On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:51:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Note that you do _not_ get to assume privacy is good and moral and a
right of both individuals and corporations. Justify it in other terms,
Why? Moral judgements can never be justified ex nihil.
Nonsense. I can justify
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 12:44:12PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:51:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Note that you do _not_ get to assume privacy is good and moral and a
right of both individuals and corporations. Justify it in other terms,
Why? Moral
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 11:28:25AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
If you want to say that a particular judgement can have both moral and
technical aspects, that's fine; but saying that any judgement which
has moral aspects can never be justified by technical means is false,
and claiming that any
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 05:05 AM, Anthony Towns wrote:
Giving away
CDs at tradeshows that don't include source comes under 3(b). I suppose
you could arrange to give everyone both binary and source CDs, then ask
them to give the latter back to you.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 07:45:36PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
If anyone had claimed such any kind of distribution
in this area some years ago, I'd taken it for a good joke[1].
[...]
[1] compareable to a cat /bin/clear on a Solaris of the right version.
I presume this was like Solaris's
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 07:45:36PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
If anyone had claimed such any kind of distribution
in this area some years ago, I'd taken it for a good joke[1].
[...]
[1] compareable to a cat /bin/clear on a Solaris of the right version.
I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Jeremy Hankins hasn't explained well enough for me why in that
future we would be unable to make the kinds of free software we have
now.
Ah, I wasn't aware of that. I'll see if I can flesh it out a bit for
you.
Imagine a world with
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 06:44, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030311 00:46]:
Because the four freedoms do talk about freedom to use the software, but
don't say anthing about the freedom to *not* disclose source code under
certain conditions.
I may not talk about
Jeremy Hankins said:
Imagine a world with omnipresent connectivity, and a lot of copylefted
software. Someone decides that they could make the browser into a
platform (remember Netscape the MS antitrust trial). So they take
commonly available Free software packages and stick them behind a
* Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030312 18:53]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
So they take
commonly available Free software packages and stick them behind a web
interface. Gcc, tetex, emacs, etc. They lock them down so that no
one can access the filesystem of the
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:08:58PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
it's about privacy, it's about the freedom to keep things private,
it's about not fundamental rights 'til you're blue in the face, and
even though every word of it's completely
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 09:16:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Note Barak Perlmutter's newly proposed tentacles of evil test:
3. The Tentacles of Evil test.
[...] The license cannot allow
even the author to take away the required freedoms!
The license doesn't have to --
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:15:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Consider Frank the lawyer who takes some nice source code from a GPLed
project, and adds some code his friend was telling him under NDA. He
puts it up on the web, and suddenly
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:59:19PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 18:18, Anthony Towns wrote:
In the dissident case, we're trying to protect the people from having to
reveal their changes to the government they're protesting. But this just
doesn't make any real sense: the
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 09:15:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sample onerous conditions:
1) Pay money.
2) Send your changes back always.
3) Pay money on request.
I'm broke and on a desert island, I can't do any of these.
4) Send your changes back on request.
I'm broke and on a
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:27:44PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Basically, as far as I can see, the dissident test is exactly equivalent
to saying we don't want to close this ASP loophole thing.
I don't think this is true, if you accept the
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 06:31:05PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 09:15:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
We already reject (1), (2), and (3). Why is (4) suddenly not rejected
as onerous?
Because it's not onerous if someone else covers your costs. In the same
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 11:46:03AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
Actually, I think the GPL would have serious problems if it didn't have
3(a). Having to keep the source around for three years would be a
significant burden. What keeps the GPL free is that you have the option
to offer sources
* David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030311 00:46]:
Because the four freedoms do talk about freedom to use the software, but
don't say anthing about the freedom to *not* disclose source code under
certain conditions.
I may not talk about freedom, but it talks about:
* The freedom to study how the
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 03:46:57PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
As I said: existing mechanisms of licensing Free Software (e.g. GNU
GPL and MIT/X11) provide an impetus for improvement. A
compulsory-sharing license, as might bring us closer to
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
I find this an acceptable compromise. The GPL already implements
something very close to this: if you give someone a copy, they're able
to pass it on to a third party who in some cases then has grounds for
demanding source from the author.
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 09:15:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sample onerous conditions:
1) Pay money.
2) Send your changes back always.
3) Pay money on request.
I'm broke and on a desert island, I can't do any of these.
4) Send
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:15:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Consider Frank the lawyer who takes some nice source code from a GPLed
project, and adds some code his friend was telling him
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:33, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 08:04, Henning Makholm wrote:
In that case you can simply choose to distribute the program only to
people you trust. You can't do this if the license carries an
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 00:11, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 16:00, Walter Landry wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Arguments about practicality, that this makes doing legitimate things
harder
or
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 14:51, Stephen Ryan wrote:
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
I find this an acceptable compromise. The GPL already implements
something very close to this: if you give someone a copy, they're able
to pass it on to a third party who in some cases
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 00:10, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because the four freedoms do talk about freedom to use the software, but
don't say anthing about the freedom to *not* disclose source code under
certain conditions.
Why is this different
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, I think we have to go back to looking at which restrictions we
allow. For instance, we allow the GPL's section 4, which prohibits
certain people (on account of their past actions) from copying,
modifying, or distributing GPL'd software. Why? One
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:00:38PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Because it's not onerous if someone else covers your costs. In the same
way You must give me your sources at cost if you give me your binaries
isn't onerous.
It has been
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:02:06PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:15:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Consider Frank the lawyer who takes some nice source code
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:44:15PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
Even http://www.fsf.org/philosophiy/free-sw.html, where the four
freedoms are written, talks about:
#You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
#privately in your own work or play, without even
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:14:44PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Thomas, I'm responding to your questions, but I'm actually directing my
response to Branden Robinson, since I don't know your position on his
DFSG-interpretation proposal.
Branden, if the FSF's four freedoms are the consitution to
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Sure. Compare this to some code using the GPL; same sort of information,
same problem with it: their trade secrets are woven into the functionality
of the code itself. If one of your customers is a competitor, or a
competitor buys out a user, any
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
Is there a _fundamental_ difficulty with such licenses?
I'm beginning to think that there is, as it restricts the use that an
individual can put a given bit of source to in his or her own home.
First, does that cause any problems for Debian?
I don't
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think it would cause a problem with the majority of people who
are using or modifying Free Software, as (I would imagine) most of
them don't have anything to hide... but to someone who does?
I thought of a scenario, which seems entirely
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 09:48:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Sure. Compare this to some code using the GPL; same sort of information,
same problem with it: their trade secrets are woven into the functionality
of the code itself. If one
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 10:53:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Consider Fred the Lawyer. [...]
He'll write a computer program, tailored specially for Joe's Sheet Rock;
Joe can then input the details of the particular arrangement, [...]
Fred wants to use a popular free software
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
If you have created a modified version of the Work, and receive
a request by the Primary Copyright Holder, you must provide
a copy of your modifications as at the date of the request in
source form, at cost, to the Primary
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 10:19:16PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
I believe that there IS a fundamental difficulty with such licenses.
Consider the case where a company's modifications encode certain business
logic details. =20
This doesn't
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
It certainly does force you to share your secrets. It forces you to share
your secrets only with your customers, though.
Nonsense. It is perfectly possible to use a modified GPLed program
internally and never tell one's customers about it.
That's
Scripsit Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Were you to say that the teachers may only take the software under the terms
of the BSD license, and that everyone else may only take it under the terms
of the GPL, then I don't believe we would have such a clear consensus.
It would make me uneasy, at
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
It certainly does force you to share your secrets. It forces you to share
your secrets only with your customers, though.
I don't believe this is the case: I have code which is a proprietary
typesetting package based on GPL'd works. My customers give
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:23:26AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Convince me that in this imperfect world, as we try to make things
more transparent, and give people more control and access over the
software that affects them, that being able to get access to the
sourcecode for
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:23:26AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
* There's less incentive to develop new changes: unless you can afford
a stable of developers large enough to deploy new features faster
than your competitors can copy them, you gain
Thomas Bushnell, BSG said:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Sure. Compare this to some code using the GPL; same sort of
information, same problem with it: their trade secrets are woven into
the functionality of the code itself. If one of your customers is a
competitor, or a
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
This detailed wrangling is really missing the point that I'm interested
in, though. Is there a _fundamental_ difficulty with such licenses?
Is it users of programs or owners of copies of programs that should
have freedom? As far as I can see the
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 01:37:54PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
* There's less incentive to develop new changes: unless you can afford
a stable of developers large enough to deploy new features faster
than your competitors can copy them, you gain no competitive
advantage from
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Fred's pretty silly for not having looked into this in the first place.
Especially being a lawyer.
That's not the point. The point is that demanding disclosure is like
demanding payment: it's NOT FREE. The point is not that Fred is
trapped; it's
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't quite understand how you get this from the GPL.
(Assumption: you give binaries to Y, but only a written offer for source,
since it's your secret. You'll give them to Y if they ask for them)
The offer to any third party in Clause 3 seems to mean
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Yes, it does: it's quite possible to write code in such a way that when
compiled, it's near impossible to work out exactly what's going. There's
a whole swath of research on obfuscation. The GPL says well, sure,
go ahead, but you have to include
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it users of programs or owners of copies of programs that should
have freedom? As far as I can see the answer is clearly users.
Currently those two groups are roughly the same, and the second group
is *much* easier to draw a line around. So we use
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 01:37:54PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
* There's less incentive to develop new changes: unless you can afford
a stable of developers large enough to deploy new features faster
than your competitors can copy them, you
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Arguments about practicality, that this makes doing legitimate things harder
or impossible in some situations for purely technical reasons (the stranded
on an island test does this), are valid, but I haven't really seen any.
What about an ATM
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:25:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[ more good argument snipped]
Even if there were *no* legal limitations of any kind on the copying
and modification of any software, there would *still* be no way to
give that liberty to users, since (when user and
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 03:46:57PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
As I said: existing mechanisms of licensing Free Software (e.g. GNU
GPL and MIT/X11) provide an impetus for improvement. A
compulsory-sharing license, as might bring us closer to BrinWorld,
removes much of the financial
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:39:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 10:53:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Fred wants to use a popular free software package which almost does
just the job: QNU Madlibs. But QNU Madlibs is distributed under the
QPL. What the Fred
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 07:46:18PM -0700, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
I've edited that nascent DFSG FAQ and put it at
http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
I'd appreciate comments. Especially from the OSD/DFSG WE MUST UNIFY
folks, who might perhaps be able to use some of this
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For me, _The Transparent Society_ might more closely resemble a
dystopian novel than a utopian one.
Perhaps Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, wherein the perfect number-citizens
of a future totalitarian world-state live in apartment blocks with
completely
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 18:18, Anthony Towns wrote:
In the dissident case, we're trying to protect the people from having to
reveal their changes to the government they're protesting. But this just
doesn't make any real sense: the code they're hacking on is the least of
their worries - it's the
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 08:04, Henning Makholm wrote:
Sure. Compare this to some code using the GPL; same sort of information,
same problem with it: their trade secrets are woven into the functionality
of the code itself.
In that case you can simply choose to distribute the program only to
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 16:00, Walter Landry wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Arguments about practicality, that this makes doing legitimate things harder
or impossible in some situations for purely technical reasons (the stranded
on an island test does this), are valid, but
Thomas, I'm responding to your questions, but I'm actually directing my
response to Branden Robinson, since I don't know your position on his
DFSG-interpretation proposal.
Branden, if the FSF's four freedoms are the consitution to DFSG's case
law, they have a lot in common with the US
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 16:00, Walter Landry wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Arguments about practicality, that this makes doing legitimate things
harder
or impossible in some situations for purely technical reasons (the
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But in order that users may evade the government's laws, Free Software
must allow certain freedoms (although Thomas Bushnell and I may disagree
on what they are).
But the dissident test require licenses to allow every possible tactic
for evading
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 08:04, Henning Makholm wrote:
Sure. Compare this to some code using the GPL; same sort of information,
same problem with it: their trade secrets are woven into the functionality
of the code itself.
In that case you can
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 07:46:18PM -0700, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
I've edited that nascent DFSG FAQ and put it at
http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
I'd appreciate comments.
It seems a bit eager about the GPL. I'd much prefer
Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 05:49:28PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
It has been suggested that this test be referred to as simply as the
Dissident test.
/me grumbles about wasting time with excessive PC noises, rejects this
suggestion and continues to call
Scripsit Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It seems a bit eager about the GPL. I'd much prefer if it gave equal
time to the GPL and the BSD camps.
Yes. In particular the reasons for choosing BSD are not limited to I
want people to be able to take my software proprietary. In the free
software
Scripsit Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've edited that nascent DFSG FAQ and put it at
http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
I'd appreciate comments.
Cool. I like question 5 especially. :-)
Add to the desert island test that it also explains why postcardware
(or emailware) is
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 07:20:36PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It has been suggested that this test be referred to as simply as the
Dissident test.
/me grumbles about wasting time with excessive PC noises, rejects this
suggestion and continues
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Personally, if we're going to document this and use it as an official test
rather than a helpful rule of thumb, I don't think we need to be insulting
a country that's potentially going all pro-Linux while we need to do it.
So what you're saying is,
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 12:46:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Personally, if we're going to document this and use it as an official test
rather than a helpful rule of thumb, I don't think we need to be insulting
a country that's
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Now you're saying that we must be nice and polite to the PRC. Let's
all be friends! (And not pay attention to the people crushed by the
tanks.) I remember Tianenmen Square; it seems that the world has
mostly forgotten.
Worse things have happened
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
No, I'm saying Debian's about free software, not about your favourite
set of politics. We don't have a problem with the United States using
Debian to aim their nuclear weapons, nor China using Debian to track
down the Falun Gong.
China is opposed
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 01:44:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
The whole point is to make the test be extreme, that's how you get
clarity. But it still has to make sense. It's entirely plausible that me
and a friend could be stuck with
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Uh, no. The difference is here that we want to allow the people to do
free software development on the island, assuming they already have the
abilitiy to. The copyright license is the sole worry we have here --
nothing else affects what they're
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
If you want the possible term defined more precisely, consider
something more like:
If you have distributed a modified version of The Work, then
if you receive a request by the Primary Copyright Holder
(named above), you must
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 05:49:28PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
Q: What about licenses that grant different rights to different groups?
Isn't that discrimination, banned by DFSG#5/6?
A: For Debian's purposes, if all the different groups can exercise their
DFSG rights, it's OK if there are other
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 08:19:33PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
I'm an anarchist dissident (who runs RaiseTheFist), and for reasons
known only to me, I have altered a web based forum to encode
messages to other dissidents in the source code of the forum
software itself. The PCH
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 08:19:33PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
If you want the possible term defined more precisely, consider
something more like:
If you have distributed a modified version of The Work, then
if you receive a request by
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 08:19:33PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
I'm an anarchist dissident (who runs RaiseTheFist), and for reasons
known only to me, I have altered a web based forum to encode
messages to other dissidents in the source code
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
This detailed wrangling is really missing the point that I'm interested
in, though. Is there a _fundamental_ difficulty with such licenses?
If you have created a modified version of the Work, and receive
a request by the Primary
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:52:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 08:19:33PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
If you want the possible term defined more precisely, consider
something more like:
If you have distributed a
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 03:11:29PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 05:49:28PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
Q: What about licenses that grant different rights to different groups?
Isn't that discrimination, banned by DFSG#5/6?
A: For Debian's purposes, if all the different
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 10:19:16PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
Does it make it anything you might want to do with free software
technically any more difficult? I don't think so -- you have to be asked
by the original author, and they have to cover your costs in fulfulling
the request.
I
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 01:38:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2. the Chinese Dissident.
It has been suggested that this test be referred to as simply as the
Dissident test.
But the suggestion has not been taken. The point isn't to
Nathan E Norman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 01:38:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2. the Chinese Dissident.
It has been suggested that this test be referred to as simply as the
Dissident test.
But the
I've edited that nascent DFSG FAQ and put it at
http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
I'd appreciate comments. Especially from the OSD/DFSG WE MUST UNIFY
folks, who might perhaps be able to use some of this material to
clarify their OSD into conformance with Debian practice, ie to
On Sat, 08 Mar 2003, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
I've edited that nascent DFSG FAQ and put it at
http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
I'd appreciate comments.
It seems quite usefull to me, at least for starters.
However, if you (or your contributors) could add links to the portions
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 07:46:18PM -0700, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
I've edited that nascent DFSG FAQ and put it at
http://www-bcl.cs.unm.edu/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
I'd appreciate comments.
It seems a bit eager about the GPL. I'd much prefer if it gave equal
time to the GPL and the BSD camps.
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 17:34, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The difference is that a guideline, as we use the term, is an
*internal* tool. We do not pretend that the guideline exhausts the
meaning of free, but merely that it is a guideline. A definition, as
the OSD is used, is a promise if you
Barak Pearlmutter said:
Here is a rough outline of which I think it could look like:
Q: How do you do this?
Perhaps:
Q: How do you determine if a license is DFSG-Free?
(There isn't much context to figure out what this is)
A: the process involves human judgment. The DFSG is an attempt to
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2. the Chinese Dissident.
It has been suggested that this test be referred to as simply as the
Dissident test.
But the suggestion has not been taken. The point isn't to hammer at
China--though such hammering seems well warranted--but to point to a
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 05:49:28PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
2. the Chinese Dissident.
It has been suggested that this test be referred to as simply as the
Dissident test.
/me grumbles about wasting time with excessive PC noises, rejects this
suggestion and continues to call it the same
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:02:41AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
I don't want to quibble over semantics, but I don't think the meanings
are as you suggest. The difference in meaning between guideline and
definition would seem to be one of accuracy or rigorousness. For
Debian's purposes I would
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Joe Moore wrote:
Q: How can I tell if some license is free?
Q: How do you determine if a license is DFSG-Free?
An additional point to make is that a license is neither free nor
non-free. Packages are judged for freeness, not licenses. Two packages
with the same license
On Fri, 07 Mar 2003, Mark Rafn wrote:
An additional point to make is that a license is neither free nor
non-free.
We've examined licenses before to determine whether they live up to
the DFSG in the general sense, although you are correct that such an
interpretation doesn't necessarily extend
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:21:37PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
No. A license may treat different catagories of people differently so
long as each category's freedoms fit under the DFSG. For example,
this license abides by the DFSG: This software is licensed under the
GPL and
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 22:27, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Sure, but so far the OSD has taken a fundamentally different tack from
everyone else doing free software. By getting into the game of a
definition and a rigid test for what is and is not free, a massive
amount of very valuable
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If, therefore, OSD-free gets written into some law granting special
patent rights to free software, say, then that's something that we can
all live with quite happily.
You are assuming that the use of the definitions won't be inverted.
Suppose
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
