On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 09:38:59AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Since the FSF's goal couldn't possibly be to attract a following of
> loyal idiots, I conclude that invariant sections are an ineffective
> strategy for reaching the FSF's target audience.
You're saying the FSF is less clever than V
On Friday, Aug 29, 2003, at 15:17 US/Eastern, Joe Moore wrote:
Is that license Debian-specific?
Obviously not.
There's permission there only for
non-Debian organizations to derive works.
Because Debian doesn't need permission to derive from or build on its
own documents.
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On 2003-08-29 15:53:09 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Because the DFSG is not DFSG compliant.
>
> AFAICT, the DFSG is under the OPL with no options enabled and that
> licence is considered DFSG-free. Am I missing something?
You're not, I
On 2003-08-29 22:54:27 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Talking of licenses when thinking about how manuals and software can
be different or not complicates the debate more than I thought. [...]
No-one disagrees that they can be different, but you disagree that
they can be the same
Steve Langasek said:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:53:09PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
>> Including the GPL and the DFSG?
>> Because the DFSG is not DFSG compliant.
>
> "Other organizations may derive from and build on this document. Please
> give credit to the Debian project if you do."
> http://www.
On 2003-08-29 13:03:28 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>> On 2003-08-29 12:04:18 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Readers of this list (not only developers) have stated their strong
belief that the GFDL does not follow the D
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm even not sure whether it's a problem to have an invariant part
> in documentation. As my main area of work is History, I'm familiar
> with books -some kind of documentation- that I cannot change
> physically but I still can use fully (read, understand.
Le ven 29/08/2003 à 15:28, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> >
> > 1/ The statement that you were objecting to here does not use "we"
> > at all, so defining "we" is irrelevant.
>
>
> I replied to Josselin who wrote the following:
>
> "If providing any sort
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:53:09PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > Yes, and our goal is to always respect authors: by not distributing
> > works that they don't wish to make available under the terms of the
> > DFSG.
> Including the GPL and the DFSG?
> Because the DFSG is not DFSG compliant.
"Oth
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On 2003-08-29 12:04:18 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Readers of this list (not only developers) have stated their strong
> >> belief that the GFDL does not follow the DFSG.
> > I'm a reader of this list and I'm pretty sure I never stated
On 2003-08-29 15:53:09 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Because the DFSG is not DFSG compliant.
AFAICT, the DFSG is under the OPL with no options enabled and that
licence is considered DFSG-free. Am I missing something?
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> On 2003-08-29 14:17:12 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm completely capable to read a book and make a summary, make a
> > speech about it ... there's no way to forbid that - since I have the
> > freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
>
On 2003-08-29 13:52:39 +0100 Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The only way you can write your own text based on the old one is if
the license permits you to do so. [...]
And we can have a fun debate about whether you can still call that
"plagiarism" but it's not really relevant to De
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>
> As evidence that the FSF's attempt to disseminate their philosophy by
> piggybacking it on technical manuals using the GFDL is flawed, I present
> the fact that none of the people that the FSF's views seem to have
> reached via this vector are capa
On 2003-08-29 14:17:12 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm completely capable to read a book and make a summary, make a
speech about it ... there's no way to forbid that - since I have the
freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
That is not a derived work. You can use proprietar
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>
> 1/ The statement that you were objecting to here does not use "we"
> at all, so defining "we" is irrelevant.
I replied to Josselin who wrote the following:
"If providing any sort of crap _we_ can was a service to our
users, there wouldn'
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 03:17:12PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> I'm completely capable to read a book and make a summary, make a
> speech about it ... there's no way to forbid that - since I have the
> freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
> Every scientific book is made of references, bibliog
On 2003-08-29 14:28:54 +0100 Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>> 1/ The statement that you were objecting to here does not use "we"
>> at all, so defining "we" is irrelevant.
> I replied to Josselin who wrote the following:
> "If providing any
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I'm even not sure whether it's a problem to have an invariant part
> > in documentation. As my main area of work is History, I'm familiar
> > with books -some kind of documentation- that I cannot change
19 matches
Mail list logo
