28 Apr 2006 13:00
28 Apr 2006 16:44
Re: Re: w3 manual does not permit modification?
Ben Pfaff <blp <at> cs.stanford.edu>
2006-04-28 14:44:45 GMT
2006-04-28 14:44:45 GMT
Dave Love <fx <at> gnu.org> writes: > Ben Pfaff <blp <at> cs.stanford.edu> writes: > >> Did you ever get a chance to look at this? > > Sorry, I changed it to GFDL with no invariant sections but couldn't > check it in at the time. I've now done so. Thanks! -- -- Ben Pfaff email: blp <at> cs.stanford.edu web: http://benpfaff.org
11 Jun 2006 20:30
Bug#359048: [W3-dev] Re: w3 manual does not permit modification?
Pierre HABOUZIT <madcoder <at> debian.org>
2006-06-11 18:30:21 GMT
2006-06-11 18:30:21 GMT
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 07:44:45AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > Dave Love <fx <at> gnu.org> writes: > > > Ben Pfaff <blp <at> cs.stanford.edu> writes: > > > >> Did you ever get a chance to look at this? > > > > Sorry, I changed it to GFDL with no invariant sections but couldn't > > check it in at the time. I've now done so. > > Thanks! it has been a month, and etch is coming. that would be nice to keep up with the RM goals in term of RC bugs [1]. Would it be possible that you upload a new version with the fixed license please ? thanks a lot. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg00015.html -- -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder <at> debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
11 Jun 2006 20:30
Bug#359048: [W3-dev] Re: w3 manual does not permit modification?
Pierre HABOUZIT <madcoder <at> debian.org>
2006-06-11 18:30:21 GMT
2006-06-11 18:30:21 GMT
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 07:44:45AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > Dave Love <fx <at> gnu.org> writes: > > > Ben Pfaff <blp <at> cs.stanford.edu> writes: > > > >> Did you ever get a chance to look at this? > > > > Sorry, I changed it to GFDL with no invariant sections but couldn't > > check it in at the time. I've now done so. > > Thanks! it has been a month, and etch is coming. that would be nice to keep up with the RM goals in term of RC bugs [1]. Would it be possible that you upload a new version with the fixed license please ? thanks a lot. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg00015.html -- -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder <at> debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
11 Jun 2006 20:37
Bug#359048: [W3-dev] Re: w3 manual does not permit modification?
Ben Pfaff <blp <at> cs.stanford.edu>
2006-06-11 18:37:43 GMT
2006-06-11 18:37:43 GMT
Pierre HABOUZIT <madcoder <at> debian.org> writes: > On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 07:44:45AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: >> Dave Love <fx <at> gnu.org> writes: >> >> > Ben Pfaff <blp <at> cs.stanford.edu> writes: >> > >> >> Did you ever get a chance to look at this? >> > >> > Sorry, I changed it to GFDL with no invariant sections but couldn't >> > check it in at the time. I've now done so. >> >> Thanks! > > it has been a month, and etch is coming. that would be nice to keep up > with the RM goals in term of RC bugs [1]. Would it be possible that you > upload a new version with the fixed license please ? As the front-cover and back-cover texts in the new license make it impossible to retain the documentation, I'm trying to decide whether to orphan it or to remove the documentation. What do you suggest? -- -- "...I've forgotten where I was going with this, but you can bet it was scathing." --DesiredUsername
11 Jun 2006 20:37
Bug#359048: [W3-dev] Re: w3 manual does not permit modification?
Ben Pfaff <blp <at> cs.stanford.edu>
2006-06-11 18:37:43 GMT
2006-06-11 18:37:43 GMT
Pierre HABOUZIT <madcoder <at> debian.org> writes: > On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 07:44:45AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: >> Dave Love <fx <at> gnu.org> writes: >> >> > Ben Pfaff <blp <at> cs.stanford.edu> writes: >> > >> >> Did you ever get a chance to look at this? >> > >> > Sorry, I changed it to GFDL with no invariant sections but couldn't >> > check it in at the time. I've now done so. >> >> Thanks! > > it has been a month, and etch is coming. that would be nice to keep up > with the RM goals in term of RC bugs [1]. Would it be possible that you > upload a new version with the fixed license please ? As the front-cover and back-cover texts in the new license make it impossible to retain the documentation, I'm trying to decide whether to orphan it or to remove the documentation. What do you suggest? -- -- "...I've forgotten where I was going with this, but you can bet it was scathing." --DesiredUsername
11 Jun 2006 20:57
Bug#359048: [W3-dev] Re: w3 manual does not permit modification?
Pierre Habouzit <madcoder <at> debian.org>
2006-06-11 18:57:07 GMT
2006-06-11 18:57:07 GMT
Le Dim 11 Juin 2006 20:37, Ben Pfaff a écrit : > Pierre HABOUZIT <madcoder <at> debian.org> writes: > > it has been a month, and etch is coming. that would be nice to > > keep up with the RM goals in term of RC bugs [1]. Would it be > > possible that you upload a new version with the fixed license > > please ? > > As the front-cover and back-cover texts in the new license make > it impossible to retain the documentation, I'm trying to decide > whether to orphan it or to remove the documentation. > > What do you suggest? orphaning is not the right solution, it does not makes the problem go away. You have to repack a tarball without the incriminated files. if the documentation is really valuable, you also can package it in non-free. -- -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder <at> debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
11 Jun 2006 20:57
Bug#359048: [W3-dev] Re: w3 manual does not permit modification?
Pierre Habouzit <madcoder <at> debian.org>
2006-06-11 18:57:07 GMT
2006-06-11 18:57:07 GMT
Le Dim 11 Juin 2006 20:37, Ben Pfaff a écrit : > Pierre HABOUZIT <madcoder <at> debian.org> writes: > > it has been a month, and etch is coming. that would be nice to > > keep up with the RM goals in term of RC bugs [1]. Would it be > > possible that you upload a new version with the fixed license > > please ? > > As the front-cover and back-cover texts in the new license make > it impossible to retain the documentation, I'm trying to decide > whether to orphan it or to remove the documentation. > > What do you suggest? orphaning is not the right solution, it does not makes the problem go away. You have to repack a tarball without the incriminated files. if the documentation is really valuable, you also can package it in non-free. -- -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder <at> debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
RSS Feed