material, or you have not.
Things like the execute bit, not to mention ACLs like those
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 11:01:19PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
However, Option 1 was the consensus of this list, and thus we've been
overridden[0]. I feel that we now need to figure out why the project as
a whole has rejected the draft position statement [2] and
Joey Hess wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
However, Option 1 was the consensus of this list, and thus we've been
overridden[0]. I feel that we now need to figure out why the project as
a whole has rejected the draft position statement [2]
-=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These
Of course, the final authority on the meaning of a license would be the
Supreme Court (at least in the US).
Debian is an international project and not a US project. I don't think
that many non US Debian users or developer will be happy with that.
Would you agree if a say that the final
JC Helary wrote:
[ ] Choice 3: pi = 3 [needs legislature of Indiana approval]
Attempts to legislate pi are always questionable, and when you ask a
majority of uninformed voters[3] to choose between items, it's natural
for the compromise to win, and not unheard of for it to end up 3.
Funny
Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Furthermore, I suspect that outside of debian-legal many people had long
believed that invariant sections were the only issue with the GFDL, and
that the call for a vote was thus the first exposure to the idea that
the GFDL had other serious problems.
So, again
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Project essentially told us our conclusion â the GFDL is not free â
is wrong in the case where there are no invariant sections. The Project
did not tell us why. There are several ways we can take this:
1. The Project intends this to be a
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm wrote:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying [by the intended recipient] of [all] the
copies you make or distribute [to him]
But how can we explain away make or?
I'm
Scripsit Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Furthermore, I suspect that outside of debian-legal many people had long
believed that invariant sections were the only issue with the GFDL, and
that the call for a vote was thus the first exposure to the idea that
the GFDL had other serious problems.
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. The Project intends this to be a one-time thing, applying only to
the GFDL: No effect on future judgements of licenses is intended.
I don't believe this is a valid interpretation of the GR as that'd
require a 3:1
* olive ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Of course, the final authority on the meaning of a license would be the
Supreme Court (at least in the US).
Debian is an international project and not a US project. I don't think
that many non US Debian users or developer will be happy with that.
Would
* Anthony DeRobertis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
So that leads us right back to my point of trying to figure out what the
Project is telling us about interpreting licenses and the DFSG.
I wouldn't take this any farther than what the GR explicitly said- GFDL
w/o invariant sections are free.
olive wrote:
Of course, the final authority on the meaning of a license would be the
Supreme Court (at least in the US).
Debian is an international project and not a US project. I don't think
that many non US Debian users or developer will be happy with that.
Would you agree if a say that
olive wrote:
By the way are you aware that for pi none of your proposal is true
Um, yes, that was sort of the point.
(exept maybe Choice 4 which is unclear). pi is transcendental, and in
particular irrational (which implies that you cannot write it with a
final number of decimal). Your
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wouldn't take this any farther than what the GR explicitly said- GFDL
w/o invariant sections are free. Otherwise, 'normal' (ie: prior to the
GR) rules apply. If people want to change the DFSG then they'll need to
actually do that, this GR didn't, just added an
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry wrote:
You're right. I did not notice that. That makes the analysis much
simpler. The developers, in their wisdom, essentially changed DFSG
#10 to add the GFDL without invariant sections.
Unfortunately, DFSG 10 reads:
*
On Mar 13, Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wouldn't take this any farther than what the GR explicitly said- GFDL
w/o invariant sections are free. Otherwise, 'normal' (ie: prior to the
GR) rules apply. If people want to change the DFSG then they'll need to
actually do that, this
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Mar 13, Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wouldn't take this any farther than what the GR explicitly said- GFDL
w/o invariant sections are free. Otherwise, 'normal' (ie: prior to the
GR) rules apply. If people want to change the DFSG
On Mar 13, Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I do not. It's obviously not an exception (or it would have said so)
but a way to officially state what the DFSG means when applied to this
license, since there has been a wide disagreement in the project about
this.
It's obviously an
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It should be noted that even though the Standard Resolution
Procedure resolved the disagreement, a 211:145 (roughly 3:2) split
when comparing the first two options is hardly a great consensus.
There remains a deep division over whether FDL'd works follow DFSG.
On 3/13/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see why this is such a bad view of it. I've never thought the
DFSG-busting anti-DRM was clear-cut: it's mostly suspicion because RMS
refused to explain it. Justifiable suspicion, but suspicion even so.
I agree.
If someone threatens legal
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
What I should have said is the final authority on the meaning of a
license is the highest court in the jurisdiction in which you are
being sued over it. So, yes, for you the final authority is a Belgian
court, for me its the Supreme Court of
Debian has labelled a license with serious, onerous practical problems free.
The obvious consequence is that any license with similar practical problems
will also be considered free, and--going one small step further--licenses
with serious problems in general will be considered free.
This GR
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian has labelled a license with serious, onerous practical problems free.
Labelling licences 'free' means little, as the FSF demonstrated
with the ironic name of the FDL. What matters is whether the software
under that licence is free software.
The practical
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri)
No, I do not. It's obviously not an exception (or it would have said so)
but a way to officially state what the DFSG means when applied to this
license, since there has been a wide disagreement in the project about
this.
The position statement appears to state
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 01:09:43AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian has labelled a license with serious, onerous practical problems free.
Labelling licences 'free' means little, as the FSF demonstrated
with the ironic name of the FDL. What matters is whether the
On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 11:17:37PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
The Project essentially told us our conclusion ??? the GFDL is not free ???
is wrong in the case where there are no invariant sections.
So, debian-legal is us, leaving the rest of the project to be
them?
The Project did not
On 3/13/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian has labelled a license with serious, onerous practical problems free.
Oh?
I find myself quite uncertain as to what it is that you're talking about.
I see two issues mentioned in other messages, the DRM issue (the
technical measures
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 10:34:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On 3/13/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian has labelled a license with serious, onerous practical problems free.
Oh?
I find myself quite uncertain as to what it is that you're talking about.
I see two issues
OK, I'd love to go with the interpreting the recent GR to mean as a
special exception, the GFDL is free. However, I'm not sure how I can
possibly interpret the GR and the Debian Constitution to make that
reading tenable:
First, the GR very clearly states,
... we also consider that works
Anthony DeRobertis writes:
I believe there are essentially two reconciliations we can have for each
problem listed in the position statement [2]: Either that does not make
things non-free or that is not the intended reading of the license,
stop nit-picking so much.
For the DRM restriction, I
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 11:01:19PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
However, Option 1 was the consensus of this list, and thus we've been
overridden[0]. I feel that we now need to figure out why the project as
a whole has rejected the draft position statement [2] and render our
The GFDL has
* Don Armstrong:
In any case, we've been working with the FSF to resolve these issues
as well, so hopefully a new version of the GFDL will no longer posess
them.
Does this mean that there will be a new version of the GFDL, finally,
or just a different FSF-endorsed documentation license (which
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Don Armstrong:
In any case, we've been working with the FSF to resolve these
issues as well, so hopefully a new version of the GFDL will no
longer posess them.
Does this mean that there will be a new version of the GFDL,
finally, or just a
Scripsit Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Option 2 says GFDL works without invariant sections are free. Does
this include GFDL manuals where the *only* invariant section is the
GFDL itself?
I am be inclined to think that such works would be free following the
GR; the restrictions for
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading
or further copying of the copies you make or distribute has been
mis-read. I don't think there is any way the Project would consider you
must make all your files a+r, etc. a
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
However, Option 1 was the consensus of this list, and thus we've been
overridden[0]. I feel that we now need to figure out why the project as
a whole has rejected the draft position statement [2]
-=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ ] Choice 3: pi = 3 [needs legislature of Indiana approval]
Attempts to legislate pi are always questionable, and when you ask a
majority of uninformed voters[3] to choose between items, it's natural
for the compromise to win, and not unheard of for it to end up 3.
Funny thing is that pi=3
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe there are essentially two reconciliations we can have for each
problem listed in the position statement [2]: Either that does not make
things non-free or that is not the intended reading of the license,
stop nit-picking so much.
Or that
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 11:01:19PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
However, Option 1 was the consensus of this list, and thus we've been
overridden[0]. I feel that we now need to figure out why the project as
a whole has rejected the draft position
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Or that the GR changed the DFSG, and the proponents managed to
browbeat the secretary into not requiring a 3:1 majority.
Well, fortunately 1) the winning option did have a 3:1 majority and 2)
the option requiring a 3:1 majority did not reach even a simple
Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For the DRM restriction, I think that that is not the intended reading
of the license applies. The FSF clearly did not intend to keep people
from using chmod on a GFDL document, and did not intend other problems
pointed out. [...]
What do you base that clear
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...] I feel that we now need to figure out why the project as
a whole has rejected the draft position statement [2] and render our
future --- and possibly re-render our past --- interpretations of the
DFSG in accordance. It is unfortunate that no thorough,
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Or that the GR changed the DFSG, and the proponents managed to
browbeat the secretary into not requiring a 3:1 majority.
Well, fortunately 1) the winning option did have a 3:1 majority
You're right. I did not
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 12:24:12AM +0900, JC Helary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ] Choice 3: pi = 3 [needs legislature of Indiana approval]
Attempts to legislate pi are always questionable, and when you ask a
majority of uninformed voters[3] to choose between items, it's natural
for the
Henning Makholm wrote:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying [by the intended recipient] of [all] the
copies you make or distribute [to him]
But how can we explain away make or?
I'm pretty sure I carefuly did so --- if you
Joey Hess wrote:
Attempts to legislate pi are always questionable, and when you ask a
majority of uninformed voters[3] to choose between items, it's natural
for the compromise to win, and not unheard of for it to end up 3.
I agree wholeheartedly, but I'm not exactly sure how else to proceed.
Walter Landry wrote:
You're right. I did not notice that. That makes the analysis much
simpler. The developers, in their wisdom, essentially changed DFSG
#10 to add the GFDL without invariant sections.
Unfortunately, DFSG 10 reads:
*
**Example Licenses*
The *GPL
101 - 200 of 215 matches
Mail list logo
