On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 09:25 -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
I still don't see the problem.
First of all, the interpretation we wish to claim consistency under is all
bits that are distributed by Debian must follow the DFSG. Copyright law is
not distributed by Debian, and needs no exception.
On Tue, 1 May 2007, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
First of all, the interpretation we wish to claim consistency under is all
bits that are distributed by Debian must follow the DFSG. Copyright law is
not distributed by Debian, and needs no exception.
Neither do licenses, which are distributed
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
What I'm saying is that the DFSG can only be applied to a certain point.
We can require that license terms applied to works are DFSG-free. We can
require that license terms applied to those licenses-as-works are
DFSG-free. We can require that the
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:44:30AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Personally, I don't see distributing non-modifiable license texts
to be violating the social contract.
I'm curious to know how you reconcile Social Contract §1 and DFSG §3,
and the fact
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 16:32 -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
What are you talking about?
Unless I'm mistaken, the topic is to consider a request for a GR that
would add language to the DFSG saying that licenses need not be
modifiable. :)
If by legal composition of copyright you mean license texts
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
The GPL as a work, however, is *not* free, since the license on that
work does not grant the requisite freedoms. Surely there's no
disagreement on this?
It is irrelevant, because of several reasons that have already been
pointed out in this
On 23/04/07, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I don't see distributing non-modifiable license texts to
be violating the social contract. I don't think anyone ever will
consider that to be the case, either.
That's how I felt too about non-modifiable personal opinions, but
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 08:28 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Because the meta-license of the GPL is *not* free, as you pointed
out. The licenses are free, because they grant the right freedoms for
a work when applied to that work. The license texts are not free,
because they do not have those same
Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The meta-license of the GPL is part of the text of the GPL. The DFSG
doesn't say: only part of the GPL is considered free. It says that
the GPL, as a whole, including the meta-license, is considered
free.
The context of that statement is the GPL as
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:44:30 +0200, Ben Finney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm curious to know how you reconcile Social Contract §1 and DFSG §3,
and the fact that we distribute non-modifiable texts in Debian.
Easy. DFSG §3 talks about the software, and a license is not software -
neither
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 18:13 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
The context of that statement is the GPL as a license, not as a
work. The license, applied to another work, is free.
The GPL as a work, however, is *not* free, since the license on that
work does not grant the requisite freedoms. Surely
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:37:16PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, nobody cares for statements that can be normalized to 'you can
do all this, except that, that, that, and that', and those should
also be avoided if we want readers to take the spirit of
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:37:16PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Yes, the social contract says that the Debian system and all of its
components will be fully free; but for all practical intents and
purposes (heh), the accompanying license texts are as much a
component of the system as is the
On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 12:37 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
License texts *are* distributed by Debian, now, under terms that are
non-free. This behaviour doesn't match the Social Contract.
Is there any package in Debian which includes a license that is not
being distributed as the terms of use and
Egad, it sounds like you actually live in an evil parallel universe where
idealism is inherently dishonest and false. That universe must really suck. :)
There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to one's
ideals.
Please, try to remember the spirit of those promises, rather
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:48:51AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
Egad, it sounds like you actually live in an evil parallel universe where
idealism is inherently dishonest and false. That universe must really suck.
:)
There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to one's
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:37:16PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
License texts *are* distributed by Debian, now, under terms that
are non-free. This behaviour doesn't match the Social Contract.
Sure, they are technically being distributed, but not as
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:48:51AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to
one's ideals.
Yeah, and we're not lying about adhering to our ideals simply by
distributing the obligatory license data. If
Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, consider DFSG §10:
The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of
licenses that we consider free.
Then recall that the meta-license of the GPL permits no modification
(relaxed by FSF policy to be permitted when the
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:24:39AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to
one's ideals.
Yeah, and we're not lying about adhering to our ideals simply by
distributing the obligatory license data. If we weren't doing that,
we'd have
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Personally, I don't see distributing non-modifiable license texts
to be violating the social contract.
I'm curious to know how you reconcile Social Contract §1 and DFSG §3,
and the fact that we distribute non-modifiable texts in Debian.
--
\
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:07:03AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
The Social Contract makes a promise we are not keeping. You say it's
not ... something the social contract cares about. That's not at all
clear from reading it -- the social contract makes a straightforward
promise, which has no
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 09:35:50 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
[...]
The *perceived* problem with the GPL is that the FSF has forbidden
modified versions to mention the name GPL, the FSF, or carry Richard's
pre-ramble (sic :-).
The grant of permissions is awkwardly given in the GPL FAQ:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ben Finney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney writes (Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing /
freeness issue):
[The status quo] doesn't address the concern that motivated this
discussion
Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Where a licence text accompanies a package it must, as a matter of
law, be unchangeable.
This would hold even if the license on the GPL document permitted any
kind of modification. Those modifications would not change the license
terms under which
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 09:30:51AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
[The status quo] doesn't address the concern that motivated this
discussion: that the license texts which have restrictions on
modification are non-free works by the DFSG, yet are being
distributed in Debian against the Social
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, the social contract says that the Debian system and all of its
components will be fully free; but for all practical intents and
purposes (heh), the accompanying license texts are as much a
component of the system as is the media the system is
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ben Finney writes (Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing
/ freeness issue):
[The status quo] doesn't address the concern that motivated this
discussion: that the license texts which have restrictions on
modification are non-free
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nathanael
Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
Licence documents MUST be invariant. They are legal documents, with
legal force, and you're trying to give the recipient the right to mess
about with them!
No, you're wrong. This is a FAQ.
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
How about: There is a special exception for the texts of the
licenses under which works in Debian are distributed;
It's not just enough for that; it has to be a license specifically
being used as a
* Ian Jackson:
I disagree with this position. See Fabian Fagerholm's explanation.
For a strong copyleft licence like the GPL it's particularly
troublesome if people go around making minor edits: all of that code
is licence-incompatible with all unedited-GPL code. So the FSF have
worked to
Ben Finney writes (Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing /
freeness issue):
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The status quo is quite fine and should be left as it is.
This doesn't address the concern that motivated this discussion: that
the license texts which have
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
How about: There is a special exception for the texts of the
licenses under which works in Debian are distributed;
It's not just enough for that; it has to be a
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
Licence documents MUST be invariant. They are legal documents, with
legal force, and you're trying to give the recipient the right to mess
about with them!
No, you're wrong. This is a FAQ. There's a difference between
changing the license for a work (impossible)
Ian Jackson wrote:
If this is forced to a GR we should have an option along these
lines:
We note that many license texts are copyrighted works, licensed only
under meta-licenses which prohibit the creation of derivative
license texts.
We do not consider this a problem.
Although not my
Don Armstrong wrote:
I don't believe we need an amendment to the Social Contract to
specifically state this as the case, but a correctly worded one which
specifically amended the social contract and/or the DFSG appropriately
may be worth some thought.
Unfortunatly, the currently proposed
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
How about: There is a special exception for the texts of the
licenses under which works in Debian are distributed;
It's not just enough for that; it has to be a license specifically
being used as a license under which a work in Debian is being
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked:
Are there many other greynesses in how the SC and the DFSG are
interpreted?
Amazingly few, but yes, as some of it is based on guessing how
still-changing legal systems are developing, or how particular licensors
will react to our actions.
At least twice,
Nathanael Nerode writes (Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text
licensing / freeness issue):
Alternate suggested GR text:
---
The Debian Project notes that many license texts are copyrighted
works, licensed only under meta-licenses which prohibit the creation
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 11:59:21AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
I disagree with this position. See Fabian Fagerholm's explanation.
For a strong copyleft licence like the GPL it's particularly
troublesome if people go around making minor edits: all of that code
is licence-incompatible with all
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:06:22 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked:
Are there many other greynesses in how the SC and the DFSG are
interpreted?
Amazingly few, but yes,
[...]
Licences are another type of greyness: unlike Mozilla's software, it's
very easy to
Hello,
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
(There is a special exception for the license texts and similar legal
documents associated with works in Debian; modifications and derived
works of these legal texts do not need to be allowed. This is a
compromise: the Debian group encourages authors of
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I disagree with this position. See Fabian Fagerholm's explanation.
For a strong copyleft licence like the GPL it's particularly
troublesome if people go around making minor edits: all of that code
is licence-incompatible with all unedited-GPL code. So
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
This doesn't address the concern that motivated this discussion:
that the license texts which have restrictions on modification are
non-free works by the DFSG, yet are being distributed in Debian
against the Social Contract.
License texts which are being
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[GPL/LGPL addressed in an earlier thread.]
The Academic Free License does not have
permission to modify. The LaTeX Project Public License does not have
permission to modify.
I think AFL is not a DFSG-free licence because of its excessive
Mutual
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:51:15 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:11:52 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote: [...]
Has it? I've seen a few people write down this assumption, but
I've usually disagreed with them.
I'm afraid you then think that you
MJ Ray wrote:
There may be a few licences that are buggy about this and to which we
want to grant a limited-time exception, but that is not unusual. Use
a GR for only that, not a permanent foundation document edit.
Care to craft another solution? [...]
No, I've no interest
You just did craft
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nathanael
Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
MJ Ray wrote:
There may be a few licences that are buggy about this and to which we
want to grant a limited-time exception, but that is not unusual. Use
a GR for only that, not a permanent foundation document edit.
Care
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Without this exception, if the DFSG were followed literally, most
license texts could not be shipped in Debian and would have to be
shipped alongside Debian instead, which would be very annoying.
Most? I thought most licence texts were covered
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:11:52 +0100 (BST) MJ Ray wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Without this exception, if the DFSG were followed literally, most
license texts could not be shipped in Debian and would have to be
shipped alongside Debian instead, which would be very
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Without this exception, if the DFSG were followed literally, most
license texts could not be shipped in Debian and would have to be
shipped alongside Debian instead, which would be very annoying.
MJ Ray wrote:
Most? I thought most licence
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 05:50:36PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
This is a proposed text for a GR. I can't actually propose a GR (not a
DD), so I request that someone else who cares propose it or a similar
proposal.
---begin proposed GR---
Resolved:
That the DFSG shall be amended, by
I wrote:
Historically, this exception has been an unwritten assumption; in most
discussions, this exception has been agreed on by everyone involved.
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
If that is the case, then why would it be necessary to write this down
in the DFSG? Personally, I don't think we need to
53 matches
Mail list logo
