Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 05:41:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
We've already had this survey. Can you perhaps say why you are taking
yet another, why you think the conclusions might be different, and
what you think the survey is intended to show?
I believe he was responding to the
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 04:39:05PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
IMHO This is _not_ appropriate for debian-devel-announce. It's not a soapbox,
please keep your messages purely informational in the future. (If I haven't
critizied others for doing the same thing, sorry. Maybe it was because your's
Branden Robinson wrote:
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 10:47:45PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-08-28 21:51:41 +0100 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Op do 28-08-2003, om 20:02 schreef MJ Ray:
Ye gods! Who knew that software was such a contentious word?
Agreed. Perhaps we should...
... Oh, wait. I already suggested
On 2003-08-30 23:27:44 +0100 Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...and I said yes, but you should do it properly and define all the
words,
just to be on the safe side. Got anything new to say, or is the day
stuck
again?
If someone proposes to go out for a walk because it's such a
CC me on replies. Thanks.
Branden Robinson writes...
A little over one week ago, I posted a survey[1] to the debian-legal
mailing list, requesting the opinion of subscribers regarding one of a
pair of related questions that have been asked with increasing frequency
on that list, and in a few
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2003-08-29 05:40:37 +0100 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Here are the results of the survey.
possible non-
developers developers developers
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:17:46PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Thursday, Aug 21, 2003, at 01:09 US/Eastern, Branden Robinson wrote:
[why to the mailing list...?]
So people can verify the results for themselves, and will be less likely
to accuse me of falsifying the results.
Or so I
On 2003-08-29 14:57:26 +0100 Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is only meaningful if the sample is unbiased.
Oh, that's a bit strong. It would still have some meaning, just not
one that's useful ;-) The question is: is it an unbiased sample of
those who would vote in a GR on this
On 2003-08-29 15:36:42 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are several issues.
- This survey was made during aout, where more than usually people can
be on vacation -- yeah, I was :)
I was on holiday for some of August too. I suspect that is
uncorrelated with views on FDL.
I conclude that there is a probability of less than 1 in 1000 that the
above total vote for option 1 would have been obtained by pure chance
if there was no majority for option 1 over all others.
This is only meaningful if the sample is unbiased. Since the survey
was announced on
On 2003-08-29 05:40:37 +0100 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Here are the results of the survey.
possible non-
developers developers developers
On 2003-08-29 16:09:45 +0100 MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] I can't see either happening.
Should have read either change. Sorry to point it out, but there
are some picky people in this thread.
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Joe Wreschnig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030828 19:50]:
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 03:55, Andreas Barth wrote:
So, as a ad-hoc statement it seems to me that the only way in the
spirit of the Social Contract is to accept GFDL-docu if certain
restrictions are
Op do 28-08-2003, om 20:02 schreef MJ Ray:
Ye gods! Who knew that software was such a contentious word?
Agreed. Perhaps we should...
... Oh, wait. I already suggested we'd do so.
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie --
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I conclude that there is a probability of less than 1 in 1000 that the
above total vote for option 1 would have been obtained by pure chance
if there was no majority for option 1 over all others.
This is only meaningful if the sample is
Scripsit Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- It's represent only the point of view of people at debian-legal
while the scope of the issue is way more general than that.
The survey was announced in DWN before the polling booth closed.
During the last year, DWN has ran several stories about the
Le ven 29/08/2003 à 16:36, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
- This survey was made during aout, where more than usually people can
be on vacation -- yeah, I was :)
Yeah, so it deprived us of your stupid arguments.
What a shame.
- It's represent only the point of view of people at debian-legal
A little over one week ago, I posted a survey[1] to the debian-legal
mailing list, requesting the opinion of subscribers regarding one of a
pair of related questions that have been asked with increasing frequency
on that list, and in a few other forums around the Internet.
Does the GNU Free
* Joe Wreschnig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030828 19:50]:
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 03:55, Andreas Barth wrote:
So, as a ad-hoc statement it seems to me that the only way in the
spirit of the Social Contract is to accept GFDL-docu if certain
restrictions are not used (except for a license text, which
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:36:42PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
- This survey was made during aout, where more than usually people can
be on vacation -- yeah, I was :)
Yes, I'm sure that if the survey was taken at a more appropriate time,
the majority of people who understand that the GFDL is
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is
Andreas Barth wrote:
Comment: documentation is not software, and DFSG is made with software
in mind.
Actually, the DSFG _was_ made with documentation in mind.
Bruce Perens wrote:
I intended for the entire contents of that CD to be under the rights stated
in the DSFG - be they software,
On 2003-08-28 09:55:58 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Comment: documentation is not software, and DFSG is made with software
in mind. [...]
Please read
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg00690.html
for more information on what was in mind when DFSG
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:35:16AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Why have we another sudden influx of people who haven't read any of
the history on this? (Rhetorical. I think we can guess.)
I'll answer it anyway: it's because our conclusions are reaching a
wider audience, which means we have more
(Ignoring the fact that your statement about the DFSG was untrue, which
has been pointed out elsewhere...)
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 03:55, Andreas Barth wrote:
Having said this, we must now try to work without the special rules as
good as possible, unless someone proposes these rules in time for
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030828 12:50]:
On 2003-08-28 09:55:58 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Comment: documentation is not software, and DFSG is made with software
in mind. [...]
Please read
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg00690.html
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 06:08:47PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:35:16AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Why have we another sudden influx of people who haven't read any of
the history on this? (Rhetorical. I think we can guess.)
I'll answer it anyway: it's because our
On 2003-08-28 17:30:36 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I _have_ read the history. But in spite of Bruce words the DFSG just
doesn't apply plainly to e.g. documentation. [...]
You said DFSG is made with software in mind and implied that
documentation is not a subset of software.
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 06:08:47PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:35:16AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Why have we another sudden influx of people who haven't read any of
the history on this? (Rhetorical. I think we can guess.)
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
Proof:
e.g. look at DFSG 4:
[SNIP]
How does this match to docu?
Source code in this context refers to the prefered form of
modification which is transformed into the form or forms used by the
end user or viewer.
See SGML, texi, docbook, and pod for
On 2003-08-28 21:51:41 +0100 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Op do 28-08-2003, om 20:02 schreef MJ Ray:
Ye gods! Who knew that software was such a contentious word?
Agreed. Perhaps we should...
... Oh, wait. I already suggested we'd do so.
...and I said yes, but you should do it
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 05:15:10 +, Branden Robinson wrote:
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 05:15:10 +, Branden Robinson wrote:
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ ] The
[ Take #2; hoping to hit -legal this time, as my first attempt to
reply somehow ended up on -devel. Caffeine underrun, probably. ]
* Branden Robinson
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
On 2003-08-23 02:33:12 +0100 John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Are you saying that you would be amendable to the idea of a DFSG that
is
slightly modified to make it more applicable to documentation as
well?
I am totally opposed to modifying the DFSG. They are already clearly
applicable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 21 August 2003 07:09, Branden Robinson wrote:
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:48:57PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would hold that position. But I caution people reading this to not assume
that this means I believe documentation deserves lower standards.
I think that if we find ways to fix the
John Goerzen wrote:
There are some properties of documentation that make it a fundamentally
different beast from the software we deal with. Some are:
1. Lack of a clear differentiation between source code and compiled form.
Nope; this problem exists even with things generally agreed to be
I'm announcing a closing of the polls date for this survey. Of
course, I can't stop people from replying after that date, and don't
really see a reason to ask them not to.
I will tabulate final results based on survey responses received by
the debian-legal mailing list as of Thursday, 28 August,
#include hallo.h
* Branden Robinson [Sun, Aug 24 2003, 03:43:00AM]:
possible non-
developers developers developers
-
option 1 (no)
On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 03:56, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* Branden Robinson [Sun, Aug 24 2003, 03:43:00AM]:
possible non-
developers developers developers
On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 04:54, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
This is in policy (and the social contract) already. Maintainers must
review the source code they package.
I realized after I sent this that it doesn't convey what I actually
meant. Maintainers must not put non-free software in main. The only
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I realized after I sent this that it doesn't convey what I actually
meant. Maintainers must not put non-free software in main. The only
guaranteed way to meet this requirement is to review the source code
they package.
The guidelines only require
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 02:15:48AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
3. Tool depencies.
Is a document free if it requires non-free software to read?
Provided that is a *technical* requirement and not a *legal*
requirement, it's free, but must go in 'contrib'. Just like free
programs which
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:39:04AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Yet we do routinely apply the DFSG to interpreted scripts where there
is *no* differentiation between source code and compiled form.
Not really; it's just that the compiled form is often transient.
How is this different from
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:25:48PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:39:04AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Yet we do routinely apply the DFSG to interpreted scripts where there
is *no* differentiation between source code and compiled form.
Not really; it's just
On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 09:30, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 04:59:32PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:22:13PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:25:48PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:39:04AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Yet we do routinely apply the DFSG to interpreted scripts where there
is *no* differentiation
Le dim 24/08/2003 à 10:56, Eduard Bloch a écrit :
I propose to make a simple change in the DSFG (or document the license
evalutiang method in the policy, whatever): differentiate between
- pure FDL (which is obviously free)
- tainted FDL (with invariant sections)
It looks about 2 out of
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:22:13PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:25:48PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:39:04AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Yet we do routinely apply the DFSG to interpreted scripts where there
is *no* differentiation
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:42:11PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dim 24/08/2003 à 10:56, Eduard Bloch a écrit :
I propose to make a simple change in the DSFG (or document the license
evalutiang method in the policy, whatever): differentiate between
- pure FDL (which is obviously
On Thursday, Aug 21, 2003, at 01:09 US/Eastern, Branden Robinson wrote:
[why to the mailing list...?]
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ]
On Sunday, Aug 24, 2003, at 04:56 US/Eastern, Eduard Bloch wrote:
- pure FDL (which is obviously free)
You can only believe that (obviously free) if you have not read the
list archives. Please review them, and also explain the 35 people who
disagree (no) compared to at most 18 who agree
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Branden Robinson wrote:
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is
John Goerzen wrote:
Before I reply, I should add I still see it as wrong and misleading to apply
*software* guidelines to *documentation*, which to me are fundamentally
different beasts. Thus, I see the question as rather misleading.
I completely agree.
However, with the question narrowly
Le jeu 21/08/2003 à 17:07, John Goerzen a écrit :
Before I reply, I should add I still see it as wrong and misleading to apply
*software* guidelines to *documentation*, which to me are fundamentally
different beasts. Thus, I see the question as rather misleading.
Could you please explain
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license
Please reply to this message, to this mailing list, answering the
questions below. If you are a Debian Developer as of the date on
this message, please GPG-sign your reply.
GPG key not at hand, sorry.
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Let's see if this goes correctly this time...
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License,
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 03:29:22PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:07:20AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Before I reply, I should add I still see it as wrong and misleading to apply
*software* guidelines to *documentation*, which to me are fundamentally
different
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What I am saying is that we need to have a two-part California-style
ballot here:
1. Do you believe that DFSG should apply to documentation?
2. If DFSG should apply to documentation, what should be the disposition of
GFDL according to DFSG? (This is
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:09:54 -0500
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:51:39 -0500
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. If DFSG should apply to documentation, what should be the disposition of
GFDL according to DFSG? (This is the question you asked.)
I don't think that the answer to question two can be relevant unless we have
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License,
On 2003-08-22 15:51:39 +0100 John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What I am saying is that we need to have a two-part California-style
ballot here:
So, run that survey, or find someone else to run that survey, but
don't carp at Branden for trying to gather data that interests him.
I
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible
with the Debian Free Software
Scripsit MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I suspect not many people want DFSG-free Debian bits, so aren't
interested in that survey, so you will need to run it. It would be
very interesting to *finally* read consistent rationale in a we want
DFSG-free Debian bits statement. Assuming that's
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 06:09, Branden Robinson wrote:
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:06:26PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Unless I've missed something, so far there hasn't been anyone arguing
that the DFSG should not apply to documentation. What there has been
I would hold that position. But I caution people reading this to not assume
that this
On 2003-08-22 19:21:22 +0100 Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
DFSG-free Debian bits
Yes, reading it back a few hours later, I see that was a particularly
clumsy phrase. By DFSG-free there, I meant free of DFSG not the
other, more common sense free according to DFSG. Please edit
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 09:51:39AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
What I am saying is that we need to have a two-part California-style
ballot here:
1. Do you believe that DFSG should apply to documentation?
That's not a question that the readers of debian-legal can answer for
the entire Project.
While these issues are valid and some are quite problematic, they are
not differences between documentation and software. All these things
apply equally to software, and would give us just as much trouble if
they ever arose for documentation. While the issues themselves are not
the subject here, I
Scripsit John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:06:26PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Unless I've missed something, so far there hasn't been anyone arguing
that the DFSG should not apply to documentation.
I would hold that position. But I caution people reading this to
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:36:03 -0500, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:06:26PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Unless I've missed something, so far there hasn't been anyone
arguing that the DFSG should not apply to documentation. What
there has been
I would hold
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 08:47:17PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2003-08-22 19:21:22 +0100 Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
DFSG-free Debian bits
Yes, reading it back a few hours later, I see that was a particularly
clumsy phrase. By DFSG-free there, I meant free of DFSG not the
I am circulating this survey to gauge the level of consensus on this
subject.
The purpose of this survey is so that the participants in this mailing
list can make an informed recommendation to the rest of the Debian
Project.
Please reply to this message, to this mailing list, answering the
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License,
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 00:09, Branden Robinson wrote:
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2,
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software
Branden Robinson wrote:
Please reply to this message, to this mailing list, answering the
questions below. If you are a Debian Developer as of the date on this
message, please GPG-sign your reply.
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license
Op do 21-08-2003, om 07:09 schreef Branden Robinson:
I am circulating this survey to gauge the level of consensus on this
subject.
The purpose of this survey is so that the participants in this mailing
list can make an informed recommendation to the rest of the Debian
Project.
Please
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software Foundation, is
=== CUT HERE ===
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2
Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your
opinion. Mark only one.
[ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published
by the Free Software
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
