Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
MJ Ray wrote: Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is quite clear that it is not the intended way to enforce FDL. Since it is not fixed till now, I conclude there is no bug here. Cool! Until there is a fix, a bug isn't a bug? Someone tell the RM. Note, I meant bug in wording, not in intention.
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 03:34:22PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 20:36 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: You can buy a bit freedom for money, Freedom is a birthright. Given his surname, Mr. Spiridonov may come from a cultural background where this sort of assertion provokes howls of laughter. In some places in the world, your only birthright is a life of hard labor in the Gulag, or a bullet in the head followed by a hasty burial in a shallow grave. But hey, give the U.S. another four years of Bush, Ashcroft, Rove, and pals, and we'll likely be laughing at the naïveté of our revolutionary Founders as well. -- 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/ | pgpNyb1oGCHXo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 08:20:29PM -0600, John Galt wrote: _MAI Systems v. Peak Computer_ (991 F.2d 511) says otherwise. To quote part: The district court's grant of a summary judgment on MAI's claims of copyright infringement reflects its conclusion that a 'copying' for purposes of copyright law occurs when a program is transferred from a permanent storage device to a computer's RAM. This conclusion is consistent with its finding, in granting the preliminary injunction, that: 'the loading of copyrighted software from a storage medium (hard disk, floppy disk, or read only memory) into the memory of a central processing unit (CPU) causes a copy to be made. In the absence of ownership of the copyright or express permission by license, such acts constitute copyright infringement.' We find that this conclusion is supported by the record and the law. Holy shit, I think we may just have seen John Galt's first useful post to a Debian mailing list _ever_. Congratulations, second assistant bookkeeper[1]! [1] If you got that reference, you should consider joining RA[2]. [2] If you got the original reference, should have no trouble figuring out what that acronym expands to. -- G. Branden Robinson| Intellectual property is neither Debian GNU/Linux | intellectual nor property. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Discuss. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Linda Richman pgpzTdcutJZM2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Peter S Galbraith wrote: The GPL takes away the freedom to redistribute works as closed sources or unmodifiable. But it enforces the freedoms we want. It protects the This is what I name deal. You claim to resist it, because your cow will be disappointed. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Steve Langasek wrote: the point of it. The sacred cow in question is the *DFSG*, a set of principles that form the basis for this list's decisions about what is considered free enough for inclusion in Debian. Your notion that the It is not only one-way. DFSG itself should be updated if it becomes out of date. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 17:02, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote: Ummm... stupid as it sounds, inflammable actually does mean roughly the same thing as flammable. It's related to the verb to inflame. Agreed. I just don't like it because it's an extra syllable and extra two letters for no good reason. Sort of like irregardless signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Bug#202723: perl-doc: Non-free manpage included
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:24:09AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 04:57:09PM -0400, Mark Jason Dominus wrote: I am the original author of the manual page in question. I am presently negotiating with CMP, who acquired the Perl Journal a few years ago, to obtain complete and unambiguous copyright on the article. If I succeed, I will release the original article and 'perlreftut', the derived manpage, under the GNU FDL or whatever other license the Debian maintainers think appropriate. Sounds great! Thanks for letting the Debian Legal team know about this. I should advise you though, in all fairness, that the GNU FDL (any version released to date) is not regarded by the Debian Project as a DFSG-free[1] license, so relicensing the works in question under the GNU FDL alone would not result in a material difference in their handling by the Debian Project. One reason for this assessment by the Debian Project is that the GNU FDL is not GNU GPL-compatible, so it is not possible for third parties to move FDL-licensed documentation into Perl code via POD, for instance, at least not without negotiating with the copyright holder of the GNU FDL-licensed documentation. Using the GNU FDL may make the works more appealing to some other organizations, however. I personally recommend multi-licensing the works under the GNU GPL v2, the Clarified Artistic License, and (if your wish), a version of the GNU FDL. Note that from what I have gathered from the mailinglist archive, it's not just that perlreftut is only AL, it's also that the license only allows you to distribute it with the Perl distribution, you can't for instance make a site collecting documentation, and put perlreftut there. Abigail
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Op do 14-08-2003, om 23:46 schreef Branden Robinson: On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 11:08:35AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: It's a /feeling/. Hence, I said 'I /feel/ that there is a difference'. Yes; most proponents of the less-freedom-for-documentation-than-for-software crowd appear to be operating at the bellyfeel level. What's wrong with that? There are many examples of situations where people feel that there's a difference between the meaning of two words, but can't really name it. Consider fruit and vegetables; the dutch words stoel and zetel (stoel being chair, zetel being chair as well, with the difference being that a zetel is usually situated in the salon, although that's not the entire definition). There are probably others; the difference between documentation and programs may be one as well. The fact that we have a problem defining the difference between the two should not mean we can not or should not consider it. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a full one, but there are plenty of dead experts. -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts. signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Op do 14-08-2003, om 20:41 schreef Anthony DeRobertis: On Wednesday, Aug 13, 2003, at 13:51 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote: Of course, you can claim that the very special definition of software As an aside, I'd like to note that several reputable dictionaries agree with the definition of software being the part of the computer that is not hardware. So it's not my very own special definition; quite the opposite, its a common usage of the word. There are also several dictionaries that disagree with that definition; and, more importantly, many people, and even Debian Developers, do so. Even if we're not going to make that distinction between computer programs and documentation (which I, personally, think is preferable), we should at the very least avoid confusion by clarifying the intended meaning of the word 'software' in the context of the text of the DFSG. [...] -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a full one, but there are plenty of dead experts. -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts. signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Op vr 15-08-2003, om 08:55 schreef Sergey V. Spiridonov: gotten with blood, sweat, and tears. Those who have paid for their You can buy a bit freedom for money, Freedom is a birthright. If you have to pay for it, you're not free. Can you buy a closed proprietary code and than realease it under GPL? Yes. It probably depends on the amount of money you spend, and on what exactly you buy, but it's very possible to do so... If you don't have the right to release it under the GPL after you payed for it, it's still not free. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a full one, but there are plenty of dead experts. -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts.
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Wouter Verhelst wrote: You can buy a bit freedom for money, Freedom is a birthright. If you have to pay for it, you're not free. Can you buy a closed proprietary code and than realease it under GPL? Yes. It probably depends on the amount of money you spend, and on what exactly you buy, but it's very possible to do so... Thank you Wouter. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
O Venres, 15 de Agosto de 2003 ás 12:49:21 +0200, Wouter Verhelst escribía: we should at the very least avoid confusion by clarifying the intended meaning of the word 'software' in the context of the text of the DFSG. Well, in that context, software means everything you can store in a CD, or everything you can transmit through a computer network. -- Tarrío (Compostela)
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
* Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030814 21:42]: On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Bernhard R. Link wrote: So while most jurisdictions may have different terms and some may even state the term software in their laws (I guess most will more likely take an more exact wording and only the commentary refer to software), we still have to find a suitable definition which of its meanings we want it to mean. Please note that there is substantional difference between word may (or can) and word is. You read to me long lecture on how the world may be arranged. Very accurate lecture, without doubt. But I not talked about how world may be arranged. I talked about how the world _is_ arranged. According to my poor knowledge, of course. You see any factual mistake in my statements? Let's discuss it. What I was trying to say is: It does not matter at all how world is. Some legislations may use the word software for something, but it does not matter at all. And it does not matter which meaning we choose. (As it does not matter if all newspapers of this world call something murder, a court has to decide based on the definition given in law and law's commentaries if it is murder or manslaughter) And just saying all digital data is software is the easiest and most elegant meaning in this context. In which context? In the context of which definiton for the word Software in the DFSG and other agreements within Debian is the reasonable. It think the most important difference between computer programs and non-computer-programs here in Germany is the ability to protect non-human-generated pieced (like compiled computer programs). Everything Printed books copyrighted from the very beginning of copyright regime. What is copyrightable in a printed book? I only know of the text it contains and perhaps the layout used. If a computer wrote the text or created the layout, it will not be protected as far as i know. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Op vr 15-08-2003, om 13:57 schreef MJ Ray: Jacobo Tarrio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: O Venres, 15 de Agosto de 2003 s 12:49:21 +0200, Wouter Verhelst escriba: we should at the very least avoid confusion by clarifying the intended meaning of the word 'software' in the context of the text of the DFSG. Well, in that context, software means everything you can store in a CD, or everything you can transmit through a computer network. Has this ever really been unclear, or did some new developers just fail to think about it? As has been shown several times on this list now, not everyone understands 'software' as it is intended. Adding a note, clarifying the meaning seems like the right thing to do to me. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a full one, but there are plenty of dead experts. -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts. signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Re: Bug#202723: perl-doc: Non-free manpage included
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 04:57:09PM -0400, Mark Jason Dominus wrote: I am the original author of the manual page in question. I am presently negotiating with CMP, who acquired the Perl Journal a few years ago, to obtain complete and unambiguous copyright on the article. If I succeed, I will release the original article and 'perlreftut', the derived manpage, under the GNU FDL or whatever other license the Debian maintainers think appropriate. Sounds great! Thanks for letting the Debian Legal team know about this. I should advise you though, in all fairness, that the GNU FDL (any version released to date) is not regarded by the Debian Project as a DFSG-free[1] license, so relicensing the works in question under the GNU FDL alone would not result in a material difference in their handling by the Debian Project. One reason for this assessment by the Debian Project is that the GNU FDL is not GNU GPL-compatible, so it is not possible for third parties to move FDL-licensed documentation into Perl code via POD, for instance, at least not without negotiating with the copyright holder of the GNU FDL-licensed documentation. I also think that you should chose a license that is compatible with the license of the code that you are documenting, to allow cut/pasting examples between the two. The GFDL doesn't fulfil that. However, just to correct Branden, being GPL-imcompatible does not make the GFDL non-free. There are other reasons that make the GFDL non-free. Thanks, Peter
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
MJ Ray wrote: Please explain, other than the FDL's creation, what has changed in the nature of software and documentation that makes the DFSG outdated? 1. It seems that DFSG does not make clear which version of 2 possible software definitions it mean. Probably there was only one definition at the time DFSG was created (or one definition was just missed). 2. New license which depends on differnce between software and documentation appears. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know; I meant 'clarifying it for people who read the text'. That means adding a note before or after the text of the DFSG and/or the SC which says something along the lines of... I look forward to seeing your copy of the SC and DFSG where every word is linked to the correct alternative in a dictionary definition. If that isn't your intent, I ask you to consider starting a Debian Dictionary Review Project, so that we can be sure that all developers are using sane dictionaries when reading Debian project materials. Alternatively, we could assume some clue.
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray wrote: Please explain, other than the FDL's creation, what has changed in the nature of software and documentation that makes the DFSG outdated? 1. It seems that DFSG does not make clear which version of 2 possible software definitions it mean. Probably there was only one definition at the time DFSG was created (or one definition was just missed). There are not two possible correct definitions of software. The word is not equivalent to computer programs at all. 2. New license which depends on differnce between software and documentation appears. Where? (The FDL does not depend on such a difference: it wasn't designed for documentation to be free software, and seems to be impossible to use for such. IIRC, the FDL even has different conditions for when the documentation is software itself, compared to paper and ink.) -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Re: Bug#202723: perl-doc: Non-free manpage included
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 08:39:28AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: However, just to correct Branden, being GPL-imcompatible does not make the GFDL non-free. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that; I know it's not the case. A consequence of writing mail in the small hours, I guess. GPL-incompatibility is, however, still a practical problem, because a *lot* of Perl code in the world is dual-licensed Artistic/GPL by virtue of being licensed under the same terms as Perl itself. -- G. Branden Robinson| There's nothing an agnostic can't Debian GNU/Linux | do if he doesn't know whether he [EMAIL PROTECTED] | believes in it or not. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Graham Chapman pgpQaWtqSsYWK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 12:44:47PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Op do 14-08-2003, om 23:46 schreef Branden Robinson: On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 11:08:35AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: It's a /feeling/. Hence, I said 'I /feel/ that there is a difference'. Yes; most proponents of the less-freedom-for-documentation-than-for-software crowd appear to be operating at the bellyfeel level. What's wrong with that? You need more than that for any decision-making process where consensus is required. Without it, everything is subject to a veto from one person who happens to be against something for reasons he cannot (or refuses to) articulate. Bellyfeels are perfectly legitimate for value judgements with little impact beyond the individual making them. What's your favorite song? -- G. Branden Robinson| You don't just decide to break Debian GNU/Linux | Kubrick's code of silence and then [EMAIL PROTECTED] | get drawn away from it to a http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | discussion about cough medicine. pgptzlaA6wRq9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 08:00:04AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: MJ Ray wrote: Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is quite clear that it is not the intended way to enforce FDL. Since it is not fixed till now, I conclude there is no bug here. Cool! Until there is a fix, a bug isn't a bug? Someone tell the RM. Note, I meant bug in wording, not in intention. How do you know what the FSF's intentions are with respect to the GNU FDL? RMS has been extremely cagey when asked questions directly on this point. The FSF has published a paper explaining why the feel a free documentation license is needed, but as far as I know they have never gone on record as to exactly how each requirement of the GNU FDL defends freedom. If you have citations that will clarify these issues, please provide them. -- G. Branden Robinson| I came, I saw, she conquered. Debian GNU/Linux | The original Latin seems to have [EMAIL PROTECTED] | been garbled. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein pgpA0ZprHhzBq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 08:55:27AM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: The problem is that GPL trades away some freedoms and some people think it is inconsistent with Debian way. Such people are free to join the NetBSD Project. Works licensed under the GNU GPL have been embraced by the Debian Project from its inception. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | // // // / / [EMAIL PROTECTED] | EI 'AANIIGOO 'AHOOT'E http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpWDy1TRCtyZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:09:09PM +0200, Sergey Spiridonov wrote: Wouter Verhelst wrote: Can you buy a closed proprietary code and than realease it under GPL? Yes. It probably depends on the amount of money you spend, and on what exactly you buy, but it's very possible to do so... Thank you Wouter. That doesn't buy freedom, it buys a work. -- G. Branden Robinson|It is the responsibility of Debian GNU/Linux |intellectuals to tell the truth and [EMAIL PROTECTED] |expose lies. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Noam Chomsky pgpzDNQd134m0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 12:25:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:09:09PM +0200, Sergey Spiridonov wrote: Wouter Verhelst wrote: Can you buy a closed proprietary code and than realease it under GPL? Yes. It probably depends on the amount of money you spend, and on what exactly you buy, but it's very possible to do so... Thank you Wouter. That doesn't buy freedom, it buys a work. It can buy freedom, depending on what exactly you buy, as Wouter said. Imagine that you buy the right to relicense the work under a license of your choosing. That would probably [depend] on the amount of money you spend, [...] but it's very possible to do so, as Wouter said. Of course, the purchaser would also need to want to use the GPL for the new license - Jimmy Kaplowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Jimmy Kaplowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It can buy freedom, depending on what exactly you buy, as Wouter said. Imagine that you buy the right to relicense the work under a license of your choosing. That would probably [depend] on the amount of money you spend, [...] but it's very possible to do so, as Wouter said. Of course, the purchaser would also need to want to use the GPL for the new license You buy control. You give freedom. It may seem like a detail, but I think it's a telling one. Of course, I'm no longer clear how this relates to the discussion. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
Jimmy Kaplowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 12:25:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:09:09PM +0200, Sergey Spiridonov wrote: Wouter Verhelst wrote: Can you buy a closed proprietary code and than realease it under GPL? Yes. It probably depends on the amount of money you spend, and on what exactly you buy, but it's very possible to do so... Thank you Wouter. That doesn't buy freedom, it buys a work. It can buy freedom, depending on what exactly you buy, as Wouter said. Imagine that you buy the right to relicense the work under a license of your choosing. That would probably [depend] on the amount of money you spend, [...] but it's very possible to do so, as Wouter said. Of course, the purchaser would also need to want to use the GPL for the new license That buys you a capability, not a freedom. For example, I have freedom with respect to this computer, which had a blank drive when I acquired it. I've since put all sorts of software on it without giving up any freedoms -- it's running Debian with no non-free software. I could pay money to Microsoft and gain the capability to install Windows; I already have the freedom to install Windows (by paying some money). I could put some non-free software distributed by Debian on here, giving me the capability to run that software... but I've already got the freedom to run that software. So no, buying closed proprietary code and releasing it under the GPL (e.g., Blender) does not give me any freedoms I didn't have before. It merely gives me technical capabilities I hadn't had before. You can't give me freedom. I've got it innately, unless I relinquish it or it is taken from me by force. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Re: Should our documentation be free? (Was Re: Inconsistencies in our approach)
On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 02:42 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: MJ Ray wrote: Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] There is a definition which says that documentation can be a part of the software, but I failed to find a definition which makes no difference between software and documentation. This was a nice try to change the point under discussion. It was not claimed that software and documentation are homonyms, AFAIK. Instead, Are you sure? I'm sure its not relevant. All that's relevant is if documentation stored on a computer is software. There is dead tree (e.g., a book) documentation. There is electronic documentation (e.g., a PDF file). The only thing relevant is the question: For the purposes of the Social Contract, is electronic documentation software? If yes, the DFSG applies to it. If no, all documentation must be removed from Debian. Amendments to the Social Contract could change the results here, of course.
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 13:40 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote: JKHowever, if you _make_ a copy by using the cp command on your own JKsystem, you are subject to the rule you quoted, and you can't put it on JKan encrypted filesystem. Again. You demand from licensce to cure a problem, nonexistent under any jurisdiction I heard about. Computer is a single tangible medium, and any internal technological process whithin it, you aware or even not aware about [...] is completely irrelevant to the copyright, and, consequently, licences. a) You have completely ignored the argument about encrypted backups. b) You have failed to consider giving encrypted copies to others. For example, over a SSL (secure) website. Or when opportunistic IPSec is common c) Title 17 USC Sec. 117(a). d) the precedent of the Napster case, and various others
Re: Inconsistencies in our approach
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no reason to think that Stallman is an idiot and can not see these semi-trivial arguments, presented here against GFDL. Contrary, in the past Stallman so many times was right, in very pragmatical sense of right, whereas virtually everyone else was wrong, so he shall be far more credible than random subscriber of debian-legal. So, it may as well be seen as the test case for the DFSG as for the GFDL. Ehe. In the past, Stallman and FSF have communicated answers to the questions raised about their licences. For example, there is a lot of material about the GPL, including a FAQ, on www.fsf.org For the GNU FDL, so far they have not provided much information beyond some mailing list participation that didn't answer some of the original questions, unless ftpmaster or others have emails they're not telling us about. In the absence of their data, we have to work with what we have. In God we trust. All others must bring data. I'm quite sure that Stallman doesn't claim to be God, given his reported views. If people reading this list can cause FSF to provide more data, please do so. Personally, I am particularly interested in any legal reasoning, especially behind the FDL being incompatible with free software. Summaries of the concerns of others have been posted to this list at intervals over the last few years and submitted to FSF consultations. Same for RFCs. It is the root of the Internet, which, in order, is the material root of the many most valuable modern freedoms. I doubt that they really thought about things like the freedoms given to users of text files of their documents. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Friday, Aug 15, 2003, at 05:30 US/Eastern, Sergey Spiridonov wrote: It is not only one-way. DFSG itself should be updated if it becomes out of date. No one so far has proposed any update. Some people has speculated that maybe, just maybe there could be a change which would give documentation a different set of requirements. If you have a specific proposal for how to change the Social Contract, there is a GR procedure for that. Maybe.
Re: Inconsistencies in our approach
Fedor Zuev said:
For example GFDL, unlike any free software licences,
specifically grant to user the rights for publicly display licenced
work and right to translate it. For the software, these rights not
exist as separate exclusive rights, or almost useless. But for the
documentation, as well as for artistic works these rights may be
essential, especially right of translation. Why you think that
grant these rights is less free than not grant it?
The GFDL does not grant the right of translation for the work. It grants
the right of translation only for the non-invariant sections. You can not
remove large blocks of English text from a Russian translation of the GNU
Emacs manual.
In contrast, you can translate a {document,program,other work} licensed
under the GPL, in its entirety.
--Joe
Re: Should our documentation be free? (Was Re: Inconsistencies in our approach)
On Thursday, Aug 14, 2003, at 19:02 US/Eastern, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: Let's say there is documentation and programs which intersects in software. Any documentation which is software differs from any program which is also software. Maybe, maybe not, it doesn't matter. Debian is free _software_. They're the Debian Free _Software_ Guidelines.
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote: MRFedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MROf course, you can claim that the very special definition of MR software should and will be used for the sole purpose of the MR interpretation of DFSG and Social Contract. [...] MRYes! We use that very special definition listed in dictionaries MRand understood by many people here! (Nick Phillips, for example, MRin MRhttp://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg00247.html MR) You want a dictionary war? OK. Lets it begin. - http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/c1/computer-prog.asp http://www.bartleby.com/65/co/computer-prog.html computer program - a series of instructions that a computer can interpret and execute; programs are also called software -- *** http://www.techweb.com/encyclopedia/defineterm?term=software SOFTWARE - Instructions for the computer. A series of instructions that performs a particular task is called a program. The two major categories of software are system software and application software. ... A common misconception is that software is data. It is not. Software tells the hardware how to process the data. Software is run. Data are processed. *** http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/s/s0540200.html (American Heritage Dictionary) software n. Computer Science The programs, routines, and symbolic languages that control the functioning of the hardware and direct its operation. *** http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861709912 (Encarta Enciclopedia) software noun programs and applications for computer: computer programs and applications, such as word processing or database packages, that can be run on a particular computer system ( often used before a noun) [Mid-19th century. Originally, in plural, soft goods. The modern sense dates from the mid-20th century.] *** http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=75526dict=CALD (Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary) software noun [U] the instructions which control what a computer does; computer programs: He's written a piece of software which calculates your tax returns for you. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=software (The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing) software programming (Or computer program, program, code) The instructions executed by a computer, as opposed to the physical device on which they run (the hardware). The term was coined by the eminent statistician, John Tukey. Programs stored on non-volatile storage built from integrated circuits (e.g. ROM or PROM) are usually called firmware. Software can be split into two main types - system software and application software or application programs. System software is any software required to support the production or execution of application programs but which is not specific to any particular application. Examples of system software would include the operating system, compilers, editors and sorting programs. Examples of application programs would include an accounts package or a CAD program. Other broad classes of application software include real-time software, business software, scientific and engineering software, embedded software, personal computer software and artificial intelligence software. Software includes both source code written by humans and executable machine code produced by assemblers or compilers. It does not usually include the data processed by programs unless this is in a format such as multimedia which depends on the use of computers for its presentation. This distinction becomes unclear in cases such as spread sheets which can contain both instructions (formulae and macros) and data. There are also various intermediate compiled or semi-compiled, forms of software such as library files and byte-code. Some claim that documentation (both paper and electronic) is also software. Others go further and define software to be programs plus documentation though this does not correspond - with common usage. -- The noun program describes a single, complete and more-or-less self-contained list of instructions, often stored in a single file, whereas code and software are uncountable nouns describing some number of instructions which may constitute one or more programs or part thereof. Most programs, however, rely heavily on various kinds of operating system software for their execution. The nounds code and software both refer to the same thing but code tends to suggest an interest in the implementation details whereas software is more of a user's term. *** http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software Computer software (Redirected from Software)
Re: gif-creating applications?
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 01:02:13PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: Hi Hello. what's the legal status of inclusion of gif-creating applications in debian? Is it ok to include it in main, contrib or non-free? http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html says that the latest patent expiry is 7 July 2004, but Unisys seems to have given parts of their patent free (but only for non-comercial use). Unisys has changed its collective mind several times. It is not safe to rely on the opinion of Unisys. Any new uploaded code would go only to testing, and release if probably after patent expiry. Actually, they would go to unstable, and then when the testing scripts decided that it was appropriate, only then would they go to testing. (I'm not asking about a new programm, but of code that's already in non-free at the moment, so a total remove will break existing programms.) So, my question is: 1. Is it ok to have gif-producing binaries in testing/main? No. The GIF algorithm uses (in most cases) LZW (Lempel-Ziv-Welch), which has not yet expired in Germany. We cannot include it main, because Unisys is only willing to license the patent for it under non-commercial terms, and those terms are not sufficient to fulfill the DFSG. GIF-producing binaries that use only RLE (run length encoding) are not patent-encumbered and may be placed in main. 2. Is it ok to have gif-producing binaries in testing/non-free? Yes, assuming the binaries otherwise would be eligible for non-free. 3. Is it ok to have the source of gif-producing binaries in testing/main? No. LZW is prohibited in the source and binaries. Many a developer has had to change the orig.tar.gz file because it contains LZW code which must be extirpated. I'm not a reader of debian-legal. I really would prefer if I just can get a verdict after your discussion, but it's probably better if you would Cc me on replies. Thank you for including a proper Mail-Followup-To:. That's the best way to get a proper response where you want it. Please note that I am not a Debian Developer. -- Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7 Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all. --Douglas Adams pgpRdKZOcDkUk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Bernhard R. Link wrote: What I was trying to say is: It does not matter at all how world is. Some legislations may use the word software for something, but it does not matter at all. And it does not matter which meaning we choose. (As it does not matter if all newspapers of this world call something murder, a court has to decide based on the definition given in law and law's commentaries if it is murder or manslaughter) Errr. No, really. There are plenty of cases, when courts make decisions, based not solely on reliable facts and exact terms of law, but on the pressure of public opinion, misunderstanding of technical terms, plain ignorance. There are even more cases when defendant fail to defend himself just because he does not know he can. Court, as a rule, does not do any research by its own initiative. It relies on the arguments, presented by sides. And for Someone will be much harder to prove that document X is not a software, if Someone two months earlier call X a software, say, in the mailing list. :-) And just saying all digital data is software is the easiest and most elegant meaning in this context. In which context? In the context of which definiton for the word Software in the DFSG and other agreements within Debian is the reasonable. With assumption that DFSG given by gods, exists in the vacuum and discussed by cyborgs? Yes. But assumption is false. It think the most important difference between computer programs and non-computer-programs here in Germany is the ability to protect non-human-generated pieced (like compiled computer programs). Everything Printed books copyrighted from the very beginning of copyright regime. What is copyrightable in a printed book? Text :-) This text not written by human, it printed by machine, but it still copyrighted. Copyrightable form of expression for a program is not a set of symbols, as for literary works, but set of instrustions for computer. This set, basically, the same both for source and compiled form of program. As far as we can talk about instructios in source.
Re: A possible approach in solving the FDL problem
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 02:31:28PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: So no, buying closed proprietary code and releasing it under the GPL (e.g., Blender) does not give me any freedoms I didn't have before. It merely gives me technical capabilities I hadn't had before. You can't give me freedom. I've got it innately, unless I relinquish it or it is taken from me by force. We have sought to disperse power, to set men and women free. That really means: to help them discover that they are free. Everybody's free. The slave is free. The ultimate weapon isn't this plague out in Vegas, or any new super H-bomb. The ultimate weapon has always existed. Every man, every woman, and every child owns it. It's the ability to say /No/ and take the consequences. 'Fear is failure.' 'The fear of death is the beginning of slavery.' 'Thou hast no right but to do thy will.' The goose can break the bottle at any second. Socrates took the hemlock to prove it. Jesus went on the cross to prove it. It's in all history, all myth, all poetry. It's right out in the open all the time -- Hagbard Celine, who was probably stoned at the time As usual, it's like the verbal form of LSD, but once you disentangle that you tend to avoid using the word freedom much. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpblVBKx8ys2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inconsistencies in our approach
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 03:07:37AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote: For example GFDL, unlike any free software licences, specifically grant to user the rights for publicly display licenced work and right to translate it. For the software, these rights not exist as separate exclusive rights, or almost useless. But for the documentation, as well as for artistic works these rights may be essential, especially right of translation. Why you think that grant these rights is less free than not grant it? What are you blathering about? I can recall nobody making the argument that this renders the GFDL non-free, or that it is even relevant. Modern society cannot exist anyway without citations. Nonsense. And you're confusing quote with cite. For literary works may not and, IMAO, should not exist the freedom to fix the political or social views of the original author, in the other words - freedom for censorship someone's else work. Sure, I'll go along with that for the sake of making this point: Who cares? This has got nothing to do with Debian. Even if this statement is true, it is by definition irrelevant to Debian, which does not exist to distribute literary works, political, or social views. Maybe. But there also another element in the picture. For GFDL. This is a not a random package from the random source with the random licence. This is a licence from Stallman, the inventor of the term free software and creator of the free software movement. And the creator of the evil non-free GFDL, which purports to be a free documentation license but is really a scheme to force his views on everybody. There is no reason to think that Stallman is an idiot and can not see these semi-trivial arguments, presented here against GFDL. He has said, here, that he will not discuss them with us because we do not consider the GFDL to be free. Same for RFCs. It is the root of the Internet, More nonsense. which, in order, is the material root of the many most valuable modern freedoms. And again. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpGLP7aZtWAc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gif-creating applications?
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 08:06:28PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote: GIF-producing binaries that use only RLE (run length encoding) are not patent-encumbered and may be placed in main. However, generating a GIF that's compressed with RLE is a complete waste of time. You might as well use BMP, which RLE-compresses just as well and doesn't have the stupid 256 colour limit. LZW was the whole point of using GIF, and the only real reason why people were willing to put up with the colour limit for so long. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpQDUxh6Qup8.pgp Description: PGP signature
