many members would it have, how
would they be selected and would you impose any structure among them?
Thanks,
--
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
er implementing this instead?
Does anyone agree? If there is some agreement, perhaps we could draft an
amendment?
Cheers,
--
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
room, discussing in the corridor, lights are being
shut off, everyone else has gone home and the janitor is rattling with
his keychain and giving us meaningful looks as he's making his final
round before locking up for the weekend..."
:)
Thanks,
--
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
and
licenses belong to different domains and that licenses form the line
beyond which the DFSG doesn't apply. The DFSG seems to be drafted on
this principle, and there is therefore no contradiction that needs to be
clarified or given explicit exception. Not starting to "move up the
chain" spares us from approaching the slippery slope of mistakes that
others in this thread have brought up.
So let's not pursue this GR.
Cheers,
--
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
r opinion, but I have
already given my comment on them.
--
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
been shown quite strongly
that it is not needed. The rest of the discussion I consider part of the
community tradition, the purpose of which is to gain further insight
into the documents in question.
--
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
iously.
No violation has been shown to exist. A concern has been raised, but it
is the result of a misunderstanding and/or misinterpretation of the
Social Contract and DFSG. It is not the same as an actual violation.
Thus, there's no need to change the documents in question.
--
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
revent
it (copyright law takes precedence), and because the DFSG considers
source + patch to be acceptable, it seems that the issue is already
taken care of.
--
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
cat.
[4] For example, Creative Commons have expanded the view to include all
forms of cultural expression, which includes works that can be
considered for inclusion in Debian.
--
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 16:55 -0600, Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 10:10:22AM +0200, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> > Those in favour of two separate GR's:
> >
> > * Read my GR proposal [0] and second it (your choice of course).
> > * Read N
n't realise at first that the combinations were provided at the
bottom of the text.
It might be easier to have the full text of each option visible. Could
you generate the actual combinations and provide them as separate files?
We could then propose them as amendments to Anthony's propo
proposal was for the "two separate GRs" setup.
If there is not enough support for the "two separate GRs" setup, then I
will consider modifying my proposal to fit into the "one big GR" setup.
But I first want to see if there is any support.
See also http://lists.d
s of body language when you have to tell
someone you disagree are missing from the email. You have to spell them
out. I suggest a break from this discussion. Go and do something fun
today, and return another time to read the message [0] I sent before
this one with suggestions on how to move forward from here
over all the other
options. If the Debian of the future wants to open up that issue again,
then let it be because they really want to revisit the core issue -- not
because of a technicality such as a missing option.
Cheers,
--
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
icitly
establishing the freeness of this license by a GR would settle the issue
for those who think it is about opinion.
Cheers,
--
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
ocuments.
Could you clarify the last sentence? Do you suggest that as things stand
now, etch will release with GNU FDL material?
--
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
he only
choice is to propose an amendment that has the same content as this
proposal, plus a decision that the decision about the statement is
postponed to a separate GR.
--
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
violation of the license, then
"reasonably prudent steps" would be for the CD vendor to set up a source
mirror instead.
I suspect most CD vendors do not keep a complete source mirror of the
GNU FDL material they sell on their CDs (Debian or otherwise).
Cheers,
--
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
of whether they can pass a strict reading of the DFSG.
> In other words, the DFSG is a *necessary* but not necessarily
> *sufficient* hurdle.
I would suggest supporting the GR on this issue, by seconding my
proposal and/or making an amendment.
--
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
ffer advice to people
considering the use of this license until the problems are remedied. The
GR proposal that you have submitted does these things. But it should not
be mixed with our own decision about including or not including GNU FDL
material in our distribution.
This is regardless
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 00:02 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Fabian Fagerholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060123 22:44]:
> > This General Resolution partly reverts an earlier decision by the
> > Release Management team, taken under delegation in accordance with the
> > Debian Consti
r before the "Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not
suitable for Debian main" GR?
--
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
ts official position statement,
what is the official position statement of Debian regarding the freeness
of GFDL?
Answer: that's what this GR is about.
Is my answer correct?
I'm looking forward to reading answers and comments to these questions
and notes, and I hope we can clarify the
23 matches
Mail list logo
