MJ Ray wrote:
More than unfortunate, it makes that ambition impossible without
telepathy or further surveying, as far as I can see. There seems
little point just guessing what motives produced a pi=3 statement.
It isn't quite as bad as pi = 3, as there is certainly some abiguity in
both the DFSG
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 11:01:19PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
I propose that the
Project is telling us that something along the following is the true
reading:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying [by the
Joe Buck wrote:
That is, the necessity to make a written offer good for three years
is sometimes painful, as is the necessity to keep a transparent copy
available for one year. I did not understand why debian-legal found
the latter provision a DFSG violation.
We found both of them to be DFSG
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 01:11:45 -0700 Joe Buck wrote:
That is, the necessity to make a written offer good for three years
is sometimes painful,
There's no such necessity in the GNU GPL v2.
GPLv2, section 3 offers three alternative paths, only one of which
requires that you make a written offer,
On 2006-03-12, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still don't see how Debian can comply with keeping the source to
every version for a year
In kde-related packages (and probably also in gnome-related) have the
help files distributed in some docbook format - and the help thingie is
a
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:23:32 -0500 Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
[...]
However, maybe once we come up with a way to reconcile the Project's
decision with the text of the DFSG and GFDL, we should ask the project
to approve it (assumably via GR).
I'm not sure I understand what you mean...
Could you
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:15:40 -0500 Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
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.
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joe Buck wrote:
That is, the necessity to make a written offer good for three years
is sometimes painful, as is the necessity to keep a transparent copy
available for one year. I did not understand why debian-legal found
the latter provision a DFSG
Francesco Poli wrote:
I'm definitely not happy: on the contrary, I'm really depressed...
:-(((
Well, I must say I'm not depressed about it --- that'd be if Amendment B
passed. Or even got majority.
I can understand how the average developer can yell nitpicking! at a
lot of our objections to
MJ Ray wrote:
Personally, I find it disappointing that so many people ranked
opposite views high, then FD below them. I think the no,
no matter what description of FD in the ballot is unhelpful
and deters compromise attempts.
I also tend to think that the presence of the absurd free in all
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:23:32 -0500 Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
[...]
However, maybe once we come up with a way to reconcile the Project's
decision with the text of the DFSG and GFDL, we should ask the project
to approve it (assumably via GR).
I'm not sure I
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. The Project
did not tell us why. There are several ways we can take this:
1. The Project intends this to be a one-time thing,
Debian Project Secretary wrote:
The winners are:
Option 2 GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free
Well, first off, I'm happy to see Option 3 failed to even meet majority;
chaos is preserved for another day.[0]
However, Option 1 was the consensus of this list, and thus
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006, Anthony DeRobertis 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
Option 2 says GFDL works without invariant sections are free. Does
this include GFDL manuals where the *only* invariant section is the
GFDL itself? (If I was a DD I would vote for Option 2 myself, and I
think that it is acceptable to have a requirement that the license
itself be included and not
201 - 215 of 215 matches
Mail list logo
