Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 21:55:07 -0400 Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This clause has a direct effect on all users, restricting the use of e.g. encrypted filesystems. That's a new one on me. I don't think the GFDL restricts the use of encrypted filesystems. I have mentioned it at least a half-dozen times myself, and at least once to you explicitly. (I believe you also responded to that mail, though not addressing the point in question.) As Jamin mentions, in section 2: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. I'll also mention the first half of the sentence of section 4: You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above ... Please don't think that I'm quoting that out-of-context. I assume that anybody who will respond to this message has read the GFDL as fully as I have, and will instead point out other sections or clauses which render the above sentence irrelevant (I wasn't able to find any myself, and I looked quite hard). Taken literally (ie: should a copyright holder take a distributor to court over this point), the clause forbids _anything_ which might obstruct the reading or futher copying of the copies you make or distribute. Thus, we may not host the GFDL document on a password-protected portion of a web site. Nor may we use SSL to transmit any of the text. Nor may we store any text on an encrypted filesystem. An anonymous FTP server that requires USER and PASS would also fall into this category (regardless of whether the USER is anonymous or not). I've asked a couple of lawyers, and they strongly feel that a case could be made (though not so clear-cut as the above examples) for copying the document to a place that's already protected in some form (a $HOME that's not world-readable for instance, or on a machine that has a firewall), or distributing the document in a format that may be extraordinarily well-documented and not patent-encumbered, but for which the only reader implementation is non-Free. To RMS specifically: I have always assumed that this was simply a bug in the license, but it _has_ been brought up a lot, by myself as well as others, sometimes in messages you replied to. Now that you've noticed the point in question, I'm trying to present the rationale for the conclusion. It's not meant in a combatitive manner, nor is it meant as a personal attack against yourself. If for whatever reason somebody interprets as either of the above, I apologise and will correct that person if they're pointed out to me. pgpMyhXCdSliG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Sorry folks, I CC'd: -devel instead of -legal. God I hate Reply-To:s :) On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 12:03:59 -0400 David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 21:55:07 -0400 Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This clause has a direct effect on all users, restricting the use of e.g. encrypted filesystems. That's a new one on me. I don't think the GFDL restricts the use of encrypted filesystems. I have mentioned it at least a half-dozen times myself, and at least once to you explicitly. (I believe you also responded to that mail, though not addressing the point in question.) As Jamin mentions, in section 2: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. I'll also mention the first half of the sentence of section 4: You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above ... Please don't think that I'm quoting that out-of-context. I assume that anybody who will respond to this message has read the GFDL as fully as I have, and will instead point out other sections or clauses which render the above sentence irrelevant (I wasn't able to find any myself, and I looked quite hard). Taken literally (ie: should a copyright holder take a distributor to court over this point), the clause forbids _anything_ which might obstruct the reading or futher copying of the copies you make or distribute. Thus, we may not host the GFDL document on a password-protected portion of a web site. Nor may we use SSL to transmit any of the text. Nor may we store any text on an encrypted filesystem. An anonymous FTP server that requires USER and PASS would also fall into this category (regardless of whether the USER is anonymous or not). I've asked a couple of lawyers, and they strongly feel that a case could be made (though not so clear-cut as the above examples) for copying the document to a place that's already protected in some form (a $HOME that's not world-readable for instance, or on a machine that has a firewall), or distributing the document in a format that may be extraordinarily well-documented and not patent-encumbered, but for which the only reader implementation is non-Free. To RMS specifically: I have always assumed that this was simply a bug in the license, but it _has_ been brought up a lot, by myself as well as others, sometimes in messages you replied to. Now that you've noticed the point in question, I'm trying to present the rationale for the conclusion. It's not meant in a combatitive manner, nor is it meant as a personal attack against yourself. If for whatever reason somebody interprets as either of the above, I apologise and will correct that person if they're pointed out to me. pgpzM26Bf4Cwx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, John Galt wrote: On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Fedor Zuev wrote: On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Lack of forced distribution is not censorship. Get a clue, or a dictionary. Heh. Why that ugly, non-free GPL license demand from me to distribute source code? Source would still be freely available from the FSF website! Lack of forced distribution do not harm a freedom! Agree? GPL, section 3c, says exactly that GPL v. 2 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: ... c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you --- received the program in object code or executable form with such --- an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) - ---
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Op wo 27-08-2003, om 07:02 schreef Fedor Zuev: c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you --- received the program in object code or executable form with such --- an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) - Sure. For commercial redistribution, there is option 3b, accompany the binary with a written offer for source. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation. So is my neck, stop it anyway! -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462. signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Fedor Zuev wrote: On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Fedor Zuev, missing the point AGAIN, said: I cannot see any connection between disagreement with anyone opinion, and the right to censor somebody else's opinion, so angrily demanded by you. There's no censorship involved. *sigh* The GNU Manifesto would still be freely available from the FSF website. Lack of forced distribution is not censorship. Get a clue, or a dictionary. Heh. Why that ugly, non-free GPL license demand from me to distribute source code? Source would still be freely available from the FSF website! Lack of forced distribution do not harm a freedom! Agree? GPL, section 3c, says exactly that - -- A computer without windoze is like a fish without a bicycle. Who is John galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who. Finger me for PGP public key. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQE/Sx14+ZSKG3nWr3ARAnVKAJ4lRg0pupSAQyTG4f8i5rIH9IHIsACg4Gsp 5jahoMmGjxxEWdADOKntN4U= =zFjP -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Fedor Zuev, missing the point AGAIN, said: I cannot see any connection between disagreement with anyone opinion, and the right to censor somebody else's opinion, so angrily demanded by you. There's no censorship involved. *sigh* The GNU Manifesto would still be freely available from the FSF website. Lack of forced distribution is not censorship. Get a clue, or a dictionary. Heh. Why that ugly, non-free GPL license demand from me to distribute source code? Source would still be freely available from the FSF website! Lack of forced distribution do not harm a freedom! Agree?
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 23:33:28 +0900 (IRKST), Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Why that ugly, non-free GPL license demand from me to distribute source code? Source would still be freely available from the FSF website! Lack of forced distribution do not harm a freedom! Agree? If you do not like free software, you do not have to install Debian, or any other free software -- the world is full of MS Windows users and developers, and I am sure they shall welcome you into their ranks. manoj -- Real computer scientists only write specs for languages that might run on future hardware. Nobody trusts them to write specs for anything homo sapiens will ever be able to fit on a single planet. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:33:28PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote: On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Fedor Zuev, missing the point AGAIN, said: I cannot see any connection between disagreement with anyone opinion, and the right to censor somebody else's opinion, so angrily demanded by you. There's no censorship involved. *sigh* The GNU Manifesto would still be freely available from the FSF website. Lack of forced distribution is not censorship. Get a clue, or a dictionary. Heh. Why that ugly, non-free GPL license demand from me to distribute source code? Source would still be freely available from the FSF website! Lack of forced distribution do not harm a freedom! Agree? What the fuck has that got to do with censorship? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpBi94VlxeoB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Fedor Zuev, missing the point AGAIN, said: I cannot see any connection between disagreement with anyone opinion, and the right to censor somebody else's opinion, so angrily demanded by you. There's no censorship involved. *sigh* The GNU Manifesto would still be freely available from the FSF website. Lack of forced distribution is not censorship. Get a clue, or a dictionary.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:05:55PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Fedor Zuev, missing the point AGAIN, said: I cannot see any connection between disagreement with anyone opinion, and the right to censor somebody else's opinion, so angrily demanded by you. There's no censorship involved. *sigh* The GNU Manifesto would still be freely available from the FSF website. Lack of forced distribution is not censorship. Get a clue, or a dictionary. Please keep this argument on debian-legal, not debian-devel. -- G. Branden Robinson| I am only good at complaining. Debian GNU/Linux | You don't want me near your code. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Dan Jacobson http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpgenTLGWFEH.pgp Description: PGP signature
