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
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 sort of crap
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
Every scientific book is made of references, bibliographies. You do
not remodify a book someone wrote - that's pointless.
Which is it? Pointless or impossible? Let's try to maintain as much
clarity as we can here.
If your argument is that it's pointless my response is that that's not
Jacobo Tarrio [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
O Venres, 29 de Agosto de 2003 ás 11:17:14 +0200, Mathieu Roy escribía:
And according to the Debian Social Contract #4, Debian priorities are
[Debian] users and Free Software.
And Debian's users expect that everything they find in main will
Branden Robinson said:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:54:31AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
This reminded me of something I noticed earlier today. The Securing
Debian Manual at
All well and good, so far. Appendix H of the Manual, in
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
You're not the only one to have this misconception, so I want to
emphasize this point.
The only way you can write your own text based on the old one is if
the license permits you to do so. Typically with
Fedor Zuev wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
See http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_3.htm#mdiv17
- in the UK, installation from CD requires permission from the copyright
holder. There are no fair use provisions, either.
IMHO, this is slightly outdated revision
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I thought I'd been following this discussion, but it seems to have
branched off into a discussion of originality. Unless I'm horribly
confused (which, as always, is possible) originality is absolutely
irrelevant to
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
The ban on use of circumvention devices for copy-prevention schemes is
probably toothless, given the fair use doctrine. However, the
following activities banned by the DMCA are not copyright
infringement, and so fair use is not a defense for them:
* Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030829 00:05]:
Andreas Barth wrote:
I don't think it's good manners to try to push a certain view by
putting it on the web sites. No, first finish the discussion in d-l,
and the you _might_ put additions on the web site. (Though I think
it's even then
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 01:52:57PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
On the flip side, the transformation from the source to the binary for
programs is not one-way. You can turn that binary back into source - look
at dozens of Java disassemblers, and the theory is the same for any
source-binary
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.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
The ban on use of circumvention devices for copy-prevention schemes is
probably toothless, given the fair use doctrine. However, the
following activities banned by the DMCA are not copyright
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,
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
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't be any
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Scott James Remnant wrote:
GNU CVS repository, emacs/man/emacs.texi, revision 1.64
The following two changes are made in this revision:
-to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `show c'
+to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `show c'
and
-(which
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
I hope that the Debian developers will vote to include GFDL-covered
manuals in Debian. Whatever Debian decides, some amount of cooperation
ought to be possible between the GNU Project and Debian.
You are asking for one-way
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
Andreas Barth wrote:
I don't think it's good manners to try to push a certain view by
putting it on the web sites. No, first finish the discussion in d-l,
and the you _might_ put additions on the web site. (Though I think
it's even then not the right place for that; but that's a different
point
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Monday, Aug 25, 2003, at 10:44 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:
So, there is no censorship in the world as long as no one
threaten to kill you? Well.
That's not what I said, and even if it were, there are other forms
of coercion,
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.
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One can argue, that separation of SUN RPC from GLIBS do not
contribute enough (any) originality to constitute creation of new
original work of authorship.
If that is the
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 proprietary
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 capable of
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I thought I'd been following this discussion, but it seems to have
branched off into a discussion of originality. Unless I'm horribly
confused (which, as always, is
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pointless. I think it's pointless to provide a freedom which already
given and cannot be removed.
Do you think we already have the right to modify invariant text in the
GFDL?
My only point is that the analogy between books (which may or may not
be free,
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le ven 29/08/2003 ? 10:42, Fedor Zuev a ?crit :
Of course. You did not know? It is a completely your
problem.
You probably wanted to say something, but the following explains
all:
You are not aware?
Hey, I know you! You are Jean-Claude Van
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
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
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
May be user will decide not to use Emacs at all, if he will
know, that Emacs and Manifesto written by the same man. (Btw, this
if a far more usual and far more honest behavior, than strip
Manifesto and continue to use it)
Maybe he will decide not to
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 --
I haven't been seeing my mail on debian-legal lately, maybe I have
some email troubles.. hopefully the CC will get through, though.
(Gerfried, if my email to debian-legal doesn't get there, would you
kindly forward it there?)
Gerfried Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Any news on the case of
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.
That is
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
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?
On 2003-08-29 15:09:53 +0100 Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The discussion _has_ been finished for quite a while. All we are
seeing now is people who haven't bothered to read the last few years
of debian-legal.
Apologies for my part in that. I think it does take some effort to
see
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 such
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an
example. That's the point: if you come up with the exact same
expression, then either you've copied, or there's a lack of
originality in the work
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, David B Harris wrote:
---/text/dossie/gfdl/fdl.txt--
You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either
commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the
copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License
applies to the
Le ven 29/08/2003 à 11:17, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
You and some other Debian developers have said this, but you do not
speak for all Debian developers any more than I do. You are trying to
persuade them, and I am too. I expect that eventually they will vote
on a decision.
And according
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Please stop cc'ing me. Read the code of conduct.
Can't your mailer delete duplicate? I do not want to be guessing
whether the person I'm replying to subscribed to the list each time I
send a mail to the list.
On 2003-08-29 17:32:33 +0100 Mathieu Roy
Please stop cc'ing me. Read the code of conduct.
On 2003-08-29 17:32:33 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But describing a software is not the most interesting thing. While
describing and analysing a book is the most interesting thing you can
do with a book (apart from reading it,
On 2003-08-29 18:57:16 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can't your mailer delete duplicate?
Yes.
I do not want to be guessing
whether the person I'm replying to subscribed to the list each time I
send a mail to the list.
You do not have to. Read the code of conduct. You also
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you think we already have the right to modify invariant text in
the GFDL?
Yes I do.
I can rewrite any idea
O Venres, 29 de Agosto de 2003 ás 16:09:57 +0200, Mathieu Roy escribía:
The DFSG itself does not meet the DFSG itself, if you think that no
text can be invariant.
I believe that you can make modified versions of the DFSG, as long as you
do not call the resulting document The Debian Free
Mathieu Roy said:
The same goes from the Ancient tragedies. But it's already perfectly
possible to make a remake of any book, story or movie.
The ancient tragedies are not protected by copyright.
Try making a remake of the Harry Potter books, and see how long it takes
to be sued. Try writing
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
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
I never said that Sun's code unoriginal or uncopyrightable.
Ah, I think I understand. You're talking about the originality
involved in the act of separating out the Sun RPC code from the glibc
code? I don't see how that's relevant.
Sorry.
Jacobo Tarrio [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
O Venres, 29 de Agosto de 2003 ás 16:09:57 +0200, Mathieu Roy escribía:
The DFSG itself does not meet the DFSG itself, if you think that no
text can be invariant.
I believe that you can make modified versions of the DFSG, as long as you
do
Le ven 29/08/2003 à 16:09, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
The DFSG itself does not meet the DFSG itself, if you think that no
text can be invariant.
Do you intend to repeat the whole load of silly things we have read
during last week on this list?
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :'
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
On Thu, 28 Aug, 2003 at 06:43:48PM -0500, Rick Moen wrote:
...or (at your [the recipient's] option) any later version. The fact
that your refers to the _recipient_ means that Scott's worst-case
scenario of FSF issuing a screwball GPLv3 is not a serious concern
_even_ for work whose licence
paul cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Thu, 28 Aug, 2003 at 06:43:48PM -0500, Rick Moen wrote:
...or (at your [the recipient's] option) any later version. The fact
that your refers to the _recipient_ means that Scott's worst-case
scenario of FSF issuing a screwball GPLv3 is not a
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Please stop cc'ing me. Read the code of conduct.
Can't your mailer delete duplicate? I do not want to be guessing
whether the person I'm replying to subscribed to the list each time I
send a mail to the list.
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.
Other
We are the ones who first started to say that documentation should be
free, and we are the ones who first wrote criteria for free
documentation.
I don't see how this is relevant.
It's relevant in the context where I stated it: as a response to an
accusation that implied we
I hope that the Debian developers will vote to include GFDL-covered
manuals in Debian. Whatever Debian decides, some amount of cooperation
ought to be possible between the GNU Project and Debian.
You are asking for one-way cooperation.
I'm not asking Debian to do anything for
On Thu, 27 Aug 2003, Stephen Ryan wrote:
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 07:13, Fedor Zuev wrote:
Removing of secondary section from manual can't be count nor
as improvement, nor as adaptation of manual.
It is, by definition[0], off-topic. Therefore, as any good editor[1]
will tell you, it would
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
Nobody is claiming Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, or the King James
Bible, to be software. Quite a few of us are claiming that this MP3
over here, beethovens_ninth.mp3, is software. So is this file bible.txt.
I claim that the Ninth, and the text of
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 of crap _we_ can
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:29:00AM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
But since Debian distributes only software, and Invariants must be
Secondary... actually, isn't the GNU Manifesto non-secondary
On 2003-08-29 09:44:58 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
Just a small reminder that you've not presented such a law yet (at
all, I think, and definitely not that we've had independently
verified). Some treat computer programs differently, but not
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030829 00:05]:
Andreas Barth wrote:
I don't think it's good manners to try to push a certain view by
putting it on the web sites. No, first finish the discussion in d-l,
and the you _might_ put additions on the
Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Program (code) is not of great value outside computer, except examples
which usually belong to the documentation. I will not buy a book with
printed source code of Linux kernel, even if it will be very cheap :)
On my bookshelf are a number of
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030828 20:35]:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 02:50:09AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
It would be fair to say that Debian has decided that the GFDL is not
free according to the DFSG. This opinion has only been getting
stronger and more unified over time.
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
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Le ven 29/08/2003 à 10:42, Fedor Zuev a écrit :
Of course. You did not know? It is a completely your
problem.
You probably wanted to say something, but the following explains all:
You are not aware?
Hey, I know you! You are
Quoting Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 02:44:57AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
Ya know, I was always sure that or (at your option) any later version
header people blindly add to their source would turn out to be a Bad
Thing.
Imagine... GPLv3 with
* 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 Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:29:00AM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
But since Debian distributes only software, and Invariants must be
Secondary... actually, isn't the GNU Manifesto non-secondary when
distributed as part of Debian GNU/Whatever?
O Venres, 29 de Agosto de 2003 ás 11:17:14 +0200, Mathieu Roy escribía:
And according to the Debian Social Contract #4, Debian priorities are
[Debian] users and Free Software.
And Debian's users expect that everything they find in main will have a
license that meets certain criteria: the
Quoting Brian T. Sniffen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
True. But I read the phrase This document... explicit permission as
saying that Appendix H has a different copyright-owner, and has been
separately distributed under the GFDL1.2. The whole work is under the
GPL2, as said at the beginning.
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Joe Moore wrote:
Fedor Zuev said:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote:
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
It almost certainly affect the normal use of program and
will be unacceptable because of this, not because of mere existence
of such code.
How does ls
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lun 25/08/2003 ? 09:22, Fedor Zuev a ?crit :
When you try to apply license outside of its scope you should expect
to receive funny results. GFDL has a very narrow scope. It is bad.
But it is different problem.
No, it is exactly one of the
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...
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's an overly-expansive view of software. You would include anything
that is digital in that description -- audio CDs, DVD movies, off-air TV
signals, books on disk, etc. I find it very hard to quantify Beethoven's
Ninth Symphony as software, even
Lynn Winebarger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh, but it is artificial. The common usage of software refers only
to programs.
From WordNet:
written programs or procedures or rules and associated
documentation pertaining to the operation of a computer system...
* Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030829 18:05]:
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry. I was very unclear.
SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not a work, derived from
GLIBC because of above. SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not
GLIBC. Because it is not. Therefore,
On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 12:41 US/Eastern, Sergey Spiridonov
wrote:
According to your statement, any license do not put any restriction on
user. It does a copyright law. GPL lifts some limits to restrict users.
No. Look at a M$ EULA, for example. It demands things far in excess of
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
But this is not useful to your argument, is it? This is because you
are wrong.
Saying something useless does not poof something useful.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 15:38 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Both of these example licenses offer me a trade: they will permit me
to do certain things otherwise forbidden by copyright law (i.e., copy
the
program onto my computer)
This is quite off-topic, but if that is an
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030829 18:05]:
But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes
code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the
GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still applies, but the GPL
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If someone explains you what is free software, do you need to be
granted to reuse his speech? You don't: if you understand him, you can
regive his speech at the infinite.
If I want to actually reuse his speech in either the sense of a
recording or
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
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?
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jacobo Tarrio [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
O Venres, 29 de Agosto de 2003 ás 16:09:57 +0200, Mathieu Roy escribía:
The DFSG itself does not meet the DFSG itself, if you think that no
text can be invariant.
I believe that you can make modified
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
paul cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Thu, 28 Aug, 2003 at 06:43:48PM -0500, Rick Moen wrote:
...or (at your [the recipient's] option) any later version. The fact
that your refers to the _recipient_ means that Scott's worst-case
scenario of
On Thursday, Aug 28, 2003, at 01:55 US/Eastern, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Heh. I just now realized, that false accusation that GFDL
puts additional restrictions to the user is the root of major part
of all that anti-GFDL hype.
Would you care to provide evidence of that assertion, or
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté :
Please point out which parts of Emacs documentation are
invariant. If I'm not mistaking, these parts express some personal
feelings. Personals feelings are not something that can be enhanced by
someone else.
First, in English, variant
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Mathieu Roy said:
The same goes from the Ancient tragedies. But it's already perfectly
possible to make a remake of any book, story or movie.
The ancient tragedies are not protected by copyright.
Try making a remake of the Harry Potter books, and
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes
code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the
GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still applies, but the GPL
guarantees me that the
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you think we already have the right to modify invariant text in
the GFDL?
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030829 18:05]:
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry. I was very unclear.
SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not a work, derived from
GLIBC because of above. SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Le ven 29/08/2003 à 16:09, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
The DFSG itself does not meet the DFSG itself, if you think that no
text can be invariant.
Do you intend to repeat the whole load of silly things we have read
during last week on this list?
To
On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 19:51 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote:
Is there a such big difference between copy and make
copies?
The problem is the restriction on technical measures to control access,
not the phrase make copies.
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you think we already have the right to modify invariant text in
the GFDL?
Yes I do.
I can rewrite any idea expressed in any text, invariant or not.
rewrite != modify
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
