In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To be precise, the reference you cited (thanks!) makes it clear that
RMS considers the free in free software to apply only to the
technical functionality of the work, whether the work is a
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Err, who are you arguing against? I do not espouse the position
above. You do a good job arguing against it, but it is unlikely that
RMS will read what you wrote... (I'm also not someone you need to
convince.)
I wasn't taking myself to be arguing
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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 manuals make a profit from them [1].
That may be clear to you, but should we
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], MJ Ray wrote:
... Both FSF and Debian agree that FDL-covered works are not free
software, ...
To the best of my knowledge, this is not correct: RMS seems to argue
that a manual published under the FDL is free in the free software
sense, since you can make any
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], MJ Ray wrote:
... Both FSF and Debian agree that FDL-covered works are not free
software, ...
To the best of my knowledge, this is not correct: RMS seems to argue
that a manual published under the FDL is free in the free
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], MJ Ray wrote:
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], MJ Ray wrote:
... Both FSF and Debian agree that FDL-covered works are not free
software, ...
To the best of my knowledge, this is not correct: RMS seems to argue
that a manual
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To be precise, the reference you cited (thanks!) makes it clear that
RMS considers the free in free software to apply only to the
technical functionality of the work, whether the work is a program
or documentation: he writes
The problem is that the
Jeremy Hankins said:
On debian-legal, yes. But we've had very little actual discussion
with anyone who admitted to representing the FSF position. In fact,
that was one of the issues that came up in our brief discussions with
RMS: is there anyone else who can authoritatively, or at least
Henning Makholm wrote:
To the extent that the GFDL caters for the wishes of publishers at
all, it is in that it makes it inconvenient for *competing* publishers
to publish and sell hardcopies. It would not help a publisher that
*he* has the text under GFDL if his competitors (or those that he
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
David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem here is that (without going into the details)
communication between the FSF and Debian seems to have broken down.
Though I cannot say that I entirely understand the perspective of
the FSF and so
... To the extent that the GFDL caters for the wishes of publishers
at all, it is in that it makes it inconvenient for *competing*
publishers to publish and sell hardcopies. ...
I'm not quite tracking you there. The GFDL isn't supposed to have
that effect, at least as I read it, and as I
Scripsit Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
... To the extent that the GFDL caters for the wishes of publishers
at all, it is in that it makes it inconvenient for *competing*
publishers to publish and sell hardcopies. ...
I'm not quite tracking you there. The GFDL isn't supposed to have
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 04:17:38AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
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 manuals make a profit from them [1].
snip
I like FSF
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 manuals make a profit from them
[1]. It is clear for me, why some debian members
From: Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I like FSF and I like Debian. So, I ask you (FSF and Debian) to find
a solution. Both goals are important. I (user) need documentation
and I (user) need free software. Please, find a compromise!
You are absolutely right. Failure to find a
Hi,
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 manuals make a profit from them [1]. It is
clear for me, why some debian members are not willing to have
documentation
17 matches
Mail list logo
