Am 2006-09-30 22:06:51, schrieb Oleg Verych:
Mile stone, we are now is man gcc: nothing found. Next mile stone
C-h i: nothing found...
man 1 gcc
works fine here.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/] dpkg -S gcc.1.gz
gcc: /usr/share/man/man1/gcc.1.gz
gcc:
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 04:37:14PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In international copyright law, there are rights belonging to the author
that he cannot sign away. These include the right to be considered the
author. This means that if the document mentions him as
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 04:23:36PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
Tyler Smith wrote:
I understand there have been some situations where an author attempted
to undermine the license by declaring an entire document to be
invariant. This is clearly not the case here, though.
That is
Yeah, I think the real problem is that the rules shouldn't be the same
for documentation as they are for code. If someone is going to go to
the effort of making a tutorial and then giving it away I don't have a
problem with their reserving the right to attach some unrelated
philosophical stuff
Tyler Smith wrote:
This has been getting increasingly aggravating for me, as I find more
and more of the documentation is either stowed out of sight in
non-free, or has actually been put in some sort of package purgatory
while someone decides what to do with it (ie. the elisp docs, which
are
This has been getting increasingly aggravating for me, as I find more
and more of the documentation is either stowed out of sight in
non-free, or has actually been put in some sort of package purgatory
while someone decides what to do with it (ie. the elisp docs, which are
currently not in
Tyler Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This has been getting increasingly aggravating for me, as I find more
and more of the documentation is either stowed out of sight in
non-free, or has actually been put in some sort of package purgatory
while someone decides what to do with it (ie. the
Regarding the status of the elisp-manual in testing:
http://packages.qa.debian.org/e/elisp-manual/news/20060805T210823Z.html
FYI: The status of the elisp-manual source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 21-2.8-2
Current version: (not in testing)
Hint:
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 06:34:24PM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
Tyler Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This has been getting increasingly aggravating for me, as I find more
and more of the documentation is either stowed out of sight in
non-free, or has actually been put in some sort of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 06:34:24PM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
Tyler Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This has been getting increasingly aggravating for me, as I find more
and more of the documentation is either stowed out of sight in
non-free, or has
Andrei Popescu wrote:
Imagine someone writing a piece of documentation for a software, but
after some time stops keeping it up-to-date.
Is the license only for technical documents or would it also be applicable
to, say, works of fiction or business/political missives which contain some
Tyler Smith wrote:
I understand there have been some situations where an author attempted
to undermine the license by declaring an entire document to be
invariant. This is clearly not the case here, though.
That is immaterial. It's like saying that if code were pretty much
entirely free
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In international copyright law, there are rights belonging to the author
that he cannot sign away. These include the right to be considered the
author. This means that if the document mentions him as author (perhaps
on a title page) it is illegal to change that to,
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:37:14 -0700
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, in both cases one can't just take the books, change the author name
and viola, have a new book. But that isn't the same as being considered the
author as neither book list the true author. Of course those are
Hallo, Kevin
(using half of your's mail-followup-to, because i'm using gmane.org,
and i don't know what will happen ;)
On 2006-10-01, Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 10:06:51PM +, Oleg Verych wrote:
[-0-]
Debian project is to provide free OS. How one can
Oleg Verych wrote:
IMHO, true GPLed software is The Linux Kernel, not part of GNU
project and
FSF copyright. Lovely PITA of mister RMS.
Incidentally, this might be one of the reasons the FSF'ers need a
GPLv3
that screws Linux over.
Can you imagine when all the packages containing the any
Ottavio Caruso writes:
Can you imagine when all the packages containing the any later version
string will come into an effect...
When you receive a copy of such a package you are being offered a GPL2
license. The string just means that if you redistribute you may specify
GPL3 if you so choose.
Hallo, dear developers and users of Debian.
I actually didn't care to search much of www, because i fed up with
all of it, this is just my opinion.
Mile stone, we are now is man gcc: nothing found. Next mile stone
C-h i: nothing found...
Debian project is to provide free OS. How one can develop
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 10:06:51PM +, Oleg Verych wrote:
Hallo, dear developers and users of Debian.
I actually didn't care to search much of www, because i fed up with
all of it, this is just my opinion.
Mile stone, we are now is man gcc: nothing found. Next mile stone
C-h i: nothing
19 matches
Mail list logo
