Re: GFDL - status?
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 09:47:42PM -, MJ Ray wrote: How are you not free to create derivative parts of the documentation section and distribute it under the same terms (ie with invariants in tow)? The invariant sections are not part of the documentation (and they must not be documentation). I'm not saying the complete work is DFSG-free. I'm just trying to give a possible reason why it is named free document*ation* licence. A free abstract thing that cannot be instantiated in a free form is not free, in my opinion. What good are rights if one can't exercise them? We wouldn't even consider this argument if someone were applying it to a C compiler or OS kernel. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux |Yeah, that's what Jesus would do. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp48IWBAtHI4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL - status?
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We wouldn't even consider this argument if someone were applying it to a C compiler or OS kernel. Wouldn't we? Could a C compiler could still contain a free software linker and not be wrong to call the linker free software? Just like this, it wouldn't be possible to be in Debian, but the linker itself would not be caught by DFSG as long as it didn't charge for distribution of the compiler, wouldn't it? Generally I agree with you, but some of the claims made on this list seem to assume that document and documentation mean the same. They don't, and that's the root of this, IMO. What do you (or other list members) think of the pickle-passing clause? -- 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/ Thought: Edwin A Abbott wrote about trouble with Windows in 1884
Re: GFDL - status?
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What do you (or other list members) think of the pickle-passing clause? If a license had a clause requiring that anyone who received the work (or any derivative work) must also receive a pickle, the work (i.e., the software itself) would be non-free, yes. Imagine having to include a pickle in a cvs upload! Though I'm not sure exactly what pickle-passing clause you're referring to since there were a couple discussed, I think the above is as closely analogous to the GFDL as you can get with a pickle. ;) -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: GFDL - status?
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 11:09:13AM -, MJ Ray wrote: We wouldn't even consider this argument if someone were applying it to a C compiler or OS kernel. Wouldn't we? Could a C compiler could still contain a free software linker and not be wrong to call the linker free software? Just like If it was an eg. BSD-licensed linker packaged with a non-free compiler, sure. I could simply remove the non-free parts. If the linker's license required that it be packaged with the non-free compiler, however, then the linker would not be free software, either. Likewise, if a document's license requires that it be packaged with a non-free manifesto, the document isn't free, either. There would be fewer problems if invariant sections were only immutable, not unremovable. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: GFDL - status?
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 06:47:18PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: If it's electronically (YM digitally?) stored, then I say it's software. I see no reason to make this word a synonym for computer programs, and in practice I see people refer to a large variety of digitally stored data as software. Thank goodness someone still has some common sense... if it has to do with computers, it's either hardware, firmware or software -- and some deny the firmware category. Manuals? They have nothing to do with computers ;) -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can rent this space for only $5 a week.
Re: GFDL - status?
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:59:00PM -, MJ Ray wrote: You disagree that the documentation part of a GFDL-covered work is acceptably licensed? Yes. It is encumbered with invariant sections. That clearly doesn't meet DFSG#3, and it doesn't qualify for the exception in DFSG#4. I do not talk about the work as a whole, which seems clearly not to be. If it were _possible_ to just ignore the invariant sections when considering the documentation, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Their stickiness is precisely the problem, since it encumbers documentation that would otherwise be free. Related points that I consider interesting and relevant to what happens next are: is there any legal basis for distinguishing programs from other literary works? There seems to be; several European laws make specific exceptions for computer programs. They don't define computer program, as far as I know. From other electronically stored works? What about fonts? Encoding tables? Is DFSG sufficiently general? If it's electronically (YM digitally?) stored, then I say it's software. I see no reason to make this word a synonym for computer programs, and in practice I see people refer to a large variety of digitally stored data as software. (For example, does the MirrorMagic package contain software, documentation, sounds and graphics? Or is the whole thing just software?) Richard Braakman
Re: GFDL - status?
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:59:00PM -, MJ Ray wrote: You disagree that the documentation part of a GFDL-covered work is acceptably licensed? Yes. It is encumbered with invariant sections. That clearly doesn't meet DFSG#3, and it doesn't qualify for the exception in DFSG#4. How are you not free to create derivative parts of the documentation section and distribute it under the same terms (ie with invariants in tow)? The invariant sections are not part of the documentation (and they must not be documentation). I'm not saying the complete work is DFSG-free. I'm just trying to give a possible reason why it is named free document*ation* licence. [...] is there any legal basis for distinguishing programs from other literary works? There seems to be; several European laws make specific exceptions for computer programs. The exception in UK law is quite limited, classifying them as literary works with just one exception from moral rights. Can anyone point us to a survey of this? I can't find one. They don't define computer program, as far as I know. I've noticed that I've not found that, too. I wonder why? If it's electronically (YM digitally?) [...] I think analogue tape representations are included, don't you? Thanks for some interesting points (some trimmed in this reply). -- 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/ Thought: Edwin A Abbott wrote about trouble with Windows in 1884
Re: GFDL - status?
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, MJ Ray wrote: Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is my license which requires you to buy a jar of pickle relish every time you run the program a free software license? The act of running the program is not restricted by a copyright licence, so would that even be a valid licence? Acts of usage are restricted by many software licenses. I'm not aware of one that has been successfully defended, as they're primarily used against competitors, not users, but it's definetly possible. Obviously, such a license would be non-free though. [At least, I hope it's obvious.] Don Armstrong -- Of course, there are ceases where only a rare individual will have the vision to perceive a system which governs many people's lives; a system which had never before even been recognized as a system; then such people often devote their lives to convincing other people that the system really is there and that it aught to be exited from. -- Douglas R. Hofstadter _Gödel Escher Bach. Eternal Golden Braid_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpgQORsm0kFG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL - status?
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday, Jul 6, 2003, at 18:39 US/Eastern, MJ Ray wrote: I think that GFDL is only called a free documentation licence which is probably technically accurate, even if I don't like it. The only sense in which the GFDL is a free documentation license is that I didn't have to pay to download it from http://www.gnu.org/. You disagree that the documentation part of a GFDL-covered work is acceptably licensed? I do not talk about the work as a whole, which seems clearly not to be. Some of the format restrictions are questionable, I guess. This is all semantics and doesn't really change the current situation, but it's probably why FSF called it the free documentation licence rather than free document licence and is a useful thing to remember. I don't think it's useful to start trying to claim that it isn't a free documentation licence and obscures the real point that matters to us here: can this whole work be included in Debian? Related points that I consider interesting and relevant to what happens next are: is there any legal basis for distinguishing programs from other literary works? From other electronically stored works? What about fonts? Encoding tables? Is DFSG sufficiently general? -- 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/ Thought: Changeset algebra is really difficult.
Re: GFDL - status?
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 03:59:00PM -, MJ Ray wrote: Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday, Jul 6, 2003, at 18:39 US/Eastern, MJ Ray wrote: I think that GFDL is only called a free documentation licence which is probably technically accurate, even if I don't like it. The only sense in which the GFDL is a free documentation license is that I didn't have to pay to download it from http://www.gnu.org/. You disagree that the documentation part of a GFDL-covered work is acceptably licensed? I do not talk about the work as a whole, which seems clearly not to be. Some of the format restrictions are questionable, I guess. Is my license which requires you to buy a jar of pickle relish every time you run the program a free software license? It isn't the *software* that costs you money, it's only the pickle relish that's attached to it by the license that has this non-free property. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpd19rvpxvCo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL - status?
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is my license which requires you to buy a jar of pickle relish every time you run the program a free software license? The act of running the program is not restricted by a copyright licence, so would that even be a valid licence? If not, it's clearly not free. Likewise, nothing in GNU FDL can require you to get the invariant sections when you read the documentation. Maybe a better question is whether a free software licence can require you to receive a jar of pickle relish with the software, and to give a jar of pickle relish with every copy you distribute? Actually, I think even that analogy may be flawed unless we have an unlimited public-access pickle relish supply, but this pickle-passing licence may even pass all DFSG tests, IIRC. Bizarre. (Remember, I know this doesn't directly change the opinion of FDL.) -- 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/ Thought: Changeset algebra is really difficult.
Re: GFDL - status?
On Monday, Jul 7, 2003, at 09:14 US/Eastern, Florian Weimer wrote: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. That's basically a copyleft scheme. I think that's what it was meant to be. However, it is overly broad. For example, given a document A.tex under the GFDL: $ cp A.tex B.tex I have now made a a copy of a GFDL'd work. The paragraph seems to apply. chmod go-rw B.tex Wow, I've now used a technical measure to obstruct and control the reading and copying of my copy. I'd better not access my file server over a IPSEC VPN, either!
Re: GFDL - status?
On Sunday, Jul 6, 2003, at 18:39 US/Eastern, MJ Ray wrote: I think that GFDL is only called a free documentation licence which is probably technically accurate, even if I don't like it. The only sense in which the GFDL is a free documentation license is that I didn't have to pay to download it from http://www.gnu.org/. Oh, wait, I pay $570/mo for my internet connection. Guess it isn't even free in that sense :-}
Re: GFDL - status?
Le sam 05/07/2003 à 22:41, Nathanael Nerode a écrit : Why not to use the GNU FDL: http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html This is really a good summary about the invariant sections/cover texts issue. However, it is very unclear to me that even without them, the GFDL is free. Especially, clause 2 states : You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. Without clarification from the author of each document about how he interprets this statement, I don't think we can consider this as DFSG-free. Regards, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: GFDL - status?
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. Without clarification from the author of each document about how he interprets this statement, I don't think we can consider this as DFSG-free. That's basically a copyleft scheme. If provisions against software hoarding (or documentation hoarding) aren't congruent with Debian's definition of Free Software, the project would be in *real* trouble and could as well start from scratch.
Re: GFDL - status?
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's basically a copyleft scheme. No, it's not. The GPL doesn't restrict what I do with copies I make (but don't distribute). The GFDL does. See the example in: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200307/msg00051.html -- James
Re: GFDL - status?
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 01:55:40AM -, MJ Ray wrote: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like that document. Everyone concerned about the GNU FDL issue should read it. Unfortunately, it makes the error of confusing the word documentation with the word document, I think. I'm not sure it was ever claimed that a GFDL document was free, just the documentation contained in it. /me snorts I find such a defense of the GFDL to be the height of sophistry. -- G. Branden Robinson|The basic test of freedom is Debian GNU/Linux |perhaps less in what we are free to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |do than in what we are free not to http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |do. -- Eric Hoffer pgp2e0CnW6SV5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL - status?
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I find such a defense of the GFDL to be the height of sophistry. If you found that to be a defence of the GFDL, I want some of your drugs! I think that GFDL is only called a free documentation licence which is probably technically accurate, even if I don't like it.
Re: GFDL - status?
Branden said: On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 02:17:55PM -, MJ Ray wrote: Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This reminded me to ask: I haven't seen anything recently on the topic of what to do about GFDLed Debian packages. What's the current state of this discussion? I think Branden published a proposed summary, which provoked some discussion. Er, I think actually that Anthony Towns is the person who did that. I believe we are waiting for a revised draft of that, or further explanation from FSF. To me, discussing it further before one or the other of the above appears 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
Re: GFDL - status?
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 04:41:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Branden said: We should probably go ahead with another draft of that document, yes. Right, so is anyone doing that? I have not been. I have also been feeling guilty about not doing so. -- G. Branden Robinson| Good judgement comes from Debian GNU/Linux | experience; experience comes from [EMAIL PROTECTED] | bad judgement. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Fred Brooks pgpc9bvQfbqRT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL - status?
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 04:41:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org Why not to use the GNU FDL: http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html Wow. Most Apropos Sig Ever. :) I like that document. Everyone concerned about the GNU FDL issue should read it. -- G. Branden Robinson| You live and learn. Debian GNU/Linux | Or you don't live long. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpJz2RuEYIfv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL - status?
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like that document. Everyone concerned about the GNU FDL issue should read it. Unfortunately, it makes the error of confusing the word documentation with the word document, I think. I'm not sure it was ever claimed that a GFDL document was free, just the documentation contained in it. It was just that I expected (wanted?) it to be. Consequently, the bit about copyleft isn't quite right. Otherwise, it would be a good summary. -- 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/ Thought: Changeset algebra is really difficult.
GFDL - status?
Just noticed a comment in the Linux Kernel summary at http://kt.zork.net/kernel-traffic/kt20030627_220.html#4 : It appears the Linux kernel devs are avoiding the GFDL. This reminded me to ask: I haven't seen anything recently on the topic of what to do about GFDLed Debian packages. What's the current state of this discussion? -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Re: GFDL - status?
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This reminded me to ask: I haven't seen anything recently on the topic of what to do about GFDLed Debian packages. What's the current state of this discussion? I think Branden published a proposed summary, which provoked some discussion. I believe we are waiting for a revised draft of that, or further explanation from FSF. To me, discussing it further before one or the other of the above appears seems to be redundant. -- 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/ Thought: Changeset algebra is really difficult.
Re: GFDL - status?
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 02:17:55PM -, MJ Ray wrote: Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This reminded me to ask: I haven't seen anything recently on the topic of what to do about GFDLed Debian packages. What's the current state of this discussion? I think Branden published a proposed summary, which provoked some discussion. Er, I think actually that Anthony Towns is the person who did that. I believe we are waiting for a revised draft of that, or further explanation from FSF. To me, discussing it further before one or the other of the above appears seems to be redundant. We should probably go ahead with another draft of that document, yes. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Ignorantia judicis est calamitas [EMAIL PROTECTED] | innocentis. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpEFjEIiG6DJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
