Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 06:07:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > As far as I know, we're happy to accept non-free stuff in pristine > .orig.tar.gz's as long as it's not used. If you don't have a pristine > .orig.tar.gz anyway, then it's silly to include unused non-free stuff, > but it's not cause f

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 02:14, Branden Robinson wrote: > Another good argument against the GNU FDL. Not to mention that publishing known false statements, like claiming it is a GNU Manual or that the FSF publishes copies, is of dubious legality. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally sign

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Thu, 08 May 2003, Anthony Towns wrote: > As far as I know, we're happy to accept non-free stuff in pristine > .orig.tar.gz's as long as it's not used. I'd actually expect apt-get source foo to return sources that are DFSG free, when foo is in main or contrib. Granted, you should be checking th

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 06:07:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > As far as I know, we're happy to accept non-free stuff in pristine > .orig.tar.gz's as long as it's not used. Okay, so this is wrong. You're not allowed to include non-free stuff in anything uploaded to main, .deb, .diff.gz or .orig

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 01:12:27AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I think before Debian puts anything in main it should remove any > invariant sections from the work, just as we do with non-free source > code. I once had a big old nasty flamewar with the FTP admins that > was tangentially relate

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 08:48:26AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mer 07/05/2003 à 08:12, Branden Robinson a écrit : > > I think before Debian puts anything in main it should remove any > > invariant sections from the work, just as we do with non-free source > > code. I once had a big old nas

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Le mer 07/05/2003 à 08:12, Branden Robinson a écrit : > I think before Debian puts anything in main it should remove any > invariant sections from the work, just as we do with non-free source > code. I once had a big old nasty flamewar with the FTP admins that > was tangentially related to this po

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 03:30:26PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Actually, I wonder whether the current application of the GFDL for > GNU manuals is internally consistent at all. > > For example, the GNU diffutils manual is licenced with the Front-Cover > Text "A GNU Manual". Say now that I'm a

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 01:41:27AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 12:24:56AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > 1) You remove the FSF's endorsement of the license which > >is the preamble. The Debian Project has no problem with > >this; it is certainly a

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 01:30:35AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > Back in June of last year Branden proposed a Debian Free Content License > which had some great ideas about endorsements. I'm not sure if he even > finished writing a draft; I can't seem to find one. However, the > conversation (

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Thu, 01 May 2003, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote: >> But as we've found out now, the part of the GPL that is actually >> invariant is the preamble, which has no legal content... > > Can you provide me a reference upon which you are basing this > statement? I

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote: > But as we've found out now, the part of the GPL that is actually > invariant is the preamble, which has no legal content... I've seen this meme popping up in a couple of places. Can you provide me a reference upon which you are basing this statement?

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Tue, 2003-04-29 at 15:22, Brian M. Carlson wrote: ^^^ > Uhh, I didn't know that the IETF issued RFCs in the future. Perhaps you > meant April 2003? Might have something to do with <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, or the effect of that on me :-D signature.asc Description: This is a d

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 01:50:33AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > >RFC 1884 (December 1995) >RFC 2373 (July 1998) >RFC 3515 (August 2003) ^^^ Uhh, I didn't know that the IETF issued RFCs in the future. Perhaps you meant April 2003? -- Brian M. Carlson <[EMAI

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Scripsit Anthony Towns > It's easy to misapply the GNU FDL. >The GNU FDL says that only "Secondary Sections" (a term it defines) >may be marked Invariant, but does not say what should happen if a >section that is not Secondary is listed as an Invariant Section. >The FSF itself h

Re: Incremental revisions (Was: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 06:45, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Therefore, the IETF is insane often :-) No argument there.

Incremental revisions (Was: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 01:50:33AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 42 lines which said: > > RFC authors do it all the time, by issuing updates to existing RFC > > documents. They say "Do it like this, except for this, this, and this". > > No, that's generally

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 11:26, Jeremy Hankins wrote: >> On one hand, the >> benefits to be gained from a free-software-like approach to purely >> artistic/aesthetic (i.e., non-functional) works aren't as obvious. > > A rather ironic statement in a Baz

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Sat, 2003-04-26 at 03:12, Henning Makholm wrote: > The current status of the preamble goes much farther than > that. It says that I must not reuse the wordings in the preamble for > composing a text that expresses *my* views on licensing (and makes > clear that they are mine, not the FSF's). T

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 11:50:45PM +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote: > > Are you aware that there is much software > > already in non-free which is freely redistributable but > > non-modifiable? > > Then leave it there until someone starts complaining about it. (and then continue leaving it

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Hi Manoj, On Friday 25 April 2003 10:54, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 04:57:36 +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > * Create a section 'distributable' that is between main and > >non-free, for stuff that is not free WRT modification, > >availabili

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Hi Steve, On Saturday 26 April 2003 06:15, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 10:49:26PM +0200, Thomas Uwe > Gruettmueller wrote: > > I don't think that freely distributable documents should be > > mixed with stuff which is not [freely distributable] > Why should Debian distinguish b

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 02:40:29AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > It still contains an invariant section, though it's less severe than the > > GFDL type, as it can be removed. I don't believe there's consensus that > > invariant sections in general are okay as long as they can be removed, >

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [GPL preamble] > > It still contains an invariant section, though it's less severe than the > > GFDL type, as it can be removed. > It's nothing special created by the copyright license. Its the general > rule that you aren't allowed to misrepresent

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Sat, 2003-04-26 at 01:41, Glenn Maynard wrote: > It still contains an invariant section, though it's less severe than the > GFDL type, as it can be removed. I don't believe there's consensus that > invariant sections in general are okay as long as they can be removed, > though. It's nothing s

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 12:34, Henning Makholm wrote: > Of course both of these limits are > judgement calls, and each particular Invariant-But-Removable > section will have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. > [Hmmm.. so I think at least, but I'm not sure that this is >

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 22:33, Matthew Palmer wrote: > RFC authors do it all the time, by issuing updates to existing RFC > documents. They say "Do it like this, except for this, this, and this". No, that's generally only done for tiny changes: Adding a bit here or there, etc. For large changes,

Re: Is documentation different from software [Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL]

On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 22:27, Matthew Palmer wrote: > Except that it's typically a lot easier to work out where a program has been > incompatibly modified ("oops, compile error, damn, the API changed") than a > standard has been modified. The use of 'diff' notwithstanding. Well, when you modify a

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 12:24:56AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > 1) You remove the FSF's endorsement of the license which >is the preamble. The Debian Project has no problem with >this; it is certainly an author's right to refuse to >endorse arbitrary changes. > So

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 20:04, Matthew Palmer wrote: > Modifying an RFC and re-releasing it is not a good thing, And why isn't it? Is it a bad thing if I modify the TCP/IP-related RFCs to produce a book on TCP/IP? Is it a bad thing if I copy some packet formats, and their related descriptions, out

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 11:26, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > On one hand, the > benefits to be gained from a free-software-like approach to purely > artistic/aesthetic (i.e., non-functional) works aren't as obvious. A rather ironic statement in a Bazaar-type development of the wording of a position state

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

> What About Unmodifiable Software Licenses Like the GNU GPL? Strike that text! It's not true. Noting , let me try: start new answer The Free Software Foundation clarifies what it means by "...but changing [the GPL] is not allowed"

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 10:49:26PM +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote: > > There's lots of software in non-free that is freely > > distributable, but non-free for other reasons, such as > > limitations on commercial use. Non- free things should go in > > non-free, even if there's a lack of fre

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 12:33:21PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > RFC authors do it all the time, by issuing updates to existing RFC > documents. They say "Do it like this, except for this, this, and this". This argument would suggest that any unmodifiable, freely-distributable document is free.

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > To roast a hoary chestnut, I've not yet seen a good argument why we'd > > want the RFCs to be relicensed as DFSG-free, apart from the "so it can > > go into Debian main". Modifying an RFC and re-releasing it is not a > > good thing, but the DFSG says

Re: Is documentation different from software [Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Mark Rafn wrote: > > Could we produce a distinction amongst our offerings in the following > > manner: > > Why do we want to produce a distinction where there is none? We obviously disagree on whether there is a distinction. > > To roast a hoary chestnut, I've not yet seen

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 10:04:31AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > To roast a hoary chestnut, I've not yet seen a good argument why we'd want > the RFCs to be relicensed as DFSG-free, apart from the "so it can go into > Debian main". Modifying an RFC and re-releasing it is not a good thing, but > t

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Scripsit "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Henning Makholm said: > > No, we just said that license text are sufficiently non-software-like to > > enjoy an exception. > I think the key reason (that licenses are acceptable invariant texts) is > that the license text is a legal agreement between _yo

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 02:21:24PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > > excellent place to refer to Brian's discovery. > /me sniffles dejectedly > But I made the same "discovery" 2 days earlier, on Tue, 22 Apr 2003 > 12:49:47 -0500 in Message-ID: <[EM

Is documentation different from software [Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Matthew Palmer wrote: > I was about to pipe up with "but we don't distribute novels with Debian" > until I realised that we want to distribute a few other novel-like things - > pure documentation not associated with a specific software program (eg the > hoary old chestnut of t

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: [Disclaimer: if, at any point during the reading of this message, you see a point which has been raised and covered before, please point me to the archive message. I couldn't find anything in the d-legal archives back to Jan-2002 which appeared to deal w

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Hi Glenn, On Friday 25 April 2003 05:00, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 04:57:36AM +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote: > > On the other hand, the DFSGly non-free docs that are about > > to be thrown out of main are at least as freely > > distributable as any other package in ma

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Henning Makholm said: > Scripsit Anthony Towns > >> > If only we could be sure that the license on the manuals would >> allow a user who thinks that "because!" is reason enough for >> him, to remove the GNU Manifesto, we probably could still >> distribute the unmidified manuals with the Invar

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 02:21:24PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > But the question itself is good, because many people do have the > impression that the "changing it is not allowed" language at the top > of the GPL itself is the final word. This question would be an > excellent place to refer to B

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If only we could be sure that the license on the manuals would > allow a user who thinks that "because!" is reason enough for > him, to remove the GNU Manifesto, we probably could still > distribute the unmidified manuals with the I

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 02:05:10PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Anthony Towns > > > If only we could be sure that the license on the manuals would > > > allow a user who thinks that "because!" is reason enough for him, > > > to remove the GNU Manifesto, we probably could

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Scripsit "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Henning Makholm said: > > Perhaps the O.A.C. ought to be our next target, but let us fight one > > battle at a time. > EXPN O.A.C.? Obnoxious Advertising Clause. -- Henning Makholm "However, the fact that the utterance by

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Scripsit Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Anthony Towns wrote: > > What About Unmodifiable Software Licenses Like the GNU GPL? > >Many software licenses unfortunately disallow the creation ofderivative > >works. The FSF give everyone permission to distribute verbatim > >copies of the G

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Scripsit Anthony Towns > > If only we could be sure that the license on the manuals would > > allow a user who thinks that "because!" is reason enough for him, > > to remove the GNU Manifesto, we probably could still distribute > > the unmidified manuals with the Invariant Sec

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 04:57:36 +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On the other hand, the DFSGly non-free docs that are about to be > thrown out of main are at least as freely distributable as any other > package in main. This is a quality that many packages in non-free do

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 03:00:00PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > The difference between Office and Invariants is (if I understand the licence > correctly) that Invariant sections can't be large chunks of the manual - > only so-called "secondary sections". So, if I make a Debian system that incl

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Anthony Towns wrote: > If we are willing to accept invariant chapters in DFSG-free > documentation, I don't see how we could possibly claim the GNU FDL is not > DFSG-free. Merely being able to delete something doesn't make it free -- > I can delete MS Office easily enough, eg.

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 06:20:27PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > instead of a document > like this one that warns about and criticises the FDL, perhaps Debian > should issue a more general statement along the lines of: We have > decided documentation in Debian must comply with the DFSG, and this will >

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On 24 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote: > > Given the GNU Projects influence on Debian, shouldn't the GNU Manifesto > > be included in the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution anyway? > > I propose expanding this question to: > >Why does Debian want to remove (say) the GNU Manifesto from the >ma

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > > I'm not putting that up as the canonical form of the Q&A, but it > > reinforces to me why the GFDL needs fixing, and not us. > > This says to me "It's hard to change the DFSG, and the DFSG is > respected." Neither of those seems like a good reason

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 04:57:36AM +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote: > On the other hand, the DFSGly non-free docs that are about to be > thrown out of main are at least as freely distributable as any > other package in main. This is a quality that many packages in > non-free do not share w

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Hi Matthew and all, On Thursday 24 April 2003 13:21, Matthew Palmer wrote: > I agree with what's expressed in the FAQ, but apart from the > section on why we think software and documentation should be > treated equally under the DFSG (quite a good argument there, > BTW) there's nothing there abou

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Anthony Towns wrote: > As such, we cannot accept works that include "Invariant Sections" and > similar unmodifiable components into our distribution, which unfortunately > includes a number of current manuals for GNU software. It may be worth noting that GNU manuals are hardly the only thing effec

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

This reply consists only of non-topical editorial comments. Anthony Towns wrote: > In November 2002, version 1.2 of the GNU Free Documentation License (GNU > FDL) was released by the Free Software Foundation after a long period > of consultation. Unfortunately, some concerns raised by members of t

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

> http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL > > Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license? > > You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license > provided that you call your license by another name and do not > include the GPL preamble, and provided

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Anthony Towns writes: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 12:22:27PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: >> However, the legal text of the GPL is reusable (allowing modification >> and distribution), as long as you don't include the name GPL, the >> Preamble, or the instructions for use. > > What makes you thi

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Henning Makholm said: > Perhaps the O.A.C. ought to be our next target, but let us fight one > battle at a time. EXPN O.A.C.? (snip) > While we should definitely include the hijacking example, some care > should be exercised in phrasing an explanation of what we think it > proves. In particular i

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

> On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 06:34:08PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > > If the rule had, instead been, that Invariant Sections could not > > themselves be modified, but could freely be omitted entirely in > > derived works, Debian would be able to distribute GDFL'ed > > documentation. On F

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 12:22:27PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > However, the legal text of the GPL is reusable (allowing modification > and distribution), as long as you don't include the name GPL, the > Preamble, or the instructions for use. What makes you think this is the case? Cheers, aj

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 06:34:08PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > If the rule had, instead been, that Invariant Sections could not > themselves be modified, but could freely be omitted entirely in > derived works, Debian would be able to distribute GDFL'ed > documentation. We can distrib

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Anthony Towns writes: > The real answer is that: > > (a) There's never any point making these things unmodifiable. Deriving > a new license that uses some parts of the GPL doesn't change > the license of old works, and isn't dangerous in any way -- > it merely makes it

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Scripsit Anthony Towns > On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 05:35:14AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > > -- would you prefer that they hadn't seconded the > > proposal either? We could have had a nicely silent majority. > I don't really see much value in "me too" posts. We build consensus by > responding

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 09:38:16AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > More importantly, for both the front cover texts and the history > section, the GPL does not require its changelog be in the source file > itself; it is enough to accompany the work with a separate changelog > file. The GFDL's req

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 08:27:19AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 05:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > In particular: for emacs21, ``with the Invariant Sections being "The > > GNU Manifesto", "Distribution" and "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE"'', and > > for gdb ``with the I

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Anthony Towns writes: > On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 05:35:14AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: >> > Debian's stance on the GNU Free Documentation License >> > ...OR NOT (completely unofficial, draft, blahblah) >> (Section I, 'Preserve the section entitled "History"', is also a candidate >> for this l

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 08:27:19AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 05:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > In particular: for emacs21, ``with the Invariant Sections being "The > > GNU Manifesto", "Distribution" and "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE"'', and > > for gdb ``with the I

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 05:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > In particular: for emacs21, ``with the Invariant Sections being "The > GNU Manifesto", "Distribution" and "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE"'', and > for gdb ``with the Invariant Sections being "A Sample GDB Session" and > "Free Software"''

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 09:21:45PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > > One which isn't mentioned there is to amend the DFSG to allow the FDL > > > and similar licences. > > I think "Why are Unmodifiable Sections a Problem?" in the proposed FAQ I > > just posted in reply to Richard's message covers t

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Why can't the DFSG be modified to accomodate the restrictions imposed by the > FDL? After all, RMS endorses it, so why shouldn't you? > > The Debian Free Software Guidelines, combined with the Social Contract, are > the basic tenets by which Debian is

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 06:59:45PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > One which isn't mentioned there is to amend the DFSG to allow the FDL > > and similar licences. > > I think "Why are Unmodifiable Sections a Problem?" in the proposed FAQ I > just poste

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 06:59:45PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > One which isn't mentioned there is to amend the DFSG to allow the FDL and > similar licences. > > Before someone schedules a MOAB test over my home, note that I am not > advocating this course, merely that it should be mentioned and

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 05:35:14AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > -- would you prefer that they hadn't seconded the > proposal either? We could have had a nicely silent majority. I don't really see much value in "me too" posts. We build consensus by responding to criticism, and there hasn't bee

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 06:59:45PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > One which isn't mentioned there is to amend the DFSG to allow the FDL and > similar licences. > > Before someone schedules a MOAB test over my home, note that I am not > advocating this course, merely that it should be mentioned and

Re: DPL election platforms [was: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL]

On Sat, 19 Apr 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: > (As an aside, I do wonder why we bother with platforms and rebuttals at > all in our DPL election process -- I suspect people make up their minds > about how they'll vote without such documents exerting much in the way > of influence at all.) I'll sa

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Sat, 19 Apr 2003, Anthony Towns wrote: > The Solution > > > There are a number of things that can be done to avoid this problem. One which isn't mentioned there is to amend the DFSG to allow the FDL and similar licences. Before someone schedules a MOAB test over my home, note th

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 05:35:14AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 11:29:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > (Hrm, asking for someone to handle this results in a motion for it > > to be handled, and lots of seconds that aren't willing to actually do > > anything. How helpf

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 11:29:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > (Hrm, asking for someone to handle this results in a motion for it > to be handled, and lots of seconds that aren't willing to actually do > anything. How helpful.) Yeesh. I'm so used to getting screamed at when I make proposals, th

Re: Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 11:29:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > (Hrm, asking for someone to handle this results in a motion for it > to be handled, and lots of seconds that aren't willing to actually do > anything. How helpful.) That comment was unhelpful, and just discourages people from helping

Proposed statement wrt GNU FDL

(Hrm, asking for someone to handle this results in a motion for it to be handled, and lots of seconds that aren't willing to actually do anything. How helpful.) Debian's stance on the GNU Free Documentation License ...OR NOT (completely unofficial, draft, blahblah) 20th April, 2003 In November 2