Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
(followups to -legal, please) On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:17:48PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: Excerpting is allowed by copyright law under the fair use principle, and one need not accept any license governing a work to exercise that right to fair use. Australia, for example, doesn't have a fair use principle at all. (Instead, there are a range of delineated uses you're allowed to make of copyrighted works without the author's permission). Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``BAM! Science triumphs again!'' -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:24:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Steve == Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Steve As a developer, I am by no means in a position to try to Steve interpret what the phrasers of the Social Contract /really/ Steve meant to say. They wrote what they wrote, and I agreed to it Steve as written; as did many other developers we have today, who Steve were not involved in the original composition of the Social Steve Contract and the DFSG. The author of the social contract is still around, as are some of the rest of us who were involved in the process. It is not as if we are all dead and gone like the US founding fathers, you know. You could just ask. I'd be happy to hear clarifications from the author and contemporaries, then; to be honest, my memory of Debian history isn't good enough to even know who to approach. (The debian-doc package is conspicuously lacking of the relevant copyright information, btw. :) Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpmHd1CWyy2n.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Branden Robinson wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:03:11PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: The history section in my book, which is declared invarient in the license, was written by Ian M. and has no technical bearing on the rest of the book's content, but has every reason to be protected from modification. These particular words have a value that must be protected. I'll put you down as being in favor of eternal copyright, then. Give me a break. I've never said that, and your suggestion that what I said implies I believe your suggestion is ... stupid. This is exactly the kind of distraction by misdirection that I so greatly detest. The Congress shall have the power to PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL ARTS, by securing for LIMITED TIMES to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; And in 10 or 15 years the historic material in my book, (not to mention the technical content ;-) will not matter one way or another. If there _is_ any historical significance to this content, other forces will protect it. (Emphasis added.) What a tragedy that the value of all works published before 1926 has been irrevocably lost because we're not protecting them anymore. Well, the fact is that those old works are protected specifically because they have survived. The Declaration of Independance needs no copyright to protect it. (However, I've been greatly disturbed by the interpretation our present government places on certain phrases found there...) The real problem with most of those pre-26 books is that I can't find them in print today... I actually agree with you, (If I haven't made a stupid assumption based on your initial statement ;-) eternal copyright doesn't stimulate creativity. Just look at the new and interesting stories being told by Hollywood about everyone from Mr. I. Crane, to Peter Pan. All possible by the expiration of those copyrights on the original books. While I'm not sure that M. Mouse should be owned by anyone but Uncle Walt, I understand the fear of the current copyright holder, given that I am in direct contact with the spirit of the original Mr. Disney. He has some very clear ideas about the uses of this icon, and they would not set well with the current owner. Maybe I should find a lawyer and argue in court that the original copyright holder should be given back control of his intelectual property... Waiting is, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux _-_-_-_-_-_- _-_- _- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _- _- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _- _- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308_- _-_- _-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_- available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Richard Braakman wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:03:11PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: The freedom of expression of the author is what is being protected by this clause. The freedom to express opinion without having those statements twisted into something completely different is one of the reasons for the creation of the copyright in the first place. A version of the GFDL that allowed deletion but not modification of such sections would be perfectly acceptable to me. I would have no problem with that either. However, I'm left with the current license as the one that come closest to my needs... On the other hand, this would give a publisher the power to silence some statements in favor of others, but then, from my experience, publishers have this power without copyright control, as they hold the power to put those words on paper or not. With internet distribution, (currently the state of my book ;-) this power is somewhat diluted. At least for those who know can find the original text. Luck, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux _-_-_-_-_-_- _-_- _- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _- _- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _- _- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308_- _-_- _-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_- available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:52:52PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:03:11PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: The history section in my book, which is declared invarient in the license, was written by Ian M. and has no technical bearing on the rest of the book's content, but has every reason to be protected from modification. These particular words have a value that must be protected. I'll put you down as being in favor of eternal copyright, then. Give me a break. I've never said that, and your suggestion that what I said implies I believe your suggestion is ... stupid. This is exactly the kind of distraction by misdirection that I so greatly detest. Not at all. Copyright is exactly on point, for it is the only tool with which you are seeking protection for the Debian Manifesto. Unless you have a patent, trade secret, or non-disclosure argument up your sleeve. A work that is not copyrighted is in the public domain. Hence my reference to works which *are* in the public domain, and for which there often exist canonical versions despite the absence of government regulation to retain their purity. (Sometimes there is no canonical version to point to, at least not in one's native tongue. What's the canonical modern English translation of the _Canterbury Tales_?) -- G. Branden Robinson| Why do we have to hide from the Debian GNU/Linux | police, Daddy? [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Because we use vi, son. They use http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | emacs. pgpnOXqzHbhm4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:57:32PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 14:39, Steve Langasek wrote: I'd be happy to hear clarifications from the author and contemporaries, then; to be honest, my memory of Debian history isn't good enough to even know who to approach. (The debian-doc package is conspicuously lacking of the relevant copyright information, btw. :) Here's a statement from Bruce Perens: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00063.html Bruce also used a questionable similarity, ignored the possibility of authors mis-applying the license, and failed to rebut any of the points made in response to his message (and not only by me). -- G. Branden Robinson| I came, I saw, she conquered. Debian GNU/Linux | The original Latin seems to have [EMAIL PROTECTED] | been garbled. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein pgpNS5bvp66ND.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:52:52PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: While I'm not sure that M. Mouse should be owned by anyone but Uncle Walt, I understand the fear of the current copyright holder, given that I am in direct contact with the spirit of the original Mr. Disney. He has some very clear ideas about the uses of this icon, and they would not set well with the current owner. Maybe I should find a lawyer and argue in court that the original copyright holder should be given back control of his intelectual property... To be honest, I don't understand why M. Mouse cannot simply be a trademark for Disney. They way we could have our use of the old stuff but people would still not be able to use Mickey for nefarious purposes. Darn, I promised not to post to this thread. Oh well... -- Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/ Ignorance continues to thrive when intelligent people choose to do nothing. Speaking out against censorship and ignorance is the imperative of all intelligent people. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:52:52PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: Just look at the new and interesting stories being told by Hollywood about everyone from Mr. I. Crane, to Peter Pan. All possible by the expiration of those copyrights on the original books. As a point of fact, Peter Pan is still under copyright in many EU nations (life + 70 years, and Barrie died in 1937.) Also, Peter Pan is under an eternal quasi-copyright in Britain, by a special act of Parliment. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. If you don't have it you're on the other side. - K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:34:57AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: Not necessarily. Imagine part of the README for licquix, the hot new free kernel that everyone's raving about: Copyright (c) 1991 Linus Torvalds. The Finn gets the copyright because he started it, even though it wouldn't be half the kernel it is without my obviously brilliant improvements. He did start the project, after all, even if he hasn't made a decent contribution in years. Do you think Linus would have a problem with such a README for this (fictitious) product? Sure. But what license is going to stop that? The GFDL doesn't prevent you from adding stuff outside invariant sections. I know I wouldn't consider license that tried to prohibit that free; people should be able to add whatever stupid crap to the program without worrying (short of libel, of course, but that should be outside the license too.) -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. If you don't have it you're on the other side. - K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 01:42, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: DFSG stand for Debian Free Software Guidelines. IMHO we ave to create a DFDG, Debian Free Documentation Guidelines. Why? What freedoms are important for software that aren't for documentation? Revisionist history, for one. How about correcting a supposedly historical document, for example, taking a document that describes Windows as the progenitor of the trend for GUIs, and adding some explanation about Apple and Xerox and suchlike? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``BAM! Science triumphs again!'' -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
Followups to -legal. On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:07:02AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: I mentioned Thoreau in another thread, and the Bible in another; though they are free in every sense, perhaps that would be a place where we would need to be careful about modifications. I'm sure John Stuart Mill would be horrified to find his works published with errata edited by J. Edgar Hoover. There are many things that people are free to do which would be horrifying to many. Publishing a book giving a scientific justification for the intellectual inferiority of people with asian and african backgrounds, or using gcc to write viruses and r00tkits, or using gnupg and libgmp to design a nuclear device for deployment in Jerusalem or Los Angeles. The trick is to make sure that people can write rebuttals, or stop physical actions that're wrong, not to stop people from exercising purely intellectual freedoms, like rewriting documentation or using programs. And we have the non-free section for people who don't agree with that philosophy in a completely wholehearted manner (like the Bitkeeper people, eg). Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``BAM! Science triumphs again!'' -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Joseph Carter wrote: On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:53:54AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: DFSG stand for Debian Free Software Guidelines. Yes, and since Debian is 100% Free Software, that applies to everything in Debian. Documentation isn't software. Neither are conffiles, icons, etc. So, if we're to be true to our creed, here's what we have to do: Ahh, but icons which fail the DFSG have been declared non-free in the past. So we have (still more) precedent for applying the DFSG to non-software. The point being made, which everyone is so carfully ignoring is the word Software in the title. These are software guidelines, nothing more. They don't even define the whole of Debian, just the software. The differences are obvious. While my book is written in LaTeX, and the image file (ps or pdf) is constructed from these source files via the use of Make, it is very different from what we call software. The difference is in the target. The output of the LaTeX compiler is intended to be viewed by a human being, who, hopefully, has the capability of not following written instructions or ignoring contrary philosophies. The output of the C compiler is intended for a specific CPU, and all instructions are forced upon that CPU with no choice over which it will execute and which it will ignore (thank goodness for that ;-) My freedom is enhanced by being able to make those instructions for the CPU be just what I want them to be. (This machine IS after all my slave) My modification needs extend over the complete work as defined by the source, and we can all see just why this should be. The history section in my book, which is declared invarient in the license, was written by Ian M. and has no technical bearing on the rest of the book's content, but has every reason to be protected from modification. These particular words have a value that must be protected. The front and back cover text may be used to give credit to someone who provided substantial financial support during the time of the works production. Without requiring such credit, other publishers could benefit from the work without giving the proper credit. None of these issues force behavior on the reader, like code does for the CPU. So no freedoms are being infringed upon by forcing the text to remain unchanged. The freedom of expression of the author is what is being protected by this clause. The freedom to express opinion without having those statements twisted into something completely different is one of the reasons for the creation of the copyright in the first place. If you insist on judging documentation against the same standard as software, the results are always going to be wrong. Just to contradict my previous statement: The GPL allows (demands) two invarient sections of the original source; the copyright statement, and the license statement. Requiring these sections to be invarient does not make the license non-free. These sections are, in fact, necessarily invarient if the author's and the user's rights are to be protected. Allowing non-technical content to be made invarient does nothing to restrict the freedom to modify the parts of the document that are a technical description. Using my book as an example, there have been many patches submitted either for spelling or content. I have included all those that were correct ;-) I have never seen the book published with changes that were not made by me, so it isn't clear to me just what the pressing modification requirement is in the first place... Luck, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux _-_-_-_-_-_- _-_- _- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _- _- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _- _- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308_- _-_- _-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_- available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:03:11PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: The history section in my book, which is declared invarient in the license, was written by Ian M. and has no technical bearing on the rest of the book's content, but has every reason to be protected from modification. These particular words have a value that must be protected. I'll put you down as being in favor of eternal copyright, then. The Congress shall have the power to PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL ARTS, by securing for LIMITED TIMES to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; (Emphasis added.) What a tragedy that the value of all works published before 1926 has been irrevocably lost because we're not protecting them anymore. -- G. Branden Robinson| There is no gravity in space. Debian GNU/Linux | Then how could astronauts walk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | around on the Moon? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | Because they wore heavy boots. pgpZ5VF9lqvR1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:03:11PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Joseph Carter wrote: On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:53:54AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: DFSG stand for Debian Free Software Guidelines. Yes, and since Debian is 100% Free Software, that applies to everything in Debian. Documentation isn't software. Neither are conffiles, icons, etc. So, if we're to be true to our creed, here's what we have to do: Ahh, but icons which fail the DFSG have been declared non-free in the past. So we have (still more) precedent for applying the DFSG to non-software. The point being made, which everyone is so carfully ignoring is the word Software in the title. These are software guidelines, nothing more. They don't even define the whole of Debian, just the software. And how do we get to this conclusion given the first sentence of the Social Contract? The only argument I've seen anyone offer here so far amounts to Oh, but they don't mean that /literally/, that would be silly. Well, tough -- those are the words we're given, and those are the words I've agreed to uphold so long as I'm a Debian developer. Until someone goes to the trouble of getting those words changed (a process that doesn't happen on this particular mailing list, I might add), the only definition of software that allows us to ship half the stuff we do is the one that treats all data as software; which means there is also a very clear line that marks stuff we *aren't* allowed to ship. As a developer, I am by no means in a position to try to interpret what the phrasers of the Social Contract /really/ meant to say. They wrote what they wrote, and I agreed to it as written; as did many other developers we have today, who were not involved in the original composition of the Social Contract and the DFSG. I believe it would be useful, and not in conflict with the spirit of Debian, to make it clear that documentation can still be considered free even if it limits the manner in which modifications are made. But I could be very wrong -- which is why it's so important that such a change be made through the established procedure, rather than by tacit agreement. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpiCK9NW8b7d.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:03:11PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: The history section in my book, which is declared invarient in the license, was written by Ian M. and has no technical bearing on the rest of the book's content, but has every reason to be protected from modification. These particular words have a value that must be protected. I would have no complaint against the GFDL if that was all it did. But it also binds those words eternally to the technical documentation that they accompany. None of these issues force behavior on the reader, like code does for the CPU. So no freedoms are being infringed upon by forcing the text to remain unchanged. Here, and below, you speak about the freedoms of the reader as if the reader is merely a consumer and would never ever want to re-use parts of the work in future works. That view is contrary to what we are trying to create with free software. Why _should_ documentation be any different? I'll pull your example up from below: Using my book as an example, there have been many patches submitted either for spelling or content. I have included all those that were correct ;-) I have never seen the book published with changes that were not made by me, so it isn't clear to me just what the pressing modification requirement is in the first place... Many authors of non-free software make exactly this argument. They have a right to think that way, but it does not make their software free. As a small example, consider that someone might wish to condense part of your book into a reference card that can be mounted on a mousepad. Unfortunately, the license will requires that Ian M's history of Debian be reproduced on this reference card somehow, thereby making it less useful. Would you still say the reader has all necessary freedoms? The freedom of expression of the author is what is being protected by this clause. The freedom to express opinion without having those statements twisted into something completely different is one of the reasons for the creation of the copyright in the first place. A version of the GFDL that allowed deletion but not modification of such sections would be perfectly acceptable to me. Richard Braakman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:04:15AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: Using my book as an example, there have been many patches submitted either for spelling or content. I have included all those that were correct ;-) I have never seen the book published with changes that were not made by me, so it isn't clear to me just what the pressing modification requirement is in the first place... Many authors of non-free software make exactly this argument. They have a right to think that way, but it does not make their software free. As a small example, consider that someone might wish to condense part of your book into a reference card that can be mounted on a mousepad. Unfortunately, the license will requires that Ian M's history of Debian be reproduced on this reference card somehow, thereby making it less useful. Would you still say the reader has all necessary freedoms? Excerpting is allowed by copyright law under the fair use principle, and one need not accept any license governing a work to exercise that right to fair use. Well, unless you live in the US and the copyright holder has encrypted the file using ROT-13 to prevent illegal copying, in which case you're screwed under the DMCA. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpR5JNqebqOb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:17:48PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: As a small example, consider that someone might wish to condense part of your book into a reference card that can be mounted on a mousepad. Unfortunately, the license will requires that Ian M's history of Debian be reproduced on this reference card somehow, thereby making it less useful. Would you still say the reader has all necessary freedoms? Excerpting is allowed by copyright law under the fair use principle, and one need not accept any license governing a work to exercise that right to fair use. What's the line? Using any descriptions would put you in serious danger on something as small as a reference card (if it were to be sold commerically.) Even if I'm wrong, there's still the problem that fair use isn't very well defined, especially not internationally. It's much nicer to have the clear approval of the author. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. If you don't have it you're on the other side. - K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:26:11PM -0500, David Starner wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:17:48PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: As a small example, consider that someone might wish to condense part of your book into a reference card that can be mounted on a mousepad. Unfortunately, the license will requires that Ian M's history of Debian be reproduced on this reference card somehow, thereby making it less useful. Would you still say the reader has all necessary freedoms? Excerpting is allowed by copyright law under the fair use principle, and one need not accept any license governing a work to exercise that right to fair use. What's the line? Using any descriptions would put you in serious danger on something as small as a reference card (if it were to be sold commerically.) Even if I'm wrong, there's still the problem that fair use isn't very well defined, especially not internationally. It's much nicer to have the clear approval of the author. If you're concerned that fair use is not sufficiently well-protected at the international level, perhaps it would be worthwhile to ask the FSF that they build such protection into their GFDL? If the main objections people have to the GFDL are in connection with derived works commonly held to fall under 'fair use', then this seems like a reasonable solution to me. Of course, I don't think that's the only objection people have to the GFDL. But as far as condensing a book onto a mousepad goes, that doesn't do much for arguing against the GFDL, either, because it would be nearly impossible to prove copyright infringement in that case. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpsXErlAho47.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: DFSG stand for Debian Free Software Guidelines. Yes, and since Debian is 100% Free Software, that applies to everything in Debian. In any case, I don't see why an invariant rant about the evils of Microsoft-extended Kerbeous (for example) is all right in documentation and not in a comment in source code. I certainly don't want to see non-modifiable fonts or game data in Debian. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. If you don't have it you're on the other side. - K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
This one time, at band camp, Aurelien Jarno wrote: DFSG stand for Debian Free Software Guidelines. IMHO we ave to create a DFDG, Debian Free Documentation Guidelines. I wrote this up last night after getting fed up with this thread, then modified it this morning after reading the thread on -legal that was referred to. Flame away. http://people.debian.org/~jaq/jfdl.html -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://spacepants.org/jaq.gpg Balial This port may thing it's fortified, butt I seem to be mounting a pretty good assault -- #sodfest97 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:27:40AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: DFSG stand for Debian Free Software Guidelines. IMHO we ave to create a DFDG, Debian Free Documentation Guidelines. Why? What freedoms are important for software that aren't for documentation? If the GFDL fails the DFSG, I'd say the proper response *isn't* to craft a new set of guidelines for documentation to make it fit. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: Revisionist history, for one. I'm sure the FSF wouldn't appreciate the GCC document being modified to make it look like Linus Torvalds wrote GCC, for example. How does the GFDL stop that? I can add a section to the GCC documentation claiming that I wrote GCC (and emacs, too) and there's nothing in the license that stops me. The GFDL does stop me from changing the texinfo file without noting my changes (i.e. I can't put words in people's mouths); not that people prone to do such things really care about licenses . . . Or are we just interested in having control in how the system works? What non-technical material appears when a document comes up is certainly part of how the system works. You can't change a manual with invariant sections into a manpage or a helpscreen without carrying all the invariant sections along; clumsy in the first case and possibly impossible in the second. I use Linux in part to get away from every decent cheap program in Windows having ads; if Caldera funds some new manpages, and every manpage new starts with Caldera - the system of the future. Upgrade your system to Caldera and it will be 35% faster than your older distribution. More packages than blah blah blah ... then that's a serious annoyance, that I'm going to want to remove or at least move. If the license doesn't let me, then then I don't really have control of how my system works. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. If you don't have it you're on the other side. - K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 03:57:42PM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote: This one time, at band camp, Aurelien Jarno wrote: DFSG stand for Debian Free Software Guidelines. IMHO we ave to create a DFDG, Debian Free Documentation Guidelines. I wrote this up last night after getting fed up with this thread, then modified it this morning after reading the thread on -legal that was referred to. Flame away. http://people.debian.org/~jaq/jfdl.html Well written. Thanks. One issue though: The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. --^^^ Shouldn't it say must? Regards, // Ola -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://spacepants.org/jaq.gpg Balial This port may thing it's fortified, butt I seem to be mounting a pretty good assault -- #sodfest97 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- - Ola Lundqvist --- / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Björnkärrsgatan 5 A.11 \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 584 36 LINKÖPING | | +46 (0)13-17 69 83 +46 (0)70-332 1551 | | http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 | \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 / --- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 10:01:15AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: Why? What freedoms are important for software that aren't for documentation? Revisionist history, for one. I'm sure the FSF wouldn't appreciate the GCC document being modified to make it look like Linus Torvalds wrote GCC, for example. That would involve removing names from copyright notices, which isn't allowed for text *or* code. This doesn't seem to answer the question; the DFSG already allows making certain things inviolate for the purpose of maintaining history (GPL changelogs, for example.) If the GFDL fails the DFSG, I'd say the proper response *isn't* to craft a new set of guidelines for documentation to make it fit. If software is licensed under the GFDL with Invariant Sections, yes. But we're not talking about software; we're talking about documentation. Except that a large part of the discussion is exactly whether documentation is considered software for the purposes of the DFSG, and you and many others are (incorrectly and repeatedly) speaking as if the issue is settled. I've yet to see an argument as to why Debian should call a text with the GNU Manifesto permanently embedded in it free, when it wouldn't do the same for a software license that did the same thing. To me, it seems straightforward: understandable, but not free. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
This one time, at band camp, Jamie Wilkinson wrote: I wrote this up last night after getting fed up with this thread, then modified it this morning after reading the thread on -legal that was referred to. Flame away. http://people.debian.org/~jaq/jfdl.html Of course, I meant http://people.debian.org/~jaq/jfdg.html -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://spacepants.org/jaq.gpg He who laughs last thinks slowest! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
This one time, at band camp, Ola Lundqvist wrote: On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 03:57:42PM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote: http://people.debian.org/~jaq/jfdg.html Well written. Thanks. One issue though: The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. --^^^ Shouldn't it say must? Good point, well argued. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://spacepants.org/jaq.gpg Definition: A definition is something that defines what a word or phrase means. The definition of `definition' is something that defines what it means to define what something means. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GNU FDL (was Re: Bug#141561: gnu-standards: Non-free =?iso-8859-15?q?software in?= main)
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:53:54AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: DFSG stand for Debian Free Software Guidelines. Yes, and since Debian is 100% Free Software, that applies to everything in Debian. Documentation isn't software. Neither are conffiles, icons, etc. So, if we're to be true to our creed, here's what we have to do: Ahh, but icons which fail the DFSG have been declared non-free in the past. So we have (still more) precedent for applying the DFSG to non-software. -- Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] I swallowed your goldfish Granted, Win95's look wasn't all that new either - Apple tried to sue Microsoft for copying the Macintosh UI / trash can icon, until Microsoft pointed out that Apple got many of its Mac ideas (including the trash can icon) from Xerox ParcPlace. Xerox is probably still wondering why everyone is interested in their trash cans. -- Danny Thorpe, Borland Delphi RR pgpco4to2tUfg.pgp Description: PGP signature
