On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:51:01 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
> Another possibility is to simply use the GPL, and grant exceptions for
> various cases. Given that an ideal Free documentation license would
> be GPL-compatible (if not the GPL itself, which is pretty ideal), and
> that any GPL-compatible
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 04:23:01PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
>>"These exceptions are granted for derivative works only if those works
>>contain no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
>>Texts."
>
> That's a possibility, but without buy-in from the FSF, I
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 10:03:22PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> I'm fine with recommending that people dual-license; as you say, it's
> a PITA otherwise. But incompatibility with the GPL does not cause
> GFDL non-freeness.
Assuming you meant DFSG here, I don't think anyone is suggesting that it
does.
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 09:21:43PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Side issue #1: even a GFDL with exceptions is still going to be GPL
> > incompatible. True, but that's also the case for several other
> > licenses that are considered DFSG-free, so the
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 04:23:01PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> Side issue #1: even a GFDL with exceptions is still going to be GPL
> incompatible. True, but that's also the case for several other
> licenses that are considered DFSG-free, so the point isn't relevant
> for this discussion. We can reco
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm pleased to see that documentation writers are trying to figure
> out a way to clean up some issues with the GNU FDL. It seems,
> though, that some of the commenters are getting sidetracked by side
> issues.
>
> Side issue #1: even a GFDL with exceptions
On 2004-09-29 00:23:01 +0100 Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Side issue #3: claims that we should tell people to use the GPL for
documentation. That's a bad idea, as if I sell my GPL-covered printed
book to a friend, and that book was produced from, say, DocBook SGML,
I
have to either give
I'm pleased to see that documentation writers are trying to figure
out a way to clean up some issues with the GNU FDL. It seems,
though, that some of the commenters are getting sidetracked by side
issues.
Side issue #1: even a GFDL with exceptions is still going to be GPL
incompatible. True, bu
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:12:07 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > If these clarifications were to be made, would the licence be
> > considered DFSG-free?
> Um... I think so. Were there any other problem clauses?
The possibility for further modifiers to *add* unmodifiable sections
(Invariant Section
Roger Leigh wrote:
> During discussion with gimp-print upstream about the potential
> problems with the GNU FDL and the possibility of relicensing it, a
> number of issues have cropped up, which I'd be grateful if you could
> assist with. I have pointed to Manoj's draft position statement as a
>
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 06:32:17PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 18:15, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 07:09:18PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > Specifically, would it be possible to
> > > 1) Allow storage/transmission on encrypted filesystems/links to
> >
On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 18:15, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 07:09:18PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Specifically, would it be possible to
> > 1) Allow storage/transmission on encrypted filesystems/links to
> >counter the "DRM restriction"?
> > 2) Not require forcing distribut
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 07:09:18PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Specifically, would it be possible to
> 1) Allow storage/transmission on encrypted filesystems/links to
>counter the "DRM restriction"?
> 2) Not require forcing distribution of transparent copies with bulk
>opaque copies?
>
> I
On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 15:55, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Specifically, would it be possible to
> >> 1) Allow storage/transmission on encrypted filesystems/links to
> >>counter the "DRM restriction"?
> >> 2) Not require forcing distribution of transparent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[Thanks Joe and MJ, your replies were very helpful, and much
appreciated.]
> On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 13:09, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> The Gimp-Print User's Guide (package gimpprint-doc) is currently
>> licensed und
On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 13:09, Roger Leigh wrote:
> The Gimp-Print User's Guide (package gimpprint-doc) is currently
> licensed under the terms of the GNU FDL.
>
> During discussion with gimp-print upstream about the potential
> problems with the GNU FDL and the possibility of relicensing it, a
> nu
On 2004-09-21 19:09:18 +0100 Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the documentation was to remain GFDL licenced, would be possible to
add a clarification to the licence in order to counter the main
problems which would affect this work? [...]
In general, I think they should grant exceptio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi folks,
The Gimp-Print User's Guide (package gimpprint-doc) is currently
licensed under the terms of the GNU FDL.
During discussion with gimp-print upstream about the potential
problems with the GNU FDL and the possibility of relicensing it, a
numb
18 matches
Mail list logo
