MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2004-05-13 02:53:33 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> To me, it seems clearly non-free because it terminates if there is
> >> legal action agai
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2004-05-13 02:53:33 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> To me, it seems clearly non-free b
r Alameda
> counties."
> No we don't. This is non-free.
I fail to see the difference. It is just making the choice of law
rather explicit.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
eady limits the different ways
that a party can bring suit. This just says that you have to do it
with a judge or arbitration. In essence, it is limiting the venue
even more. But the venue doesn't necessarily favor one party over the
other.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > "This license is governed by California law"
>
> > > OK.
>
> > > "and bot
have a citation? I don't see how this could possibly work. I
could see that a tort happens in place X that is decided in a court in
place Y, but I don't see how you're going to get courts in one place
to familiarize themselves with the laws of another place. The law is
complic
case where
> a Pennsylvania court applied Virginia law.
>
> http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/99D0372P.pdf
I stand corrected. You learn something new every day.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ay want to contact them about the aggressive tone
> in general anyway.
If they really meant to "steal" the work, then the whole license may
be invalid. In which case, Debian has no permission to distribute at
all. So I think a clarification is definitely in order.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
an took a longer look at it and decided it wasn't. Similarly,
there is talk that the IBM's Common Public License has problems as
well. It is just the nature of how license evaluations are done.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ee. I just want to know if there is a list of
> common license for documentation that are definitively known to be DFSG
> free.
Use the same license as the program. Then it will be possible to take
code and put it into the docs, and vice versa.
This is not the first time that this has com
rson who thinks the license is ambiguous. Nor is
he the only person who thinks that you're being a bit touchy. Take a
chill pill.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
we can make modifications to
create a new executable. Free software does not mean that the
compilers used to create executables are free from bugs, malicious or
not. Ken Thompson's article is just about a particularly devious way
of hiding a bug. It doesn't make the bug immune from detection, just
a heck of a lot more difficult.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
, contrib becomes
empty. Whether you like it or not, there is a value judgement going
on with contrib vs. main. If something is not "useful" enough with
non-free bits, then it goes into contrib.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/12/msg01723.html
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 15:30, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 19:02, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > >
> > > > While I agree that it is not necessa
; >breaking any law". Oh, yes, but that's what the dissident test was made for.
>
> The problem is that it's not clear what the dissident test was made for.
I think one purpose is to clarify the kinds of uses that DFSG #6
covers. If you can't even use it in those kinds of
ense. But that just means that the author is using a
different license. There are also corner cases where the author uses
an unnatural interpretation of the words (e.g. Pine) but those cases
are so rare that they should not drive license analysis policy.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
no official mouthpiece of debian-legal. However, I would say
that the consensus on debian-legal is that the QPL is not DFSG-free.
The "choice of venue" and the "send changes back" clauses are both
problematic.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2004-07-15 02:25:50 +0100 Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [...] For almost every license discussion
> > on -legal, there is little discussion about what the actual software
> > does.
>
> I consider
he country,
> then assuming the existence of secure communication to outside the
> country isn't an excessive leap.
That is an enormous leap. Handing something to my trusted friend is
very different from trying to get things out of the country.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The problem is that it's not clear what the dissident test was made for.
> >
> >I think one purpose is to
(c) non-free?
If that were the only way to distribute the code, then yes, that would
be non-free. Fortunately, we have 3(a).
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Surely it's not the license that restricts the activities of the
> >> dissident, it's the local authoriti
makes it too easy
for the original developers to harass distributors.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
on-free
> should have a basis in the DFSG. Here are some reasons why we'd want
> this to be true. First, some honest, well meaning people will read
> the DFSG and try to make sure their licenses follow the DFSG before
> submitting their license to Debian. We want to encourage such people
> and work with them.
No, we don't. We don't want people to write new licenses.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> If there were, would we consider the GPL non-free?
> >
> >It certainly wouldn't be free in that jurisd
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> But the dissident test would only be an issue in jurisdictions with
> >> hostile governments.
> >
> >W
an easily harass people who _aren't_ breaking
the license.
> And finally, i know the upstream authors personnally, and i also understand
> their situation enough to know that they won't engage in any such harrasment,
> even if it was possible.
75 years + life is a long time.
ave anything to
> do with him anymore, and i question the legitimity of any
> debian-legal conslusion in which he participated.
At least Brian is friendly.
> Friendly,
>
> Sven Luther
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Under the GPL, the government can just pass a law requiring that all
> >> distributed source code be provided to th
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:43PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:08:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > > On 2004-07-21 13:48:58 +0100 Sven
ver, the choice of venue is still a problem.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:56:50AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:14:29PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > regarding libcwd. At the time, I didn't see any dissents, and I
> > haven't seen anyone else bring up that angle. If you look at the
> >
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:14:44PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > As another example, what if there were a jurisdiction where recipients
> > automatically receive the right to modify and distribute unless
> > otherwise ex
is probably less or similar to the cost of hirinig a
> lawyer of similar competence and fluent in the Laws of France, in a
> country local to the defendent.
If I don't speak or read French (or English), it is going to be rather
difficult to find a lawyer in France.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
tices
> | in the Software.
>
> Again, pretty standard.
Actually, I just realized this might be a problem. Files often have
copyright notices in them. You can't have a patch which entirely
removes those files.
Also, the program may print out a copyright notice (as in GPL 3c).
You
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:11:07PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The cost of hiring a lawyer in france local to the Court of
> > > Versailles is probably less or similar t
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:23:30PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > | a. Modifications must no
QPL won't even allow something like a gentlemen's agreement. If
the agreement is broken, then the industry partner won't be getting
any more technology previews. This is fine with the GPL.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
'm converting an interactive program to be non-interactive, I
still can't remove a hard-coded copyright string that pops up in an
"About" box.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
, including any riders. What a
package does should have no bearing on the analysis.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
d have said "direct interaction" instead of
> "direct use".
It is difficult for me to see how you define "direct use" to include
something like Apache, but not include something like libc or the
kernel. It seems a bit of a stretch to require people to distribute
those when they are just running a webserver. It would make it much,
much, much, much harder to set up a public website.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 05:53:14AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So this solves most of the issues, and we need to go through the QPL
> > > 3b again, but upstream fee
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:53:42AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 05:53:14AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTEC
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry wrote:
> > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>My _intent_ with the phrase "direct use" was to avoid such issues. I'm
> >>aiming only for the case where a user directly _inte
ect the will of the project as a whole.
If there are people who disagree with the conclusions of debian-legal,
then they are free to discuss it on this mailing list. This has
happened numerous times. You seem to want to force people to care
about such issues. If they care, they already browse debian-legal.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
f people started complaining that the french
localization list came up with a french style guide without
"consulting" anyone (oh, and they use this strange terminology called
"French" to discuss things). If you are interested in french style
guides, then that is the obvious place to go. Similarly, if you are
interested in legal issues, then you go to debian-legal.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ts,
then we don't have too much of a problem. Since patents cover use and
distribution, that should cover you. Anything more is over-reaching.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01705.html
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
> >
> >In general, I find this complaining about debian-legal to be
> >misplaced. It is as if people started complaining that the french
> >localization list came up with a french style guide withou
e not to).
I'm not so sure that it should go to d-d-a. For one time deals, where
a legal analysis affects a lot of packages, sure. But not for a
weekly synopsis. That is more like a mailing list of its own (like
kernel-traffic).
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ral problem with the upstream
> can use contribution in a proprietary way, since other packages seem
> to be affected by this also.
Please list those packages. I don't know of any others.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry wrote:
> > I haven't seen anyone seriously dispute my analysis in
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01705.html
> >
> > that there is a fee involved (you questioned wheth
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 10:36:22PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Ok, find attached the new ocaml licence proposal, which will go into
> &
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > The problems concerning QPL 3 remain,
> >
> > Not so great.
> >
> > > but consensus about it has been much more dubious,
> >
> > I ha
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I would say that any license that compels modifications to be under
> > anything other than a copyleft is problematic. Copyleft is only
> > allowed because it is exp
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Oh, come on. Any argument that implies that we only consider the GPL
> >> free because we explicitly say it is is
s "GPL, but John Smith is
> released from the requirement to release source, and you must
> release him from this requirement in your modifications".
>
> The former is clearly free,
This is where I disagree. Requiring modifiers to license changes as
free for everyone to make proprietary is not free. I don't know of
any other licenses in main that have that requirement.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
#x27;s
> > under a Free license?
>
> Don't be ridicoulous, will you. Moving ocaml to non-free for sarge, means
> moving over 70 packages to non-free that depend on it, including some debian
> administrative stuff, like i think cdbs, or some of the subversion dependency
> chain, or coq 8, which was recently freed too.
According to "apt-cache --recurse" on my testing system, only coq has a
dependency. Neither cdbs nor subversion do.
> It is totally irresponsable to suggest this mere days before the
> sarge freeze, and only shozs you have no grasp on the realities of
> debian release management.
Bugs have to be fixed, no matter when they are found.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:55:26PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > This is where I disagree. Requiring modifiers to license changes as
> > free for everyone to make proprietary is not free. I don't know of
> > any
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:55:26PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > This is where I disagree. Requiring modifiers to license changes as
> > free for everyone to make proprietary is not free. I don't know of
> > any other
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:51:51PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > I would say that the DFSG uses imprecise language. DFSG #10 enforces
> > a particular interpretation of the language. That is, DFSG #1 does
> > not really mean
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The addition of the list of licenses was a direct result of Ray
> >> Dassen suggesting that a list of licenses we
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 11:56:03PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > If I understand correctly, you argue that DFSG #1-#9 should be
> > interpreted in such a way to make the GPL free (because of, among
> > other things, flamew
y that limited in Germany, then the German wikipedia is going
to have to purge all logos. I doubt that any have anything
approaching a free license.
As a comparison, the English entries for IBM and HP have their logos,
while the German entries do not. So at least that is consistent.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
offer clause. In that case, the mirror
operators would have to carry source anyway. However, I don't know of
any licenses like that currently in Debian.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion.
>
> Part 2. Status of Respondent
>
> Please mark with an "X" the following item only if it is true.
>
> [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian
> Constitution as of the date on this survey.
>
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
aining about the lack of documentation even in
non-free, and these bugs may or may not hold up the release.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 02:50:09 -0400 (EDT)
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
difference is between software and documentation. I don't think
you ever will find a meaningful distinction.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:07:00AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> > > > I don't think the li
icenses that are present on parts of the code cannot
> be removed from the source, but nothing beyond that.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ns of debian-legal regulars. But I don't
think that the bias is so bad that it makes the survey useless. It
certainly displays a consensus of debian-legal.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
e DFSG? If you want to find out
whether Debian wants to have different guidelines for documentation,
ask a different question on -project or -devel. You should also have
an idea of how those guidelines would be different before you actually
make such a survey.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
ites. Settle a discussion first, and
>when everyone has cold blood again, make the official statements.
>(That also means that though I would consider a DFDG usefull, it's
>now not the proper time to make it.)
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.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FSF vs
> Debian deathmatch" because it shouldn't become that.
The problem is that the FSF has made it clear that they are not going
to budge. Debian has tried to work it out with them. It is time to
act.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:22:10PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > You do realize that we are distributing GFDL manuals as part of Debian
> > > right now? The release manager isn't "deciding" that any mo
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:26:04AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Based on faulty information, the Release Manager told them not to
> > bother. Now they should bother.
>
> Where was this said? The only statement I'v
links into the kernel). Intel has a lot of patents,
but the conclusion I got from the discussion was that we don't worry
unless they start enforcing patents related to the driver. This is
basically what Andrew Suffield is saying.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:47:01AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > That is my big question, which no one seems to want to answer. Is it
> > ok for the Release Manager to ignore the Social Contract? These
> > documents are
I do not see why discussion of one
should interact at all with the other. This feels like a distraction
to keep Debian from throwing GFDL'd manuals out of main.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
DFSG, it seemed most
> sensible just to exempt documentation from the DFSG for sarge; so that's
> the policy.
Given that you were misinformed about the FSF's intentions [1] and
there is a clear consensus that works under the GFDL do not belong in
main [2], is this decision going
really necessary ?
It is really necessary. You have to provide corresponding source or a
written offer for source. Making other people hunt around for the
correct package version doesn't fulfill your obligations.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 06:40:53PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Given that you were misinformed about the FSF's intentions [1] [...]
> > [1]
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01323.html
>
> I try to be
priate for debian-private. There is no
good reason not to let everyone know what steps are being made.
Otherwise we get decisions that come with no context and not subject
to debate. I think we've had enough of those for this release cycle.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
d)
There is also the definition of transparent forms. I can't distribute
GFDL'd documents I write in Openoffice or LyX.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>
> > Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Beside from that, what is your problem with GFDLed documentation
> > > without any invariant parts?
> > &g
t; > Sorry, but there is certainly non-free software that provide freedom
> > equally to GFDL.
>
> Name one.
> (Note that when you speak of the freedom brought by the GFDL, you
> cannot consider that the invariant option is surely used)
The old LPPL.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> > It is a restriction on how I can use and transform the document,
> > rendering the GFDL non-free.
>
> If _I_ (note the "I") publish a manual under the GFDL,
uld be changed by the
> FSF because these potential issues are not on purpose.
You are complaining that if the FSF just fixed bugs XYZ in the
license, then Debian shouldn't have a problem. Indeed, Debian
wouldn't. However, I raised this particular example during the
drafting of GF
e looks like the MIT license. It is fine.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>
> > Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> > > > It is a restriction on how I can use and tr
Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
>
> > Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Name one.
> > > (Note that when you speak of the freedom brought by the GFDL, you
> > > cannot consid
nnounce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200308/msg00017.html
In short, your position is supported by a minority of Debian
developers.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
o
(for example, a document created with OpenOffice, LyX or a
proprietary word processor)
That makes it more clear that it affects even open formats.
> This would make it impossible to meet the requirements of
> section 3 ("Copying in quantity") of the GFDL.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
to their own
programs. However, the use of the name TeX is restricted to software
systems that agree exactly with the program presented here.
which is fine.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
l consider free (per DFSG 10, if nothing else).
The definition of transparent is similar to, but not the same as
source. For example, the "source" for a LyX document is not
"transparent".
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 16:05, Walter Landry wrote:
>
> > The definition of transparent is similar to, but not the same as
> > source. For example, the "source" for a LyX document is not
> > "transparent
ot. It is made with boiling water. This
is not a case of a McDonalds employee spilling coffee on someone else.
This is someone not being careful and spilling it on themselves.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Give me a break. Coffee is hot. It is made with boiling water. This
> > is not a case of a McDonalds employee spilling coffee on someone else.
> > This is someone not being
1 - 100 of 723 matches
Mail list logo
