Re: The GNU FDL is a free license! (Was: Re: O: gnu-standards --GNU coding standards)
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is a document, and what is a program? How can Debian even begin to distinguish what makes free documentation different from free software when we can't distinguish whether a particular piece of data is software or documentation in the first place? Yes -- this is the heart of the issue right here. And I say that it doesn't matter -- whether a work is what you call 'software' or 'documentation,' both, or something else entirely is besides the point. The point is that people need freedom to control their environment, to copy and modify, study and sample from the patterns of ones and zeroes of the published machine-readable works that make up the environment in which they live and communicate. And that it is not to me the free software movement anymore -- it is the free information movement. The issue for Debian now is to decide which way it will go -- is it that software wants to be free, or information wants to be free? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:32:16PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote: I'm not certain I agree. Point one of the social contract is Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software. The obvious reading of this is that anything that is not free software cannot be in Debian. This includes non-free software AND free non-software. That's nice. It also says one of our primary priorities is our users, and they aren't going to be helped by moving all documentation (man pages, info pages, html docs...) into non-free (and thus off the official CDs) or out of the archive entirely. Try not to get so obsessed about stupid definitional games you lose sight of the big picture. And followup to -legal, already. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``BAM! Science triumphs again!'' -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:32:16PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote: I'm not certain I agree. Point one of the social contract is Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software. The obvious reading of this is that anything that is not free software cannot be in Debian. I tend to doubt that *either* was intended when this was created. It can be read either way, and there's probably not going to be a consensus. Everyone's going to read it in whatever way suits what they want. I happen to think that everything in Debian should be treated as software as far as the DFSG is concerned. It'd be convenient for me to read that sentence as you say--but I doubt this particular fine point of the statement was intended either way. It'd be nice if people would stop fixating on interpreting that statement and instead figure out what *should* be done. The statement's ambiguous. It won't help. By the way, the issue of that statement's interpretation is not settled. Please don't state your interpretation as more than an interpretation. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:52:21AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:32:16PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote: I'm not certain I agree. Point one of the social contract is Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software. The obvious reading of this is that anything that is not free software cannot be in Debian. I tend to doubt that *either* was intended when this was created. It can be read either way, and there's probably not going to be a consensus. Everyone's going to read it in whatever way suits what they want. Not so. I'm personally of the belief that there's merit in holding documentation and similar papers/literary works to a different standard of freeness in terms of modifiability than we hold software to. However, I've found Branden's reasoning persuasive, and I don't think anyone can honestly read the DFSG/Social Contract as unambiguously allowing us to do that at present (i.e., anyone who says it does is lying to himself). I happen to think that everything in Debian should be treated as software as far as the DFSG is concerned. It'd be convenient for me to read that sentence as you say--but I doubt this particular fine point of the statement was intended either way. However, some people are interpreting that ambiguity as a license to regard the widest possible range of material as falling into the 'free' category. It'd be nice if people would stop fixating on interpreting that statement and instead figure out what *should* be done. The statement's ambiguous. It won't help. Hear, hear! If people are concerned with having the regs relaxed for documentation, get the GR moving along. Talking about it on debian-devel or debian-legal isn't going to accomplish anything. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpv3Axb8Fb3c.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 04:34:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: The issue is that the Debian Social Contract doesn't say All software in Debian will remain 100% free, it says Debian will remain 100% Free Software. Interesting. I had always read it as Debian will remain (100% Free) Software, not Debian will remain 100% (Free Software); meaning that all the software in Debian will remain 100% free. -- _ _ . .| _ _ ._ ._ _ ._ [EMAIL PROTECTED] |_)(_||_|| (_(_|| || |(_)| | http://ssl.usu.edu/paul/ | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 20:53, Branden Robinson wrote: Why should the DFSG have to worry about such philosophical questions? Why isn't it enough to worry about the license? Because software isn't documentation? Think of it this way: national security would be so much easier to maintain if we could just define cryptography as a weapon of war, equivalent to a nuclear device, for the purposes of the import regulations. We all know how well that worked. Similarly, it would be a lot easier to just define documentation to be software for the purposes of the DFSG. But does it make sense? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
Replies to -legal if you must make them. This list is for development issues, not boring license pedantry. On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:12:41AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 20:53, Branden Robinson wrote: Why should the DFSG have to worry about such philosophical questions? Why isn't it enough to worry about the license? Because software isn't documentation? Uh, you mean documentation isn't software. And I'm sorry, but that's quite debatable. It's quite a valid interpretation of software to be the stuff that's implied by all the one's and zero's in memory however those one's and zero's might be represented, as opposed to hardware which actually has a physical existance. In that case anything stored in a .deb is software, compared to, say, a book, which is fairly primitive hardware. Think of it this way: national security would be so much easier to maintain if we could just define cryptography as a weapon of war, equivalent to a nuclear device, for the purposes of the import regulations. We all know how well that worked. Quite well, in that very little cryptography was exported from the United States. It's unfortunate, in a sense, that unlike other tools of war, cryptography is very easy to develop outside the US, so a block on exports doesn't really do much good. Similarly, it would be a lot easier to just define documentation to be software for the purposes of the DFSG. But does it make sense? Well, yes it does. It's even simple. Any content you distribute in the .deb must have a DFSG-free license, although you have to add the careful proviso that the license itself shouldn't be considered content or gets a special exemption, or something similar. A question you could reasonably ask is is it useful to have all the same freedoms for documentation that we expect for programs? And really, it _is_ useful. Being able to cut out all the irrelevant bits of a document and distribute an abbreviated version you can store on your PDA, or being able to translate it, or being able to change it to match the changes in your program, or being able to correct it on factual errors, or being able to rip out bits of opinion which aren't interesting or useful to you or the people to whom you want to make copies are all reasonable and productive things to do. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``BAM! Science triumphs again!'' -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif pgp53akviYXfP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 01:08, Anthony Towns wrote: Replies to -legal if you must make them. This list is for development issues, not boring license pedantry. On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:12:41AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 20:53, Branden Robinson wrote: Why should the DFSG have to worry about such philosophical questions? Why isn't it enough to worry about the license? Because software isn't documentation? Uh, you mean documentation isn't software. Yeah. And I'm sorry, but that's quite debatable. It's quite a valid interpretation of software to be the stuff that's implied by all the one's and zero's in memory however those one's and zero's might be represented, as opposed to hardware which actually has a physical existance. In that case anything stored in a .deb is software, compared to, say, a book, which is fairly primitive hardware. It's certainly debatable; the thread alone should be evidence enough of that. I don't find such arguments very interesting, though. It's certainly easy to solve a problem by shifting the definitions around, bending a few until they match. I could try to unbend them by asking what the practical difference there is between printed and electronic versions of books, but that's all dictionary work, and doesn't really convey anything useful. It's more useful, I think, to look at it this way: there is a sense that the freedom we insist upon for executable code may not necessarily be appropriate for other kinds of information that may be found in a Debian package. Indeed, we already recognize at least one such distinction: copyright notices and licenses, which are as proprietary as they come. Could there be more? There is evidence that at least a significant number of Debian people, not to mention a DFSG author and the head of the FSF, believe there are more distinctions to be made. Think of it this way: national security would be so much easier to maintain if we could just define cryptography as a weapon of war, equivalent to a nuclear device, for the purposes of the import regulations. We all know how well that worked. Quite well, in that very little cryptography was exported from the United States. It's unfortunate, in a sense, that unlike other tools of war, cryptography is very easy to develop outside the US, so a block on exports doesn't really do much good. Except that most of the crypto technology you used to find on Italian and Dutch FTP servers was either code from the USA or (rather poorly) algorithms from the USA. The really big example: PGP. I think ssh was probably the first really big non-US crypto app, and it postdated PGP by a few years as I recall. Well, yes it does. It's even simple. Any content you distribute in the .deb must have a DFSG-free license, although you have to add the careful proviso that the license itself shouldn't be considered content or gets a special exemption, or something similar. Well, yes. But does that really reflect the values of the project? I think that's the question at hand. A question you could reasonably ask is is it useful to have all the same freedoms for documentation that we expect for programs? And really, it _is_ useful. Being able to cut out all the irrelevant bits of a document and distribute an abbreviated version you can store on your PDA, or being able to translate it, or being able to change it to match the changes in your program, or being able to correct it on factual errors, or being able to rip out bits of opinion which aren't interesting or useful to you or the people to whom you want to make copies are all reasonable and productive things to do. These are all good arguments. If they hold, I would humbly suggest then that we rename the Debian Free Software Guidelines to the Debian Free Content Guidelines. This, it would seem, would be more direct. I'm not sure that usefulness is a good criteria, however, for modeling what we believe. For example, it would have been exceedingly useful a few years ago to link GPLed KDE to non-free Qt, but we didn't do it then. Usefulness is a good thing if it doesn't contradict other, more important values. (Yes, I know that I'm not answering the question of what other values we hold that are more important.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:36:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: These are all good arguments. If they hold, I would humbly suggest then that we rename the Debian Free Software Guidelines to the Debian Free Content Guidelines. This, it would seem, would be more direct. That would be a massive PITA given that so far such changes seem to require a supermajority GR vote. I think it's probably a good idea, personally. -- Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sooner or later, BOOM! dark Knghtbrd: We have lots of whatevers. Knghtbrd dark - In Debian? Hell yeah we do! pgpF4vqUsSRzv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Tuesday, April 9, 2002, at 02:36 , Jeff Licquia wrote: Except that most of the crypto technology you used to find on Italian and Dutch FTP servers was either code from the USA or (rather poorly) algorithms from the USA. Yes, that's because it was perfectly legal to print it out and mail it, but not to send it on a disk. Don't ask. Our government was, until very recently, deluded that foreigners could not type. Or OCR. It _did_ have a very detrimental effect on the adoption of cryptography and cryptographic research in general, though. So, arguable, it worked. Many projects (OpenBSD, FreeS/WAN, etc.) still refuse code from the US. It is arguable still working to a small extent. This is, however, very off topic. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:12:41AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 20:53, Branden Robinson wrote: Why should the DFSG have to worry about such philosophical questions? Why isn't it enough to worry about the license? Because software isn't documentation? Think of it this way: national security would be so much easier to maintain if we could just define cryptography as a weapon of war, equivalent to a nuclear device, for the purposes of the import regulations. We all know how well that worked. Similarly, it would be a lot easier to just define documentation to be software for the purposes of the DFSG. But does it make sense? The alternative is that documentation will be treated as something we are enjoined by the Social Contract from distributing at all. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software. This may have been poor phrasing on the part of the authors, but there is *not* a clear consensus that this is the case; which means that your only remedy is a GR to modify/clarify the Social Contract and/or the DFSG, and until that happens, no amount of debate here will prevent packages from being bounced out of main if their documentation licenses do not meet the DFSG. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpBxFsXZPiql.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 08:45, Steve Langasek wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:12:41AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: Similarly, it would be a lot easier to just define documentation to be software for the purposes of the DFSG. But does it make sense? The alternative is that documentation will be treated as something we are enjoined by the Social Contract from distributing at all. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software. This may have been poor phrasing on the part of the authors, but there is *not* a clear consensus that this is the case; I think there's a consensus that the DFSG and Social Contract are poorly phrased; where we differ is on how to clarify it. In the absense of such a resolution, I don't think we're forced to woodenly apply those broken principles; instead, we try to fix them first. which means that your only remedy is a GR to modify/clarify the Social Contract and/or the DFSG, and until that happens, no amount of debate here will prevent packages from being bounced out of main if their documentation licenses do not meet the DFSG. A GR appears necessary no matter what route we choose. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:08:18AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: I think there's a consensus that the DFSG and Social Contract are poorly phrased; [...] Uh, no, there's not. That you don't understand the terms, or misinterpret them, doesn't mean they absolutely need to be changed. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``BAM! Science triumphs again!'' -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 10:27, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:08:18AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: I think there's a consensus that the DFSG and Social Contract are poorly phrased; [...] Uh, no, there's not. That you don't understand the terms, or misinterpret them, doesn't mean they absolutely need to be changed. I didn't claim a consensus on whether they should be *changed*; I claimed a consensus on whether they should be *clarified*. A clarification that documentation = software for the purposes of the DFSG, or Branden's proposals in debian-legal, wouldn't be changes, for example. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:36:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: It's more useful, I think, to look at it this way: there is a sense that the freedom we insist upon for executable code may not necessarily be appropriate for other kinds of information that may be found in a Debian package. I reject this premise entirely. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00250.html -- G. Branden Robinson|One man's theology is another man's Debian GNU/Linux |belly laugh. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp6SJ8obvCPD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:45:03AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:12:41AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 20:53, Branden Robinson wrote: Why should the DFSG have to worry about such philosophical questions? Why isn't it enough to worry about the license? Because software isn't documentation? Think of it this way: national security would be so much easier to maintain if we could just define cryptography as a weapon of war, equivalent to a nuclear device, for the purposes of the import regulations. We all know how well that worked. Similarly, it would be a lot easier to just define documentation to be software for the purposes of the DFSG. But does it make sense? The alternative is that documentation will be treated as something we are enjoined by the Social Contract from distributing at all. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software. This may have been poor phrasing on the part of the authors, but there is *not* a clear consensus that this is the case; which means that your only remedy is a GR to modify/clarify the Social Contract and/or the DFSG, and until that happens, no amount of debate here will prevent packages from being bounced out of main if their documentation licenses do not meet the DFSG. You know, I keep hearing this. Does this mean we should ditch the entirety of GCC's manuals, even old ones which weren't under the FDL, since the FSF has *clearly* indicated that *they* do not consider them to by software, since they created a *separate license* solely for documentation - which means that for their intent, documentation != software, and thus, Debian should respect that and not publish it, since it's not software at all? -- *** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:45:56PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: The alternative is that documentation will be treated as something we are enjoined by the Social Contract from distributing at all. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software. This may have been poor phrasing on the part of the authors, but there is *not* a clear consensus that this is the case; which means that your only remedy is a GR to modify/clarify the Social Contract and/or the DFSG, and until that happens, no amount of debate here will prevent packages from being bounced out of main if their documentation licenses do not meet the DFSG. You know, I keep hearing this. Does this mean we should ditch the entirety of GCC's manuals, even old ones which weren't under the FDL, since the FSF has *clearly* indicated that *they* do not consider them to by software, since they created a *separate license* solely for documentation - which means that for their intent, documentation != software, and thus, Debian should respect that and not publish it, since it's not software at all? If you feel somehow honor-bound to not publish FSF documentation because the FSF rejects our definition of software, that's your business. Don't be too surprised if other maintainers laugh at you when you tell them you want them to stop including these documents in their packages for this reason. We ARE, however, bound to honor our own definitions -- in particular, our definition of what Debian itself is: Free Software. If that means we have to use a slightly different definition of what software is, well, so be it. But it seems that some people are trying to get around the DFSG by claiming software guidelines shouldn't apply to certain types of content, which doesn't work, because the only kind of content it's in our charter to publish is software. shrug Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpEOg2VTVCiG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:45:56PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: You know, I keep hearing this. Does this mean we should ditch the entirety of GCC's manuals, even old ones which weren't under the FDL, since the FSF has *clearly* indicated that *they* do not consider them to by software, since they created a *separate license* solely for documentation - which means that for their intent, documentation != software, and thus, Debian should respect that and not publish it, since it's not software at all? What the FSF considers software vs. documentation is not relevant to the DFSG. What matters is whether Debian applies the DFSG to a work, irrespective of whether the work is categorized by its author, the FSF, or Debian as software, documentation, or fried green tomatoes. I don't have a problem with putting fried green tomatoes in main as long as they're DFSG-free fried green tomatoes. ;-) On a more serious note, the position you're stating is a false alternative. People who would rather see non-DFSG-free documentation in main are trying to say that their opponents would exclude DFSG-free documentation from main because it's not software, not because it's not DFSG-free. That argument is ass backwards, and dishonest. The important trait of a copyrighted work for Debian is its licensing, not what ontological category someone has elected to place it in. /me wonders if that last sentence will summon Eray Ozkural, and if so, if that makes it a new corollary of Godwin's Law -- G. Branden Robinson|Somewhere, there is a .sig so funny Debian GNU/Linux |that reading it will cause an [EMAIL PROTECTED] |aneurysm. This is not that .sig. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpxh5H8syNv8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:20:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:45:56PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: You know, I keep hearing this. Does this mean we should ditch the entirety of GCC's manuals, even old ones which weren't under the FDL, since the FSF has *clearly* indicated that *they* do not consider them to by software, since they created a *separate license* solely for documentation - which means that for their intent, documentation != software, and thus, Debian should respect that and not publish it, since it's not software at all? What the FSF considers software vs. documentation is not relevant to the DFSG. Not to the DFSG - but it *should* be, to Debian, if we are to be a good neighbor. Legally? Sure, we can do it. Is it *right*? I don't think so. You're certainly welcome to disagree with me. It's people not being good neighbors and respecting the author's intent that cause needing such licenses in the first place. This is, I will grant, a fact of life - but I don't have to encourage it, do I? What matters is whether Debian applies the DFSG to a work, irrespective of whether the work is categorized by its author, the FSF, or Debian as software, documentation, or fried green tomatoes. I'm simply saying that *I* believe that Debian *should* apply the author's intent to determining if something is software or not-software. If we then choose not to publish non-software, hey, that's not being a bad neighbor, just one who doesn't want to be in that business. Fine. But this whole all the world is software is making the *words* of the Social Contract and the DFSG into gosphel, rather than the intent (as the DFSG author has *said*, it would appear). If you want to see what happens when words become more important than intent, look at your favorite villan among major religions and their history. Am I saying we should ignore the DFSG, or the SC? No. Will I uphold them as they stand? I agreed to in my NM application, yes, and I will. Do I think they're holy documents that can never be changed? If so, why the do we have methods for changing them? I'd already be working on a GR to clarify and/or resolve it, and at least *try*, but I'm not permitted to offer one yet. I don't have a problem with putting fried green tomatoes in main as long as they're DFSG-free fried green tomatoes. ;-) I do, if people are going to bandy about the Social Contract clause Debian is 100% Free Software as meaning that everything MUST be software. Fried green tomatos do not run well on any CPU I am aware of. They tend to cause short-circuits and smell bad. On a more serious note, the position you're stating is a false alternative. People who would rather see non-DFSG-free documentation in main are trying to say that their opponents would exclude DFSG-free documentation from main because it's not software, not because it's not DFSG-free. That argument is ass backwards, and dishonest. I didn't bring it up. Go read the archive if you haven't seen folks (I believe Steve is one major proponent) saying that unless we treat it all as software, it can't go in. I say that declaring an apple to be an orange does not make it just a funny colored orange. The important trait of a copyrighted work for Debian is its licensing, not what ontological category someone has elected to place it in. Nobody has yet to explain to me why invariant sections are not worthy of a similar exception to Clause #4 of the DFSG, or don't in fact fall under clause #4 directly. What is wrong with the author wanting their source (or parts of their source) to remain unmodified, so long as they permit us to distribute something which also updates it? See, this is why I don't understand the assertion that the GFDL isn't free. Even if you make the ENTIRE DOCUMENT invariant - I don't think that it's nice, or that we should encourage it, but I don't see why that makes it any more non-free than TeX is, so long as one can patch it externally. I think we should actively discourage it, just as we actively discourage TeX style pure source licenses, but please explain to me why it can't qualify under clause 4. /me wonders if that last sentence will summon Eray Ozkural, and if so, if that makes it a new corollary of Godwin's Law No comment. -- *** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:27:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: I think there's a consensus that the DFSG and Social Contract are poorly phrased; [...] Uh, no, there's not. That you don't understand the terms, or misinterpret them, doesn't mean they absolutely need to be changed. I wouldn't mind seeing the Debian Free Content Guidelines change, just to put this issue to bed for the forseeable future, but I do think that's a silly thing to spend a long voting process on. =p -- Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]Certified free software nut gholam well I'm impressed gholam win98 managed to crash X from within vmware. * gholam applauds. pgppSMpmmK6eK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Branden Robinson wrote: What the FSF considers software vs. documentation is not relevant to the DFSG. What matters is whether Debian applies the DFSG to a work, irrespective of whether the work is categorized by its author, the FSF, or Debian as software, documentation, or fried green tomatoes. I'm not certain I agree. Point one of the social contract is Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software. The obvious reading of this is that anything that is not free software cannot be in Debian. This includes non-free software AND free non-software. This is no problem in my view of the world, because every sequence of bits is software IMO, and I don't believe anyone is considering adding anything that's not a sequence of bits. Those who believe that there are non-software things that can go on a CD or FTP server have to find their own way to reconcile the confusion caused by the phrase 100% free software. They should either be arguing that those things are not part of Debian or that Debian should change it's policy to include free non-software. Because I don't hear many arguments along those lines, I tend to assume that people are like me in believing that if it can be a file on a computer, it's software. I want to avoid the other possible conclusion, that people are willing to ignore their interpretation of the definition of Debian. I don't have a problem with putting fried green tomatoes in main as long as they're DFSG-free fried green tomatoes. ;-) Normally I agree with Brandon, but here we differ. FGT are clearly hardware, and I'd object for the same reason I'd object if any other physical medium were proposed to become part of Debian. On a more serious note, the position you're stating is a false alternative. People who would rather see non-DFSG-free documentation in main are trying to say that their opponents would exclude DFSG-free documentation from main because it's not software, not because it's not DFSG-free. That argument is ass backwards, and dishonest. THIS I agree with. Whether to include non-software and whether to include non-free items are independent discussions. I believe the answers are no and hell no, but those who believe that docs and pictures aren't software really really ought to be screaming that they should be removed or the definition of Debian changed. I hope that Debian someday takes a position that reconciles the two (like stating that we consider software to be anything that is pure information expressed in a sequence of bits), but I'm not that worried about it for three reasons: 1) I personally care more about the freedom than about the nature of the contents of Debian. 2) I don't see anyone proposing we put non-software (by my definition) into Debian. 3) It's hard to imagine many non-software items (again, software=information to me) that can be DSFG-free. The important trait of a copyrighted work for Debian is its licensing, not what ontological category someone has elected to place it in. This I also agree with, but it's a spectrum rather than an absolute. I'd bend on the no non-software rule long before I'd bend on the no non-free items rule, but both are important to me. -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The GNU FDL is a free license! (Was: Re: O: gnu-standards --GNU coding standards)
How about: /usr/bin/latex is a program - my_neat_little_phdthesis.tex is a file? Actually, /usr/bin/latex is an interpreter. my_neat_little_phdthesis.tex *is* program code, even though the vast proportion of the content will be literal text for output. See Andrew Greene's BASiX (BASIC interpreter in TeX) or the discussions of TeX viruses from the same era if you're still unclear on this... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The GNU FDL is a free license! (Was: Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards)
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:22:53PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:29:27PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system if I'm only using packages from main. The FDL is not DFSG-compliant, but that doesn't make it non-free. By the definitions we have given non-free, it is exactly that. If it was software, it was non-free. Our definitions are only about software. The GNU FDL is about documentation, which is a totally different. Besides that, are our definitions right? Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpS1WcaWISel.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The GNU FDL is a free license! (Was: Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards)
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:24:44PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: The FDL is not DFSG-compliant, but that doesn't make it non-free. By the definitions we have given non-free, it is exactly that. If it was software, it was non-free. Our definitions are only about software. The GNU FDL is about documentation, which is a totally different. Besides that, are our definitions right? That's not for me to decide. Debian has one definition - software. We define Debian as entirely software and specifically entirely free software. We hold everything to that definition currently, though there clearly is not a consensus that we should continue doing so. Debian has no concept of non-software and our only metric of freeness is the DFSG. The GNU FDL fails to do this. We are hypocrites to make an exception just because it's a GNU license. Either the license is a mistake (as I believe) or our method of determining a thing's freeness needs to be relaxed. I don't intend to support relaxing our definition of free very much. -- Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]Not many fishes Endy Actually, I think I'll wait for potato to be finalised before installing debian. Endy That should be soon, I'm hoping. :) knghtbrd Endy: You obviously know very little about Debian. pgpTYwMKqwSA7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 04:34:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: Software. Therefore, for something to be part of Debian, it must be Free Software, even if it's documentation. Now, this may be an It must be free software, even if it's documentation? So any documentation, if included in Debian, would suddenly transform into computer software? I don't think so... Of course, it is possible to blur the issue, for instance, is a C comment documentation or C code? Is a C printf statement documentation or C code? What if you wrapped the contents of the GPL in a C printf statement? Would it still meet the DFSG? Also, it is worth noting that even the GPL doesn't allow unrestricted editing of source files: a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. -- Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:39:31AM +1000, Brian May wrote: On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 04:34:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: Software. Therefore, for something to be part of Debian, it must be Free Software, even if it's documentation. Now, this may be an It must be free software, even if it's documentation? It doesn't matter what it *is*. People can and will argue for eternity about how many angels should dance on the software and documentation pins. What matters is how what's packaged for Debian is *licensed*. So any documentation, if included in Debian, would suddenly transform into computer software? I don't think so... Another straw man lies slain! Of course, it is possible to blur the issue, for instance, is a C comment documentation or C code? Is a C printf statement documentation or C code? Why should the DFSG have to worry about such philosophical questions? Why isn't it enough to worry about the license? What if you wrapped the contents of the GPL in a C printf statement? Would it still meet the DFSG? Under my proposals, it would if it were a license applicable to the softare in question, but not otherwise (because the Free Software Foundation does not permit alteration of their copyrighted text). Also, it is worth noting that even the GPL doesn't allow unrestricted editing of source files: a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. Also, it is worth noting that even the BSD license doesn't allow unrestricted editing of source files: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Your point? -- G. Branden Robinson|Somewhere, there is a .sig so funny Debian GNU/Linux |that reading it will cause an [EMAIL PROTECTED] |aneurysm. This is not that .sig. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpJ2H1ReFZac.pgp Description: PGP signature
O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
Package: wnpp Severity: normal Orphaned because it's now considered non-free. Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Package: gnu-standards Version: 2002.01.12-1 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.1.2 The GNU standards are licensed under two seperate licenses, neither one of which meets the DFSG. The first is the GNU FDL, which blatantly violates sections 5 and 6 of the DFSG. The second license allows only for verbatim distribution, changes are not allowed. This violates section 3. Please move this package to non-free. -- If a person keeps faithfully busy each hour of the working day, he can count on waking up some morning to find himself one of the competent ones of his generation. --William James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 10:01, Ben Pfaff ha scritto: Package: wnpp Severity: normal Orphaned because it's now considered non-free. Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Package: gnu-standards Version: 2002.01.12-1 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 2.1.2 The GNU standards are licensed under two seperate licenses, neither one of which meets the DFSG. The first is the GNU FDL, which blatantly violates sections 5 and 6 of the DFSG. The second license allows only for verbatim distribution, changes are not allowed. This violates section 3. people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software and with the FDL being used for more and more documents (i release all the docs i write under it and i continue to consider them *free*) we need to: 1. write the DFDG; or 2. update the DFSG to include explicitly documentation. federico -- Federico Di Gregorio Debian GNU/Linux Developer Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED] INIT.D Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Best friends are often failed lovers. -- Me signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote: people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be included as documentation (and probably is in a lot of places, in or outside of Debian), and XSLT is Turing-complete. Where does the line get drawn? Is it possible to draw one? IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system if I'm only using packages from main. -- - Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.sacredchao.net What I did was justified because I had a policy of my own... It's okay to be different, to not conform to society. -- Chen Kenichi, Iron Chef Chinese signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:12:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote: people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be included as documentation (and probably is in a lot of places, in or outside of Debian), and XSLT is Turing-complete. Where does the line get drawn? Is it possible to draw one? IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system if I'm only using packages from main. As noted - that will mean most of the GNU stuff goes right out the window. Perhaps Woody+1 will no longer be Debian GNU/Linux? I've said it before, but once again: the world of writing (that is, the various forms of documentation, RFCs - many of which are 'non-free' under the DFSG, and similar things does *not* have the same baseline of what it means to be 'free', because it comes from a vastly different world. One in which 'open distribution of work' is the primary goal, and the basic means of 'modifying' a work all preserve the origional document intact (that is, annotation, commentary, and bibliographical reference). The DFSG is an excellent place to start, but trying to apply it to things which *are not software* is silly, and results in the sort of sillyness which we're seeing now - will we see an Orphan message for GCC next? Folks, if RMS - who I think most folks will acknowlege is a zealot, whether they agree with his zealotry or not - is not only willing to put up with, but actively encourages, the use of a core license which Debian considers to be non-free, then I think it's time to take a step back and seriously consider *how* we ended up with the world on it's ear. I know we don't like 'patches only' software, but we *do* allow it - and the basic assumption of most documentation is that it lives in a world in which various forms of 'patching' are the *normal* method. I'm all for us saying 'please try to minimize invariant sections', possibly even 'these types of sections cannot be invariant to qualify for the DFDG', but if we want to apply a standard to which the rest of the world will never allow itself to be held to, we're going to take RMS's place as the zealots whom large numbers of people ignore. (Sort of like some folks ignore Jerodan for his Hurd cheerleading, or me for the *BSD cheerleading, for example...) -- *** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The GNU FDL is a free license! (Was: Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards)
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:12:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote: people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be included as documentation (and probably is in a lot of places, in or outside of Debian), and XSLT is Turing-complete. Where does the line get drawn? Is it possible to draw one? It's possible to draw a line. The GNU FDL clearly describes what a Transparant copy is for example. IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system if I'm only using packages from main. The FDL is not DFSG-compliant, but that doesn't make it non-free. IMHO a FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is free documentation, just as GPL-licensed software is free software. It places additional restriction, but those restriction aren't really harmful. IMHO the restrictions of the FDL are less harmful than those of the GPL, as the FDL doesn't limit from doing useful things. The GPL does, you can't link GPL'd code with code under the BSD license with advertisement clause. So if we are going to move all FDL'd documentation to non-free we can better move all GPL'd software to non-free at same time. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp0gjaoQS6XZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
Il dom, 2002-04-07 alle 19:12, Joe Wreschnig ha scritto: On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote: people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be included as documentation (and probably is in a lot of places, in or outside of Debian), and XSLT is Turing-complete. Where does the line get drawn? Is it possible to draw one? documentation != document. XSLT is cleary a program and s stylesheet should go under a code license. but a manual about programming in XSLT is definitely documentation and should be treated in a different way. IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system if I'm only using packages from main. IYO. IMHO they *are* free. i explain why: if i write a 300 pages book about something and 2 pages about my motivations, greetings to people that helped me, etc. i want you to fix the 300 pages of technical stuff but i don't see why you should the 'feelings' i put in that 2 pages. you're *free* to adapt the document to your liking and even add some comments (invariant) criticizing my own, but litterature (even technical one) is much different from code. federico -- Federico Di Gregorio Debian GNU/Linux Developer Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED] INIT.D Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 99.% still isn't 100% but sometimes suffice. -- Me signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 11:56:59AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:12:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote: people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be included as documentation (and probably is in a lot of places, in or outside of Debian), and XSLT is Turing-complete. Where does the line get drawn? Is it possible to draw one? IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system if I'm only using packages from main. As noted - that will mean most of the GNU stuff goes right out the window. Perhaps Woody+1 will no longer be Debian GNU/Linux? I've said it before, but once again: the world of writing (that is, the various forms of documentation, RFCs - many of which are 'non-free' under the DFSG, and similar things does *not* have the same baseline of what it means to be 'free', because it comes from a vastly different world. One in which 'open distribution of work' is the primary goal, and the basic means of 'modifying' a work all preserve the origional document intact (that is, annotation, commentary, and bibliographical reference). The DFSG is an excellent place to start, but trying to apply it to things which *are not software* is silly, and results in the sort of sillyness which we're seeing now - will we see an Orphan message for GCC next? The issue is that the Debian Social Contract doesn't say All software in Debian will remain 100% free, it says Debian will remain 100% Free Software. Therefore, for something to be part of Debian, it must be Free Software, even if it's documentation. Now, this may be an oversight in the original phrasing, but this is the Social Contract that we've all agreed to uphold as Debian developers -- unless and until it's clarified to address the various issues that arise with other forms of data, we really don't have anything else we can point to when judging the license on documentation. I know we don't like 'patches only' software, but we *do* allow it - and the basic assumption of most documentation is that it lives in a world in which various forms of 'patching' are the *normal* method. I'm all for us saying 'please try to minimize invariant sections', possibly even 'these types of sections cannot be invariant to qualify for the DFDG', but if we want to apply a standard to which the rest of the world will never allow itself to be held to, we're going to take RMS's place as the zealots whom large numbers of people ignore. I'm intrigued by this idea, and think it does indeed have a lot of merit. Documentation, after all, is akin to source code in the sense that both are intended as human-readable content, not as obscure instructions to be delivered directly to a computer. If we allow an author to place restrictions on how we can modify some kinds of source code while still considering the code free, why should the same not be allowed for other types of source code, like documentation? Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpHCnjfvImQi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The GNU FDL is a free license! (Was: Re: O: gnu-standards --GNU coding standards)
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 14:29, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be included as documentation (and probably is in a lot of places, in or outside of Debian), and XSLT is Turing-complete. Where does the line get drawn? Is it possible to draw one? It's possible to draw a line. The GNU FDL clearly describes what a Transparant copy is for example. Whether or not it describes what a transparent copy is is irrelevant. In fact, XML and HTML (and I would imagine therefore CSS and XSLT) are explicitly listed as transparent formats. I'm not going to argue that. The problems, although they're transparent, they're programs as well as documents. I'm sure there's typesetting systems (I only have a passing familiarity with LaTeX) that are Turing-complete too. What is a document, and what is a program? How can Debian even begin to distinguish what makes free documentation different from free software when we can't distinguish whether a particular piece of data is software or documentation in the first place? ... The FDL is not DFSG-compliant, but that doesn't make it non-free. I agree. I'm sure someone could show me a non DFSG compliant license I consider free. But that wasn't what I said. I said I consider a document with invariant sections non-free, which is my own personal judgement, and not the FSF's or DFSG's. It just happens that, right now, the DFSG agrees with my point of view. -- - Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.sacredchao.net What I did was justified because I had a policy of my own... It's okay to be different, to not conform to society. -- Chen Kenichi, Iron Chef Chinese signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 16:08, Federico Di Gregorio wrote: documentation != document. XSLT is cleary a program and s stylesheet should go under a code license. but a manual about programming in XSLT is definitely documentation and should be treated in a different way. What about inline stylesheets? What about XSLFOs in an XML document? IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system if I'm only using packages from main. IYO. IMHO they *are* free. i explain why: if i write a 300 pages book about something and 2 pages about my motivations, greetings to people that helped me, etc. i want you to fix the 300 pages of technical stuff but i don't see why you should the 'feelings' i put in that 2 pages. you're *free* to adapt the document to your liking and even add some comments (invariant) criticizing my own, but litterature (even technical one) is much different from code. I agree. The needs of nontechnical writing are not the same as the needs of technical writing. However, say I want to take a 10 page chapter out of your book and, e.g., strip it down into a 4 page quick reference guide. The FDL says I have to preserve your 2 pages of greetings and thanks. I believe invariant sections (in the general sense) are a good idea, and necessary for nontechnical writing. However, I believe Invariant Sections (as in the FDL) impose restrictions that are non-free. -- - Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.sacredchao.net What I did was justified because I had a policy of my own... It's okay to be different, to not conform to society. -- Chen Kenichi, Iron Chef Chinese signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 04:34:36PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 11:56:59AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: The DFSG is an excellent place to start, but trying to apply it to things which *are not software* is silly, and results in the sort of sillyness which we're seeing now - will we see an Orphan message for GCC next? The issue is that the Debian Social Contract doesn't say All software in Debian will remain 100% free, it says Debian will remain 100% Free Software. Therefore, for something to be part of Debian, it must be Free Software, even if it's documentation. Now, this may be an oversight in the original phrasing, but this is the Social Contract that we've all agreed to uphold as Debian developers -- unless and until it's clarified to address the various issues that arise with other forms of data, we really don't have anything else we can point to when judging the license on documentation. Pardon me, but I feel the need for a quote coming on. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Take it tongue in cheek, please, it's not a flame. But it *is* meant to point out that there is 'free' as in beer, 'free' as in software - and 'free' as in publication. If the Social Contract says that we are 100% Free Software, then we have *no place* distributing documentation which isn't software, do we? Yes, it's hyperbole, but it also points out what I consider to be a really glaring schism between what our social goals are, what we've written down as our social goals (the codified form), and what we expect to meet them. It happens. But it's also something that we need to address, or we're going to end up in a very untenable position. As for the social contract... it might be an oversight, but I think, as I noted above, that it's a question, really, of what 'Free' means in this context - and whether 'Free' as we apply it to code is really the right definition to apply to something which isn't code; I would call it 'speech' except that that could cause confusion with the traditional concepts that come to mind when anyone in the US says 'free speech'. I know we don't like 'patches only' software, but we *do* allow it - and the basic assumption of most documentation is that it lives in a world in which various forms of 'patching' are the *normal* method. I'm all for us saying 'please try to minimize invariant sections', possibly even 'these types of sections cannot be invariant to qualify for the DFDG', but if we want to apply a standard to which the rest of the world will never allow itself to be held to, we're going to take RMS's place as the zealots whom large numbers of people ignore. I'm intrigued by this idea, and think it does indeed have a lot of merit. Documentation, after all, is akin to source code in the sense that both are intended as human-readable content, not as obscure instructions to be delivered directly to a computer. If we allow an author to place restrictions on how we can modify some kinds of source code while still considering the code free, why should the same not be allowed for other types of source code, like documentation? Exactly - though the 'mapping' isn't precise, it seemed like a worthy place to start. I can think of at least 3 commonly used methods of make a new document while preserving the old (annotation, commentary, and bibliographical reference). I wonder if perhaps someone who has more familiarity with publishing open standards documents, white papers, and the like could weigh in on what the community standard for freedom in such things really means, and how that might map to what Debian now expects of software to meet the DFSG. I'll also note that, having read over the discussion on Debian-Legal, I fail to see why we couldn't accept the GFDL as intended by the FSF, and just file a bug against any package which disobeyed the intent of the license as being non-free, just like we can do if an author mistakenly uses code which can't be under the GPL or linked to it, and uses a GPL license. [ Yes, this also goes well beyond the GFDL, but that is the most clear example that comes to hand easily. ] -- *** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The GNU FDL is a free license! (Was: Re: O: gnu-standards --GNU coding standards)
Il lun, 2002-04-08 alle 00:15, Joe Wreschnig ha scritto: On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 14:29, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be included as documentation (and probably is in a lot of places, in or outside of Debian), and XSLT is Turing-complete. Where does the line get drawn? Is it possible to draw one? It's possible to draw a line. The GNU FDL clearly describes what a Transparant copy is for example. Whether or not it describes what a transparent copy is is irrelevant. In fact, XML and HTML (and I would imagine therefore CSS and XSLT) are explicitly listed as transparent formats. I'm not going to argue that. The problems, although they're transparent, they're programs as well as documents. I'm sure there's typesetting systems (I only have a passing familiarity with LaTeX) that are Turing-complete too. What is a document, and what is a program? How can Debian even begin to distinguish what makes free documentation different from free software when we can't distinguish whether a particular piece of data is software or documentation in the first place? TeX is turing complete. apart from that, i'd say that a program is mainly intended to be run on a computer documentation is mainly intended to be run on a brain even with such strange documents as literate programs (cfr. the WEB system), the program and the documentation are easily distinguishable (and they are in the *same* document!) -- Federico Di Gregorio Debian GNU/Linux Developer Italian Press Contact[EMAIL PROTECTED] INIT.D Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Viviamo in un mondo reale, Ciccio. -- Lucy signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: The GNU FDL is a free license! (Was: Re: O: gnu-standards --GNU coding standards)
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:15:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: In fact, XML and HTML (and I would imagine therefore CSS and XSLT) are explicitly listed as transparent formats. I'm not going to argue that. The problems, although they're transparent, they're programs as well as documents. Blackbird:~$ ./index.html bash: ./index.html: Permission denied hmm, doesn't work here :-/ I'm sure there's typesetting systems (I only have a passing familiarity with LaTeX) that are Turing-complete too. What is a document, and what is a program? How about: /usr/bin/latex is a program - my_neat_little_phdthesis.tex is a file? OK, perhaps you can summon up all kind of voodoo in .tex-files, but common sense tells me that you can tell quite easily a .tex document from a .tex program. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The GNU FDL is a free license! (Was: Re: O: gnu-standards --GNU coding standards)
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:15:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 14:29, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: It's possible to draw a line. The GNU FDL clearly describes what a Transparant copy is for example. Whether or not it describes what a transparent copy is is irrelevant. In fact, XML and HTML (and I would imagine therefore CSS and XSLT) are explicitly listed as transparent formats. I'm not going to argue that. The problems, although they're transparent, they're programs as well as documents. I'm sure there's typesetting systems (I only have a passing familiarity with LaTeX) that are Turing-complete too. nroff/troff, the language in which our manual pages are written, is certainly Turing-complete. Of course, I think one would have to make a judgement call and say that the primary purpose of most *roff files is as documentation; if somebody produced a program using *roff, we would then call that software. I think we have to judge based on the primary content of the files, not their format, although there are obviously large grey areas. (Likewise, consider literate programming, where invariant sections could conceivably be included as part of C source files.) -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The GNU FDL is a free license! (Was: Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards)
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:29:27PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: IMO, an FDL-licensed document with invariant sections is non-free. As a user of Debian, I'd like to know that they're not installed on my system if I'm only using packages from main. The FDL is not DFSG-compliant, but that doesn't make it non-free. By the definitions we have given non-free, it is exactly that. -- Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sooner or later, BOOM! Hydroxide knightbrd: from knightbrd.brain import * :) knghtbrd Oh gods if it were that easy .. knghtbrd from carmack.brain import OpenGL pgpD4L0uq6yvW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The GNU FDL is a free license! (Was: Re: O: gnu-standards --GNU coding standards)
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:22:51AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:15:16PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: In fact, XML and HTML (and I would imagine therefore CSS and XSLT) are explicitly listed as transparent formats. I'm not going to argue that. The problems, although they're transparent, they're programs as well as documents. Blackbird:~$ ./index.html bash: ./index.html: Permission denied hmm, doesn't work here :-/ echo '#!/usr/bin/lynx' newindex.html cat index.html newindex.html chmod +x newindex.html ./newindex.html Seems to work for me :) (although the fact that the shebang gets displayed on the page shows either a glaring oversight in the design of html, or that linux needs to recognise !doctype html tags) -- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:12:47PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:14, Federico Di Gregorio wrote: people, i just want to remember you that DFSG stands for debian free SOFTWARE guidelines. documentation is *not* software Unfortunately this is becoming less true. CSS contains statements for Whatcha mean becoming? Lispers have been blurring the line between data and code for the last half-century. My package, apt-dpkg-ref, is a document written in Common Lisp that outputs LaTeX and HTML. It's released under the GPL currently, but I briefly considered the FDL and decided that I really couldn't call it entirely a document. (Also I wanted to avoid all the hairy license issues that seem to be arising now). content generation and counting variables. Is this a program? I'm not sure, but it's definitely not just a document anymore. XSLT can be included as documentation (and probably is in a lot of places, in or outside of Debian), and XSLT is Turing-complete. Where does the line get drawn? Is it possible to draw one? -- ; Matthew Danish [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; OpenPGP public key: C24B6010 on keyring.debian.org ; Signed or encrypted mail welcome. ; There is no dark side of the moon really; matter of fact, it's all dark. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 20:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whatcha mean becoming? Lispers have been blurring the line between data and code for the last half-century. Speaking as a budding LISPer (working my way through On Lisp while my classes ruin my brain with Java), I'm well aware of this. But aside from DSSSL, it never became very popular with software documentation writers, who preferred troff, HTML, TeX, etc, and either the capabilities didn't exist, or they weren't used. Count the number of DSSSL stylesheets in Debian, and then the number of XML documents. Or the number of LISP-generated documents versus the number of static documents. I was actually wondering when I wrote my first message if any package in Debian was using LISP for document creation, but I couldn't think of any offhand. Thanks. :) -- - Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.sacredchao.net What I did was justified because I had a policy of my own... It's okay to be different, to not conform to society. -- Chen Kenichi, Iron Chef Chinese signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: O: gnu-standards -- GNU coding standards
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:39:12PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 20:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whatcha mean becoming? Lispers have been blurring the line between data and code for the last half-century. Speaking as a budding LISPer (working my way through On Lisp while my classes ruin my brain with Java), I'm well aware of this. But aside from DSSSL, it never became very popular with software documentation writers, who preferred troff, HTML, TeX, etc, and either the capabilities didn't exist, or they weren't used. Count the number of DSSSL stylesheets in Debian, and then the number of XML documents. Or the number of LISP-generated documents versus the number of static documents. Well one of my friends likens TeX to a wannabe Lisp, and is currently dabbling in creating a Common Lisp-based document typesetter. Certainly such programs have existed in the past, I have heard of several typesetting systems mentioned in passing; most likely in connection with Lisp machines. But a document typesetting system wasn't my real point, which was: Lisp code is data, and the data is often code. This principle is key to several features of Lisps, such as macros (which indubitably you must have been bombarded with in On Lisp) and program-writing programs, not to mention symbolic programming. This and a number of other features of modern Lisps have created a number of issues with licenses, such as the GPL, that are rather C-centric. I know there are many Lisp programmers who are not very comfortable with the GPL and stick to BSD-like or public domain (CMUCL is one major project like so). I was actually wondering when I wrote my first message if any package in Debian was using LISP for document creation, but I couldn't think of any offhand. Thanks. :) Just don't take the code from that source as a stellar example of macro programming, if you can ever read it. ;) It's a really horribly convoluted macro, which shouldn't have been a macro, which I wrote in a very short time a long time ago when I didn't know anything anyhow. But it does work... If you consider generation of HTML to be document creation, there's a number of systems which do so in Lisp; I have used one for web-app development. See http://ww.telent.net/cliki/Web I think that Manuel Serrano (upstream for Bigloo) now has a system called Scribe that is written in Bigloo scheme. You might want to take a look at that as well. It's now used for Bigloo docs. -- ; Matthew Danish [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; OpenPGP public key: C24B6010 on keyring.debian.org ; Signed or encrypted mail welcome. ; There is no dark side of the moon really; matter of fact, it's all dark. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
