![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Would it be useful to put the text of the DSL here? It's pretty self-explanatory, when you get down to it. -- April
I received this email from GNU.org about the DSL text.
It is true that the Design Science License is regrettably incompatible with the GNU Free Documentation License. So I think you are right that the copyright holder needs to release the work under the GFDL, public domain, or some compatible license. We certainly hope they do so (we explicitly disrecommend the DSL for documentation for exactly this reason).
I'm not sure if you were looking for anything else from GNU? Not knowingly the DSL-covered material you're speaking of, or who the copyright holders are, I'm not sure what more to say at this point ...
Best regards, karl@gnu.org
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice.
This puts to rest the whole issue unless someone goes to the guy who wrote the DSL and gets him to release it as PD or GFDL.
--
Orbit
One
Talk|
Babel
12:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
So basically what your saying is that an anonymous users actions are subject to your oversite but yours are not subject to his? Also if you'll take a look at the history and the time stamps I did offer a rationale for my deletion. Both here and in the edit summary. I.E. that the inclusion of the fulltext belonged on wikisource and that it was possibly illegal. In other words mah dear Jacobite, you're one to talk and you should feel free to explain why portions of an article that are both unencyclopedic and possibly illegal should NOT be deleted. Or you could continue to claim that you're a law apart from the common and quibble about formatting.
RecentlyAnon 19:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is a reference from Linux today. www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2001072600120PS
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Would it be useful to put the text of the DSL here? It's pretty self-explanatory, when you get down to it. -- April
I received this email from GNU.org about the DSL text.
It is true that the Design Science License is regrettably incompatible with the GNU Free Documentation License. So I think you are right that the copyright holder needs to release the work under the GFDL, public domain, or some compatible license. We certainly hope they do so (we explicitly disrecommend the DSL for documentation for exactly this reason).
I'm not sure if you were looking for anything else from GNU? Not knowingly the DSL-covered material you're speaking of, or who the copyright holders are, I'm not sure what more to say at this point ...
Best regards, karl@gnu.org
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice.
This puts to rest the whole issue unless someone goes to the guy who wrote the DSL and gets him to release it as PD or GFDL.
--
Orbit
One
Talk|
Babel
12:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
So basically what your saying is that an anonymous users actions are subject to your oversite but yours are not subject to his? Also if you'll take a look at the history and the time stamps I did offer a rationale for my deletion. Both here and in the edit summary. I.E. that the inclusion of the fulltext belonged on wikisource and that it was possibly illegal. In other words mah dear Jacobite, you're one to talk and you should feel free to explain why portions of an article that are both unencyclopedic and possibly illegal should NOT be deleted. Or you could continue to claim that you're a law apart from the common and quibble about formatting.
RecentlyAnon 19:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is a reference from Linux today. www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2001072600120PS