Nathan Hawkins wrote:
Your proposal would change that. I oppose it, and I would oppose it just
the same if you wanted to call them Loki, Kali or Hitler. (To pick a few
at random.) Using names of evil, real or imagined, is not something
that would be helpful to Debian. That kind of publicity we
Debian NotBSD ;-)
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
I wonder if there are any legal issues if I took the description
of the api and implemented my only library, which would be for
my purposes a sufficient replacement.
Clean room reimplementation is legally safe (in most countries,
anyway). For instance, if you take a free program designed to
5. Reciprocity. If You institute patent litigation against a
Contributor with respect to a patent applicable to software
(including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit), then
any patent licenses granted by that Contributor to You under
this License shall
a rewrite, in both places where this phrase occurs, to
, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative
Work.
Thanks.
--Nathanael Nerode
point), and someone won the right to make DD compatible materials
without limitation. (The mechanics weren't and aren't patented and the design
was different.) I can't find the case reference but perhaps someone else can.
But beware of patented games, and proliferating trademarks.
--
Nathanael
consider to be object code (not
source code) in your interpretation.
--Nathanael Nerode
It's very short license. It could be reached at:
http://cvs.icculus.org/horde/chora/co.php/LICENSE?rt=physfsr=1.2
This is certainly DFSG-free; it's the same as the license for zlib. (See the
zlib1g package in Debian.)
the
Standard Version.
This is effectively an 'invariant program' requirement which doesn't even
allow the modified programs to use the same names as the originals.
Doesn't look free to me.
--Nathanael Nerode
Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
The phrasing of almost all license boilerplate
(eg the GPL boilerplate) allows them.
Nothing licensed under the GPL can be non-modifiable. So I'm not sure what
you mean by this
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden
Barak Pearlmutter said:
The GNU manifesto is in
Debian right now, right where it belongs: /usr/share/emacs/21.2/etc/GNU
and analogous locations in emacs20 and xemacs.
And how precisely does it belong there? That's a stupid, obscure location.
:-)
(OK, perhaps you meant Whereever upstream puts
suggesting it to someone in a position to do something.
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
About the README offer you allude to, do you really think an
upstream author's statement:
Copyright blah blah blah ...
Distributed under the GNU GPL v2 ...
Source licenses for inclusion of this code in proprietary programs
are available from the author for $10,000
Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
But you're allowed to paraphrase anything, so what's your point?
You can even paraphrase non-modifiable essays. In an essay RMS
explained that he used to work at ... and then Symbolics ... and he
felt that ... and so he climbed to the mountain top and hacked for
forty
definition of software I use.
(Software is a more useful term for discrete/digital data than for
continuous/analog data, because continuous/analog data can't be reproduced
without data loss, making the software inseperable from the hardware to some
degree.)
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
Glenn Maynard said:
We can interpret DFSG#2 to mean the form closest to source that still
exists if we want, but it's extremely questionable to try to interpret
preferred form for modification as preferred form for modification,
or any form, no matter how unreasonable it is to edit, if the
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
We reject the GFDL because it is not merely incomptability of
licenses.
Here's the test. I want to write a brand new program. I insist it be
free software, but I am otherwise entirely agnostic about which free
software license I use. I will use any license.
I
Richard Stallman wrote:
I don't think
it needs to be possible to use text from manuals in a program.
A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals.
And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as
text editors -- not as manuals or
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The DFSG lists three specific licenses that are meant to satisfy its
criteria. Nowadays some Debian developers tend to say that these
three licenses are listed as exceptions to the rules of the DFSG, but
I think that is a
On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 01:15 US/Eastern, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I'd like to nail it as open as humanly possible, so I'd like to apply to
to anyone receiving a derivative work based on the work as well, unless
there's a legal complication in that.
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Well, that's
RMS wrote:
A manual is free if you can publish modified versions as manuals.
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
And is a text editor free if you can only publish modified versions as
text editors -- not as manuals or tetris games or news-readers or web
browsers?
This is absolutely a *critical* point.
Brian Sniffen:
Thanks for the response -- I hadn't noticed that phrasing before.
But if I give *you* a copy of Sniffmacs under the Sniffen GPL,
wouldn't you then be bound only to give others the SGPL, not the GGPL
with its Preamble?
Now we get into a subtle point of copyright law. This is how I
Richard Stallman wrote:
The main difference between a program and documentation is that a
program does something, while documentation is passive;
By this argument, source code to a program (of the sort which must be
compiled to run) is not a program.
That's a pedantic
Richard Stallman wrote:
Being able to use some of the text for something of a different kind,
such as an essay about the funding of free software, is something above
and beyond the call of duty for a license.
This is clearly the key point where Debian and the FSF diverge. I think
there is
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:47:26AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
IBM distributes the Linux driver and the binaries in a tarball that
it says is licensed under the GPL.
http://oss.software.ibm.com/acpmodem/
No source code is provided for the DSP binaries. (N.B., past
RMS wote:
For the sake of avoiding confusion, please note that I use software
in the meaning I believe is standard, referring to computer programs
only.
This is not what I believe to be the standard meaning or the historically
correct meaning, but thanks for avoiding confusion.
The main
Project contributors and members who feel the same
way, where should we attempt to be heard so as to have some influence on
the GNU Project as a whole?
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
is totally off the wall. But we're getting off the topic.
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
? Then push it at Creative Commons?
:-)
--Nathanael Nerode
titles
and contents perhaps qualify? ;-)
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Richard Stallman wrote:
Yes. Debian will remain 100% free software. That's the first line of the
Debian Social Contract. This means that everything in Debian must be free
*software*.
That is one possible interpretation, but since it is based on
asserting that manuals, essays,
Richard Stallman wrote:
Remember the hypothetical emacs reference card, which must be
accompanied by 12 pages of additional invariant material? Sounds like a
big deal to me.
If the GPL were used, it would have to be accompanied by 6 pages
of additional invariant material.
RMS said: (in re
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg00652.html):
All I want to say about the new issue is that a small fractional
increase in size for a large collection of manuals is not a big deal.
That's not enough to make a license non-free.
The GFDL, however,
Perhaps we have hit the key parts of the disagreement, finally. I would
love to get some further clarification from RMS on his views, so I have
asked a few questions below. I have made 4 points in response to this
one paragraph, but the questions are in points 3 and 4.
RMS wrote:
By
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
OK. I have a copy of Emacs here, licensed to me under the GNU GPL2.
I have made some modifications to it, and updated the changelogs and
history notes. I wish to give it to a friend. Section 2b requires
that I distribute my new program, Sniffmacs, under the terms of
RMS wrote (in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg00776.html):
Part of the document can be a separate file,
because a document can be more than one file.
This detail of wording doesn't make a difference that I can see.
Aha. I just found a way to put GFDL manuals
Matthieu Roy wrote:
Does everybody on that list, that thinks that GNU
political/historical/philosophical/ texts must be DSFG compliant to be
distributed by Debian, also thinks that the Debian logos must be DFSG
compliant?
There's a difference at the moment between distributed by Debian and part
not grant a trademark license. If it is
applied to a trademark, you should be sure that you are not violating
trademark rights.
It should be trademarked by SPI as a trademark representing the Debian
Project.
I believe this would solve all problems.
--Nathanael Nerode
Don Armstrong:
You should be able to find caselaw involving a case where a work was
improperly placed in the public domain (ie, the person dedicating it
to the public isn't the copyright holder,) but as the US system is a
law in action, you'll need to find a case where someone placed the
work
Richard Stallman wrote:
This is an illuminating comparison, because the practical problems of
the GFDL (and I won't claim there are none) are basically of the same
kind (though of a lower magnitude) than those of the 4-clause BSD
^^^
Replace this with greater
Steve Langasek wrote (in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg7.html):
Does this mean that the gcc maintainers don't agree with this list's
interpretation of the GFDL, or that they don't regard this as a high
priority between now and the release?
I believe that
://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html.
(Reminder to Debian people: that page is public domain. If you want to
include part or all of it in an more official Debian statement, please,
please do so!)
--Nathanael Nerode
Andreas Barth wrote:
I don't think it's good manners to try to push a certain view by
putting it on the web sites. No, first finish the discussion in d-l,
and the you _might_ put additions on the web site. (Though I think
it's even then not the right place for that; but that's a different
point
I propose something like the following as an addition to the Debian web
pages, at the bottom of http://www.debian.org/intro/free. I offer this
up for revision and use by the Debian community, or anyone else.
Motivation: some people seem to wish to remain in denial about the
project's
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:54:31AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
This reminded me of something I noticed earlier today. The Securing
Debian Manual at
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/ has in its
front material the following:
[...]
Permission is granted to copy, distribute
Jerome Marant said:
Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to
distribute something else than software.
From this sentence, I see that you are not fluent in English.
(It doesn't prevent Debian from distributing something other than
software would be correct.)
Perhaps this is
Richard Stallman wrote:
It's not just a continuation of the status quo that is taking place
here. The FSF has adopted an expansionist policy with respect to
Invariant Sections.
The choice of words in this text that you cited indicates a desire to
cast the FSF's actions in a harsh
Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said:
I claim that a speech is not software documentation and shall not be
considered as such. You shall not modify someone speech, you shall
not cut some part of someone's speech and tell everyone that you
wrote it, and so on.
There are limits everywhere in
Richard Braakman wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:26:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
In any case, your argument for Invariant Sections applies just as well to
^-(here I refer to Richard Stallman's argument)
programs as it does to manuals!
Would you consider
Jerome Marant said:
Quoting Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said:
^^^
Considering your attitude, I'm not going to discuss this with you
any longer.
--
Jérôme Marant
My sincere apologies for the tone. I
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
The only manpower required should be a clause that allows converting
the document to be under the GPL, much like the clause used in the LGPL.
This would result in the most possible restrictions while still being
GPL compatible.
That would imply
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!
-free manuals. And further objections to the FSF
claiming while doing so that they are free manuals. These policies *are* a
significant change.
--Nathanael Nerode
From Richard Stallman on the debian-legal list
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01323.html):
Second, the FSF is not working on changing the GFDL now. We intend to
continue to use invariant sections that cannot be removed, as we have
always done.
This seems to
Anthony Towns wrote:
In short, some members of the FSF have asked for us to give them some
more time to come up with a GFDL that's DFSG-free before we go all
gung-ho about putting it in non-free and having bigger controversies.
Martin (wearing his DPL hat) talked to me about this at debcamp.
Rock
Joerg wrote:
The point is, I think that there are circumstances where having
invariant sections are _necessary_. When I am writing a report with a
conclusion that contains my very personal opinion, I as the author do
not want anybody to change that section, write anything into it that I
do not
John Goerzen wrote:
One of the main sticking points with the GFDL is the use of invariant
sections, which may not be removed or altered (save for some very
inconsequential exceptions.) One thing about the invariant sections is that
the GFDL specifically states that they contain nothing that
John Goerzen wrote:
There are some properties of documentation that make it a fundamentally
different beast from the software we deal with. Some are:
1. Lack of a clear differentiation between source code and compiled form.
Nope; this problem exists even with things generally agreed to be
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet quoth:
It's not very popular, but since the US became a party to the
Berne Convention they have to recognize moral rights. And it's
in 17 US Code 106A.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a
Arnoud
Note first that these only apply to a work of visual
Richard Stallman wrote:
The goal of invariant sections, ever since the 80s when we first made
the GNU Manifesto an invariant section in the Emacs Manual, was to
make sure they could not be removed. Specifically, to make sure that
distributors of Emacs that also distribute non-free software could
, then a
GPLed manual could be created.)
This at least demonstrates that the situation is unworkable without
being in the privileged position of owning all copyrights.
Yep.
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
faster, I volunteer to provide lots of help; sometimes I'm better at
supporting than at leading.)
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
. :-)
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
, let alone why
I don't need the right to modify or remove it.
Please give one reason for allowing this other than I want to allow
Manual(s) X, Y, and Z in Debian. Any one reason.
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
is freely modifiable and redistributable by law, regardless
of what the authors may claim.
This only applies to legal texts as they apply to a particular piece
of software; not to legal texts distributed for their own value as
reference works, which must be fully free.
--
Nathanael Nerode
to amend the Debian Social Contract to
explicitly allow the GPL? ;-) I bet it would pass. Then anyone who
wants to allow a GFDL'ed document in knows the process; propose an
amendment to the Social Contract, and see if you can get it passed. (-;
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
http
benefits
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Software.
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
that there is a distinction between computer programs and
documentation, while still insisting that documentation on a disk or
in memory is software.
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
they can help each other on
this. :-)
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
I'd gather that most of -legal isn't worried about the copyright
statement, license, or author's statement (which is the same thing as
the copyright statement) being immutable. Most of those can't be
modified under the applicable copyright law
John Goerzen wrote:
1. Would removing the manual for Emacs, libc, or other important GNU
software benefit our users?
Yep. I'm very unhappy with having non-free software (and software means
0s and 1s -- so nearly everything Debian distributes except the
physical CDs) in Debian; as a user,
Jeremy Hankins said:
On debian-legal, yes. But we've had very little actual discussion
with anyone who admitted to representing the FSF position. In fact,
that was one of the issues that came up in our brief discussions with
RMS: is there anyone else who can authoritatively, or at least
. It is unfortunate that he is the FSF
autocrat and does not allow anyone else to influence the FSF policy on
this.
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Thomas Hood claimed:
A Secondary Section is a named appendix or a front-matter
section of the Document that deals exclusively with the
relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document
to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters)
and contains nothing
Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
RMS is the philosopher king of the Free Software Foundation. Whether
he is also autocratic, that is, a dictatorial ruler, I don't know
because I am not a member of the FSF.
As a GCC developer, I can tell you: He is autocratic. Sadly.
--Nathanael
Brian Calson said:
I realize (and this is a gross
generalization; please pardon me) that people that have stronger ties
to the FSF and GNU are more likely to feel that the GFDL is free than
those that have stronger ties to Debian.
This may be true overall, but my sense is that among GCC
Mathieu Roy wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
RMS is the philosopher king of the Free Software Foundation. Whether
he is also autocratic, that is, a dictatorial ruler, I don't know
because I am not a member of the FSF.
As a GCC
exploited by anyone for any purpose, commercial
or non-commercial, and in any way, including by methods that have not
yet been invented or conceived.
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
it in the program, so
this might help convince them to do it.)
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
about anyone, and Dhingis Kahn (The mogolian leader, don't know how he
is spelled in English).
Ganges Kahn, I believe. Don't have Google in front of me to check.
OK, let's clear this up right now. The standard spelling in English is
Ghengis Khan.
Occasionally you will see the supposedly more
seems to be redundant.
We should probably go ahead with another draft of that document, yes.
Right, so is anyone doing that?
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
Why not to use the GNU FDL:
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
4) The freedom to change the Work for any purpose[1], to distribute
one's changes, and to distribute the Work in modified form. Access
to the form of the work which is preferred for making modifications,
if applicable, is a precondition for this.
OK, so there's lots of argument about
RMS said:
GPL 3 is not at the stage to ask for public comments.
Rumor has it that it will contain loads of stuff which Debian considers
non-free. This is a *problem*.
The FDL public comment period resulted in *no* significant changes due
to the public comments.
RMS has declared that he has
, but nothing beyond that.
*Heaves big sigh of relief*
OK, I'm happy. :-) Thanks for the reassurances.
--
Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org
Don't use the GNU FDL for free documentation. See
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Branden said:
snip
Comments?
Well, I love it. :-)
--Nathanael
Whether to change the GFDL is not a Debian decision, so I've decided
not to discuss that here.
Is there a public forum where you are willing to discuss that?
Not now, and not in the way that some people want to discuss it
(they throw stones at me while I stand there and get hit).
RMS said:
I've looked at the problems people have reported. Many of them are
misunderstandings (what they believe is not allowed actually is
allowed), many of these cases have adequate workarounds, and the rest
are real inconveniences that shouldn't be exaggerated.
OK... but...
I've explained
Steve Langasek wrote:
It is not mere aggregation, for the same reason that a bug in a
library that makes it unusable by applications is a grave, not a
critical, bug: one piece of software is not unrelated to another if
the former depends on the latter.
Ah, I get what I was missing earlier... so
Anthony DeRobertis said:
I'm not sure if you're thinking of this when mentioning public
domain, but many header files (for example, ones giving simple structs
and numeric defines) probably have no copyrightable work in them, and
thus would be essentially in the public domain. So, using those
Branden Robinson said to you:
Aside from yourself, is there anyone entitled to interpret the GNU
Project's standards?
I realize that you may have interpreted this as insulting. But it's a
genuine, serious question, and deserves an answer. The impression I've
gotten is that the answer is
(generally speaking, modifications to fit in
tightly limited spaces, either physical or programmatic) aren't
necessary for freedom. Is this correct?
Debian disagrees, and so do many developers doing work for the FSF.
--Nathanael Nerode
Steve Langasek wrote:
This assumes that the FSF's interpretation depends on the claim that
dynamic linking creates a derived work. While varies parties have
claimed this at one point or another, I have argued that the
dynamically linked work is under the purview of the GPL by virtue of
the
Kai Henningsen said:
Which parts of Europe are we talking about here?
Those with French-style moral rights, I guess.
[Discussion of German copyright/moral rights basis snipped]
So German law seems very good on this point. :-)
[Incidentally, I believe these points are substantially unchanged
me that the GNU FDL, properly applied, is always a free
license. It looks to me now as if it isn't. (Even if it is, it has the
infuriating practical problem of GPL-incompatibility in both directions,
but that's a secondary issue.)
Thanks for coming to the discussion.
--Nathanael Nerode
John Holroyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
FWIW I think RMS is right to insist that others cannot modify his
political comments, but I think you are right to say that unmodifiable
comments and texts (UTs) have no place being mandatorily included in
the functional world of Free Software.
Personally,
On Tue, 2003-05-20 at 05:15, Branden Robinson wrote:
I am uncomfortable with some of the ramifications but I am also
uncomfortable with totally declawing the GNU GPL by adopting and
interpretation of it that would let people wrapper and language-bind
their way out of the copyleft commons.
Barak Pearlmutter said:
lots of important and correct stuff snipped
Simply make the GFDL be GPL compatible, the same way the LGPL was.
Add a clause saying that the covered materials can be construed as
source code and used under the GPL; and that the invariant sections
should, under such
J?r?me Marant said:
En r?ponse ? Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 09:37:31AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
What is the best way to convince GNU people to change their
licenses?
(without being pissed of, that is).
I'm not sure GNU people need to be convinced. The
Please note, that this could also played backward. Why should libel
or slander be extended to the work of the authors?
Huh? It's not being extended at all. There's no right of the *work*.
It's simply the right of the *author* not to be defamed. You can do
whatever you want with the work if
601 - 700 of 720 matches
Mail list logo
