ke, 2006-01-25 kello 14:54 -0800, Jeff Carr kirjoitti:
By this argument, the GPL must be removed or authors must allow anyone
to modify it. Clearly the intent of the Debian community and the DFSG is
not to require abandonment of the protections of the GPL.
This argument is old, wrong, and has
Debian Project secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:40:20 +0100, Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[[PGP Signed Part:Failed] Signature made Fri Jan 13 02:21:11 2006
CST using DSA key ID 330C4A75 Good signature from Martin
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[[PGP Signed Part:Failed]
Signature made Fri Jan 13 02:21:11 2006 CST using DSA key ID 330C4A75
Good signature from Martin F. Krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
aka Martin F. Krafft (AERAsec GmbH) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
aka Martin F.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
As I expect that at least one of the seconds/proposer will object to
this amendment (heh), I'm actively looking for seconds myself now.
I personally object to this because I find actually what you call bugs
to be much more
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 11:30:55PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
This requirement is extremly costly for anyone attempting to
distribute Sarge either as a mirror or as an ISO image.
Can you point to testimony of people actually hindered by this?
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:40:20 +0100, Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[[PGP Signed Part:Failed] Signature made Fri Jan 13 02:21:11 2006
CST using DSA key ID 330C4A75 Good signature from Martin F. Krafft
[EMAIL PROTECTED] aka Martin F. Krafft
Le Ven 13 Janvier 2006 04:04, Anthony Towns a écrit :
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:53:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 11:37:37AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
So, I've updated the wiki [0] in response to most of the
suggestions on the list so far.
Okay, given the
Thanks to Luk for setting things straight. I hereby second Dato's
proposal, which is included in full below.
also sprach Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.01.10.0455 +0100]:
It's been six months since the social contract changes that forbid
non-free documentation went into effect [0], and
I second Adeodato Simó's amendment:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
I propose an amendment to this GR, consisting in replacing the
existing text with the one below. I initially tried to follow
Anthony's original text as close as possible, and just add a
In linux.debian.vote Adeodato wrote:
I propose an amendment to this GR, consisting in replacing the
existing text with the one below. I initially tried to follow
Anthony's original text as close as possible, and just add a paragraph
and reword a couple sentences, but I didn't quite
Adeodato =?utf-8?B?U2ltw7M=?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Right, FSF stuff goes away. OTOH, I feel utterly ashamed each time I
imagine the possibility of the following conversation taking place:
=C2=ABHey, fellow free software developer, thanks for writing such a cool
program and releasing it under the
Merle Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would ftpmasters and mirror operators be able to either include a
machine-readable Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy, or
[...] ensure that this Transparent copy will remain thus accessible
at the stated location until at least one year after the
* Esteban Manchado Velázquez [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-13 09:26]:
I second Adeodato Simó's amendment:
I hereby second this proposal as well.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
I propose an amendment to this GR, consisting in replacing the
existing text with
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Merle Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would ftpmasters and mirror operators be able to either include a
machine-readable Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy, or [...]
ensure that this Transparent copy will remain thus accessible at the
stated
Hi,
[[PGP Signed Part:Failed]
Signature made Fri Jan 13 02:21:11 2006 CST using DSA key ID 330C4A75
Good signature from Martin F. Krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
aka Martin F. Krafft (AERAsec GmbH) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
aka Martin F. Krafft (Debian) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Okay, given the lack of further response (except for dato's alternate
proposal!), I've tweaked the wording one more time, and I think this
is the final version. Seconds appreciated.
I propose the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 11:37:37AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
So, I've updated the wiki [0] in response to most of the suggestions
on the list so far.
Okay, given the lack of further response (except
* MJ Ray [Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:24:52 +]:
Also, this fails to address the security ban and the forced
Transparent downloads/availability.
'Cause this amendment is not about trying to engage in legal-type
discussion about whether those two can be work-arounded or not. It's:
we regard
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Proposal below seconded.
It seems that my Gnus settings do not work correctly for most people
(including devotee), if I try to send out GPG'd ISO-8859-1 emails.
This should be verifiable by all.
Seconding the
* Anthony Towns [Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:45:19 +1000]:
What documents would this effort actually let us keep, anyway? All the
FSF stuff for glibc, gcc, make and so on includes invariant sections
anyway, no?
Right, FSF stuff goes away. OTOH, I feel utterly ashamed each time I
imagine the
* Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060112 15:09]:
(Or in other words: perhaps it's only me, okay, but I can't help, at
all, feel that ripping out of main documentation that their authors
intended to be free, and made their best-effort to achieve that, like
a form of betrayal.
It is a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060112 15:09]:
(Or in other words: perhaps it's only me, okay, but I can't help, at
all, feel that ripping out of main documentation that their authors
intended
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Russ Allbery wrote:
Well, that's a reason to second an amendment that says that the GFDL *is*
DFSG-free, so that it's explicitly a choice, and so that a vote for more
discussion is clearly not a vote for that position.
However, what's kept me
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 03:06:49PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Anthony Towns [Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:45:19 +1000]:
What documents would this effort actually let us keep, anyway? All the
FSF stuff for glibc, gcc, make and so on includes invariant sections
anyway, no?
Right, FSF stuff
Adeodato Simó, 2006-01-12 15:10:40 +0100 :
[...]
(Or in other words: perhaps it's only me, okay, but I can't help,
at all, feel that ripping out of main documentation that their
authors intended to be free, and made their best-effort to achieve
that, like a form of betrayal.
I second the proposal quoted below.
I'm following debian-vote through the archives, so if you wish to reply or
comment to me specifically, CC me.
Christopher Martin
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 08:53:04PM +0100, Roland Mas wrote:
Having invariant sections (or any other non-free stuff) in main could
be seen as a betrayal of the people who chose the license.
This is not about invariant sections. This is about the other bugs in
the GFDL the FSF has not fixed
Le Jeu 12 Janvier 2006 22:28, Christopher Martin a écrit :
I second the proposal quoted below.
and I do the same.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
=
This is the
also sprach Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.01.10.0455 +0100]:
Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section of
its distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation
License that include no Invariant Sections, no Cover Texts, no
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.01.10.0455 +0100]:
Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section of
its distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation
License that include no Invariant Sections, no Cover
Le Ven 13 Janvier 2006 00:09, martin f krafft a écrit :
also sprach Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.01.10.0455
+0100]:
Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section
of its distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation
License that include no
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
I propose an amendment to this GR, consisting in replacing the
existing text with the one below. I initially tried to follow
Seconded.
Hamish
---8---
Debian
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:53:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 11:37:37AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
So, I've updated the wiki [0] in response to most of the suggestions
on the list so far.
Okay, given the lack of further response (except for dato's alternate
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:33:36AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
And please, I don't want to see answers saying that the documentation
can be put in non-free, because, due the the debian policy, `kde`
meta-package (same is true for gnome) beeing in main, cannot depend
upon the non free kde
Seconded.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
=
This is the position of Debian Project about the GNU Free
Documentation License as published by the Free Software
Adeodato Sim=C3=B3
Formally, the Debian Project will include in the main section of
its distribution works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation
License that include no Invariant Sections, no Cover Texts, no
Acknowledgements, and no Dedications, unless permission to remove
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 11:37:37AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
So, I've updated the wiki [0] in response to most of the suggestions
on the list so far.
Okay, given the lack of further response (except for dato's alternate
proposal!), I've tweaked the wording one more time, and I think this
is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I second the proposal quoted below.
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main
--
Context
---
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Okay, given the lack of further response (except for dato's alternate
proposal!), I've tweaked the wording one more time, and I think this
is the final version. Seconds appreciated.
I propose the Debian project release the following statement on
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:53:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 11:37:37AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
So, I've updated the wiki [0] in response to most of the suggestions
on the list so far.
Okay, given the lack of further response (except for dato's alternate
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, one thing gives me pause: if this goes to a vote, and the vote
is no, then what? Some will interpret that as an official statement
by the Project that the GFDL does not violate the DFSG. Sure, they will
be wrong, but that doesn't stop
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 06:06:42PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
However, one thing gives me pause: if this goes to a vote, and the
vote is no, then what?
The vote can't be no; at the moment it can either be The GFDL isn't
suitable for main for these reasons (unmodifiable, transparent,
* Anthony Towns [Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:24:47 +1000]:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
II. Transparent And Opaque Copies
Section 3 (Copying in Quantity) of the GFDL states that it is not
enough to just put a transparent copy of a document alongside with the
quote who=Alexander (Sasha) Wait date=Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 06:15:18PM
-0500
That pipeline will almost certainly be GFDL/CC-BY-SA. It's really sad
to see blood boil over these licenses. Since I am talking to people
at FSF CC regularly, I would be more than happy to bring Debian
concerns to
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:42:00AM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
* Anthony Towns [Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:24:47 +1000]:
II. Transparent And Opaque Copies
The way we distribute source and binaries doesn't meet this requirement;
Well, this assuming that distributing the source in the same
On 1/10/06, Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
quote who=Alexander (Sasha) Wait date=Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 06:15:18PM
-0500
That pipeline will almost certainly be GFDL/CC-BY-SA. It's really sad
to see blood boil over these licenses. Since I am talking to people
at FSF CC
* Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000]:
It's been six months since the social contract changes that forbid
non-free documentation went into effect [0], and we're still distributing
GFDLed stuff in unstable [1]. I think we should get serious about fixing
that, and as part of that
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
I propose an amendment to this GR, consisting in replacing the
existing text with the one below.
(The purpose being to indicate the GFDL only needs to be in non-free
due to invariant sections. This would be nice if it were
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 06:15:18PM -0500, Alexander (Sasha) Wait wrote:
I hate proprietary academic publishing, so,
I'd like to see a pipeline from Academic Wikis to Academic Journals
to Wikipedia. That pipeline will almost certainly be GFDL/CC-BY-SA.
It's really sad to see blood boil over
On 1/7/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've already talked to CC and they agreed to fix their licenses; 3.0
and later should be fine, when they're released (2.x never will be).
Well - it's a goal for CC FSF to permit content to move freely
between CC-BY-SA and GFDL (or possibly
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 09:17:24PM -0500,
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 19 lines which said:
I think -legal came to a very definite consensus that licensing the
documentation under the exact same license as the program was always
the right thing to do.
I agree. In
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:34:46AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
It saves *so* much trouble.
But not all documentation is attached to a software. For instance, if
I write a book Software development on Debian, releasing it under
the GFDL is still the reasonable thing to do.
Not if you
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 12:08:23PM +0100,
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 15 lines which said:
I write a book Software development on Debian, releasing it under
the GFDL is still the reasonable thing to do.
Not if you want it to be part of Debian.
It still works
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But not all documentation is attached to a software. For instance, if
I write a book Software development on Debian, releasing it under
the GFDL is still the reasonable thing to do.
It's reasonable if you want to attach adverts to it and allow others
to do
On 1/5/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But not all documentation is attached to a software. For instance, if
I write a book Software development on Debian, releasing it under
the GFDL is still the reasonable thing to do.
It's reasonable if you
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 06:15:18PM -0500, Alexander (Sasha) Wait wrote:
It's really sad to see blood boil over these licenses. Since I am
talking to people at FSF CC regularly, I would be more than happy to
bring Debian concerns to both groups in a, hopefuly, productive
fashion.If
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 09:37:32AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
[3] http://wiki.debian.org/GFDLPositionStatement
That page says it is immutable.
You need to log in.
Cheers,
aj
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 03:02:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's based on Manoj's draft position statement [2] with some notable
changes (an explicit why not just say docs != software section, a
how can this be fixed section, a what is the GFDL? section, and
reordering the major problems).
Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
People tend to ask ... but can I really use a license such as the GPL
for documentation? I thought GPL was for software only.
Do we need to address this point?
I'm not sure. That's covered in the GPL FAQ and should be clear
from the definition of Program in the
I suggest a few wording changes and additions to avoid some arguments
against the statement and to make it a little clearer.
I agree with earlier comments about adding the version number.
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
Within the Debian community there has been a significant amount of
Anthony Towns writes (GR Proposal: GFDL statement):
Bcc'ed to -project, -legal and -private; followups to -vote please.
It's been six months since the social contract changes that forbid
non-free documentation went into effect [0], and we're still distributing
GFDLed stuff in unstable [1]. I
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 09:37:32 +, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I suggest a few wording changes and additions to avoid some
arguments against the statement and to make it a little clearer.
I agree with earlier comments about adding the version number.
Anthony Towns
Ian Jackson wrote:
Also,
(4) How can this be fixed?
This section should be clarified and strengthened. In particular, we
should encourage documentation authors to (at the moment) dual-licence
GDFL/GPL.
The recommendation is: License your documentation under the same license
as the
Anthony Towns wrote:
(2.1) Invariant Sections
The most troublesome conflict concerns the class of invariant sections
that, once included, may not be modified or removed from the documentation
in future. Modifiability is, however, a fundamental requirement of the
DFSG, which states:
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 21:17 -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
The recommendation is: License your documentation under the same license
as the program it goes with. If you need to license under the GFDL for some
reason, dual-licence.
I think -legal came to a very definite consensus that
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This GR effectively overrides decisions by the DPL and his delegates,
and should mention this.
Which decisions?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 06:17:57PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The release team has spoken, and they decide what goes in a
release. If they have decided, under advice from debian-legal, that
GFDL docs are RC bugs, then that is that.
No substantive changes suggested, merely matters of style
[Anthony Towns]
(0) Summary
Within the Debian community there has been a significant amount of
concern about the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), and whether
it is, in fact, a free license. This document attempts to
I'd like to propose a few, uh, editorial amendments ;-)
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 03:02:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
---
Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main
~~
(0) Summary
Within the
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 04:25:37AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
No substantive changes suggested, merely matters of style
...
Since this has already been seconded as-is here, I thought it best to
comment here instead of making random unauthorised edits to a wiki.
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 09:51:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 11:28:16AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Perhaps retitle it to
Why the current version of the GNU Free Documentation License is
not suitable for Debian main
Why the GNU Free
I'm confused. Where does it say that we have to go through the GR
process to issue a position statement for something the project has
already decided on?
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
* Anthony Towns:
Bcc'ed to -project, -legal and -private; followups to -vote please.
It's been six months since the social contract changes that forbid
non-free documentation went into effect [0], and we're still distributing
GFDLed stuff in unstable [1]. I think we should get serious about
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm confused. Where does it say that we have to go through the GR
process to issue a position statement for something the project has
already decided on?
How do we know
Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm confused. Where does it say that we have to go through the GR
process to issue a position statement for something the project has
already decided on?
How do we know the
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm confused. Where does it say that we have to go through the GR
process to issue a position statement for something the project has
already decided on?
How do we know the project has decided on it?
Not a flippant question. That's felt like it's been
On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 13:30:32 -0800, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm confused. Where does it say that we have to go through the GR
process to issue a position statement for something the project has
already decided on?
How do we know the project
Hi,
I have taken the liberty of re-adding bits to the position
statement I considered important, and I would be happy to hear
reasons why they should not be in the position statement we publish.
manoj
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm confused. Where does it say that we have to go through the GR
process to issue a position statement for something the project has
already decided on?
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Together, the Developers may:
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 08:53:11PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
In addition to the simple restrictions of freedoms imposed by the
Invariant Sections, they also cause practical problems: [...]
This is a huge chunk of text for a dcoument that's already a bit
too long to be easily
Bcc'ed to -project, -legal and -private; followups to -vote please.
It's been six months since the social contract changes that forbid
non-free documentation went into effect [0], and we're still distributing
GFDLed stuff in unstable [1]. I think we should get serious about fixing
that, and as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
It's been six months since the social contract changes that forbid
non-free documentation went into effect [0], and we're still
distributing GFDLed stuff in unstable [1]. I think we should get serious
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 03:02:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main
~~
(0) Summary
Within the Debian community there has been a significant amount of
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 03:02:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Bcc'ed to -project, -legal and -private; followups to -vote please.
It's been six months since the social contract changes that forbid
non-free documentation went into effect [0], and we're still distributing
GFDLed stuff in unstable
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 03:02:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns
aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Bcc'ed to -project, -legal and -private; followups to -vote please.
It's been six months since the social contract changes that forbid
non-free documentation went into effect [0], and we're still
85 matches
Mail list logo
