Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 09:51:05AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Just upload the package, there will be someone checking the package and its licence, since it is a new package, and he will be one of the peoples you will have to convince and who has the final saying. Bzzt! NO! Well, but the problem was that debian-legal was not very helpfull in solving this problem, and the thread was disolving into just plain stuborness, or so i did understand it. Not all subscribers to debian-legal have final say on the issues, i think. Do not just upload packages with license questions. Sort the questions out *first* and don't try and hide them or force the FTP queue masters to do your job. Well, the idea was that the future maintainer believed the licence issues were solved, that any remaining problems were due to unclearness in the DFSG about it and so on, flaming on debian-legal would not advance anything about this issue, only make people bitter, so another solution would be nice. In my opinion, the license in question is problematic for Debian. Branden, what do you think? The point, as i understand it, is that the DFSG apparently allows distribution of stuff wich can be sold as an aggregate work (well, this is just to cover us because we distribute CDs, isn't it :))), even in paper form, and o'reilly agreed to that, and then the discution became about if i bundle a one line comment with it, would it be an aggregation, and other such, which in my opinion, are not the problem here, because the licence appears to comply with what is _written_ in the DFSG, and not what obscure meaning can be extracted from it by people wanting to play with words. Anyway, if people want to take o'reilly's work, and just add a comment and then redistribute it, i am sure o'reilly will not be happy about it, and it will be up to the courts to sort of this problem. But anyway, it is not us who will have a problem about it, and if someone wants to do a book of debian packaged books, or somethihng such, he could, so it is DFSG compliant. Also, the only way in which we can solve this problem would be to add some clarification to this point, to explain in the DFSG what exact inbterpretation is meant about aggregation, and not bicker about, if aggregation is meant, if a work + 1 line of text is an aggregation (well, altough it is in words, it is not in spirit). At least that is how i understood this, and i agree that i didn't invest myself much about it, but i know stefano, and i know, that if he felt that it was not ok to put it in main, then he would not do it, and that is why i suggested that he uploaded it. Also he was not asking about wanting to put things in main, but what was the best place for it, he discussed with oreilly, which read the DFSG and proposed their licence accordyingly. And now i have said enough about it, for someone who did not follow the discution, maybe a bit too much even ... Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anyway, if people want to take o'reilly's work, and just add a comment and then redistribute it, i am sure o'reilly will not be happy about it, and it will be up to the courts to sort of this problem. But anyway, it is not us who will have a problem about it, and if someone wants to do a book of debian packaged books, or somethihng such, he could, so it is DFSG compliant. Can someone take all and only the O'Reilly books from the Debian distribution, and print them, and sell them (as an aggregate) to whoever they want?
Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 11:42:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anyway, if people want to take o'reilly's work, and just add a comment and then redistribute it, i am sure o'reilly will not be happy about it, and it will be up to the courts to sort of this problem. But anyway, it is not us who will have a problem about it, and if someone wants to do a book of debian packaged books, or somethihng such, he could, so it is DFSG compliant. Can someone take all and only the O'Reilly books from the Debian distribution, and print them, and sell them (as an aggregate) to whoever they want? I don't know, but notice that this is a constructive reply, which we could ask Oreilly to clarify, and not something comparable with the previous messages on this thread. If you tell stefano, we feel that this licence is non DFSG free, but don't give more precise objections, i understand that he will get frustrated. And the one line aggregation is not a good example, i don't think it will hold in court altough IANAL. Friendly, Sven LUther
Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know, but notice that this is a constructive reply, which we could ask Oreilly to clarify, and not something comparable with the previous messages on this thread. Look, the procedure is to ask debian-legal. Sometimes things take discussion and time. Feel free to enter the discussion too. But your attitude is totally bogus here. Sometimes we have to argue through something, sometimes it really takes a while. It's not appropriate for you to declare I'm going to ignore debian-legal and ask the FTP masters to do it. If you tell stefano, we feel that this licence is non DFSG free, but don't give more precise objections, i understand that he will get frustrated. And the one line aggregation is not a good example, i don't think it will hold in court altough IANAL. What do you mean by won't hold in court? The DFSG isn't a court-enforced document. It's up to Debian, and only Debian, to decide what meets it. So far, we have generally chosen to interpret the aggregation clause *very* strictly, as requiring even trivial aggregations to be permitted. The license should also be neutral about the medium it is distributed on. O'Reilly really doesn't want free documentation. It's perfectly clear why; they have *never* wanted free documentation. Thomas
Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 03:16:53PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote: Woody is coming and I don't want to miss the package for a long long long legal disquisition. Sorry, wrong list for that ;) Why, if you tell him clearly that it is not DFSG free, then the package will go into non-free, and that is it, but it will ship. Also, if you decide it will be non free, then is this a modification of the DFSG, a clarification that will be known only to the people involved and may well be forgotten for another similar problem in the future, or will it be filled somewhere accesible and advertised ? My feeling is that it is DFSG non free, or at least that we interpret the DFSG as such, it even seemed strange to me this bit about aggregation, which seem meaningless if you interpret it so, and i ask myself why it was put there, and for what useage. But anyway, for other people to know it and for it to not be a one time thing, it should either be put in words in the DFSG (heavy as it may be), or at least in some DFSG explanation and interpretation faq or something. And the debian-legal archive is _not_ such a faq. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
Hi, mmmh, this should probably be on debian-project or something... On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 06:36:37PM -0600, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote: Marcus Brinkmann wrote: There have been several cases in the past where we include and the FSF exclude, and none I am aware of where it is the other way round (although the GFDL might become such a case). Prominent example is the Artistic License (older version), which we advertise as free software license, while the FSF does not. It has worked with the Perl people on a revised Artistic License that resolves the issue. At the QA following his lecture in Chicago on Halloween, 2001, RMS mentioned a problem he had just found out about at the time--Debian's different (I believe RMS used the term weaker which may be more appropriate) standard of free software compelled the FSF to make their own version of -something-. Yes, it is a serious problem for the FSF. Now you could say scrap the FSF, this is Debian, and we do our own thing, but many GNU people are also Debian maintainers, and the differences are small, and RMS wants to promote Debian as _the_ GNU distribution (Debian GNU/Linux and Debian GNU/Hurd), something that would be very beneficial for Debian. These are good reasons to make it possible for the FSF to point to Debian as the distribution of GNU in some way. What this some way is, that is open for debate. It can be a special tag for packages, it can be some technical means to make some things easily the default (like the apt sources.list not mentioning the non-free and contrib sections). It doesn't need to be the default, it just should be easy for the FSF to make it the default on the version of Debian they would ship and make available. This is all very vague, but I am not prepared to comment on the details here and now. Some of these issues have been discussed in the past. I hesitate to consider the options the FSF has if this can't be done. I believe it can be done, and I also believe that it is in the interest of the majority. I understood the something to be a GNU Hurd distribution. In other words, I came away with the impression the FSF would make their own GNU Hurd distribution to deliver a completely free software operating system according to FSF's definition of free software. Did I misunderstand what RMS was talking about? If not, is this FSF distribution still going forward? Actually, no. The idea was always to make Debian GNU/Hurd the official GNU Hurd distribution. However, the GNU system is available with the kernel being Linux, too, for good reasons. And the issues I mentioned above are the same for Debian GNU/Linux and Debian GNU/Hurd anyway. To put a short answer to your questions: There is no distribution of the GNU/Hurd system in preperation beside Debian GNU/Hurd (if there is one, I don't know about it and it is definitely not endorsed by the FSF). Most of the core developers in the Hurd are Debian members, and we have always said that Debian GNU/Hurd is the one to go. However, the FSF would certainly offer and promote Debian GNU/Linux and Debian GNU/Hurd, not just one or the other, if it is possible under the standard the FSF sets for itself. OTOH, it could offer neither if it these standards can not be met in some way. One last note: nothing that Debian can do can ever prevent the FSF from basing a distribution on Debian, that is not the point at all. The question is just if it is technically and politically feasible. I think the current situation is it is not there yet, but it is close, and can happen. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann GNUhttp://www.gnu.org[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also, if you decide it will be non free, then is this a modification of the DFSG, a clarification that will be known only to the people involved and may well be forgotten for another similar problem in the future, or will it be filled somewhere accesible and advertised ? Nope, it's already understood by the DFSG to be nonfree. We have not yet thought there would be any benefit of some kind of summation of debian-legal opinions. There are, of course the archives. And the collected experience of a big giant bunch of people. My feeling is that it is DFSG non free, or at least that we interpret the DFSG as such, it even seemed strange to me this bit about aggregation, which seem meaningless if you interpret it so, and i ask myself why it was put there, and for what useage. Ah, such questions are in the bowels of history. Probably it's best to chalk it up to a mistaken conception of what freeness needs to include, and one that we can harmlessly fix. But anyway, for other people to know it and for it to not be a one time thing, it should either be put in words in the DFSG (heavy as it may be), or at least in some DFSG explanation and interpretation faq or something. It's always workable the way it is now. The rule is, in essence, all the parts have to be free, just about however you want to distribute them.
Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:00:21AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't know, but notice that this is a constructive reply, which we could ask Oreilly to clarify, and not something comparable with the previous messages on this thread. Look, the procedure is to ask debian-legal. Sometimes things take discussion and time. Feel free to enter the discussion too. And sometimes you get totally ignored, yes, i know, ... I have followed this as best i could, but without letting my other debian tasks aside, and well, there is real life, not everyone can afford to have a debian related pay job like some, ... But your attitude is totally bogus here. Sometimes we have to argue through something, sometimes it really takes a while. It's not appropriate for you to declare I'm going to ignore debian-legal and ask the FTP masters to do it. Ok, i stand corrected, ... I apologize for even suggesting it (altough it _did_ further clarify the dsicution, didn't it) ... If you tell stefano, we feel that this licence is non DFSG free, but don't give more precise objections, i understand that he will get frustrated. And the one line aggregation is not a good example, i don't think it will hold in court altough IANAL. What do you mean by won't hold in court? The DFSG isn't a court-enforced document. It's up to Debian, and only Debian, to decide what meets it. Well, the only problem we have trully on this point, is that someonbe can take the stuff out of the debian distribution, and make a book of it, adding a one liner to it. If this happen, then surely oreilly will take them to court, if they feel like it, and it is out of our hands. And anyway, adding a one liner and publishing it, is not true to the meaning of the first article to the DFSG, it is a play with words, an evasion, whatever, i guess you understand me. So far, we have generally chosen to interpret the aggregation clause *very* strictly, as requiring even trivial aggregations to be permitted. The license should also be neutral about the medium it is distributed on. Well, why not simply drop this clause, if it can be circumvented easily by adding a one liner, one wonders why it went into the DFSG in the first place, and what we would have to remove from debian if we would remove this clause. O'Reilly really doesn't want free documentation. It's perfectly clear why; they have *never* wanted free documentation. Ok, but ... My problem is that i would really like to have this documentation installed on my computer, so i can look at itwhen i want, even if i don't own the book. This is already possible, since they make the full book available per web, but it would be ncie to have it also in debian, so i can install it form the debian CDs on my offline home box. (altough i own the book also) Not what is the problem with this ? It adds to the value of debian, adds to the freedom of the users, who may wich to ship only part of it, collect it with other valuable info and so on. But the non printable clause, to whom does it add freedom, only to those who wqnt to print the book and sell it, i guess it doesn't even block people from printing it for themselves, or joining money to have a set of them printed, where each copy will get to the personal use of the people printing them, and not sold. The only people who will have a problem with this, would be those guys who look at the debian stuff, and say, look at this nice book, let's get it print it withtout change, and sell it to make profit. This kind of behavior adds nothing to the debian community nor to the society in general, it only makes some people richer and that is it. Also, when would we consider that we should only use open source hardware to run debian ? Friendly, Sven Luther Thomas
Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:03:47AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also, if you decide it will be non free, then is this a modification of the DFSG, a clarification that will be known only to the people involved and may well be forgotten for another similar problem in the future, or will it be filled somewhere accesible and advertised ? Nope, it's already understood by the DFSG to be nonfree. We have not yet thought there would be any benefit of some kind of summation of debian-legal opinions. There are, of course the archives. And the collected experience of a big giant bunch of people. and the influence of the cabal :))) My feeling is that it is DFSG non free, or at least that we interpret the DFSG as such, it even seemed strange to me this bit about aggregation, which seem meaningless if you interpret it so, and i ask myself why it was put there, and for what useage. Ah, such questions are in the bowels of history. Probably it's best to chalk it up to a mistaken conception of what freeness needs to include, and one that we can harmlessly fix. Yes, please, remove it and clarify this stuff. (it would need a vote though, isn't it ? But anyway, for other people to know it and for it to not be a one time thing, it should either be put in words in the DFSG (heavy as it may be), or at least in some DFSG explanation and interpretation faq or something. It's always workable the way it is now. The rule is, in essence, all the parts have to be free, just about however you want to distribute them. But it makes for lost time speaking about it, for misinterpretation from outside folk (like the oreilly guys reading the dfsg and thinking it is ok) and weaken our position. Again, clarifying this in the source would be much better than long discutions. ... Ok, i have to go now, i already lost too much time on this, and real life work is waiting :((( Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And sometimes you get totally ignored, yes, i know, ... Um, you didn't get totally ignored. Your complaint was that you didn't get an instant unequivocal answer. I have followed this as best i could, but without letting my other debian tasks aside, and well, there is real life, not everyone can afford to have a debian related pay job like some, ... Um, I don't think any of us have that. Anyway, the thing to do is to have a tad of patience. Well, the only problem we have trully on this point, is that someonbe can take the stuff out of the debian distribution, and make a book of it, adding a one liner to it. If this happen, then surely oreilly will take them to court, if they feel like it, and it is out of our hands. If this is a possibility, it is one we cannot tolerate, and so we must be sure that O'Reilly will not do so. If there is any chance they will do so, then the package simply cannot be part of Debian. And anyway, adding a one liner and publishing it, is not true to the meaning of the first article to the DFSG, it is a play with words, an evasion, whatever, i guess you understand me. I think the attempted O'Reilly license is the evasion, the attempt to pretend to be a fan of free software while actually undermining it. It's a game that O'Reilly is *very* adept at playing. Well, why not simply drop this clause, if it can be circumvented easily by adding a one liner, one wonders why it went into the DFSG in the first place, and what we would have to remove from debian if we would remove this clause. Meta-discussion, best entertained on the proper lists. :) Not here, right now. Not what is the problem with this ? It adds to the value of debian, adds to the freedom of the users, who may wich to ship only part of it, collect it with other valuable info and so on. It's not free. That's the problem. But the non printable clause, to whom does it add freedom, only to those who wqnt to print the book and sell it, i guess it doesn't even block people from printing it for themselves, or joining money to have a set of them printed, where each copy will get to the personal use of the people printing them, and not sold. Yes, those people lose. Those people may well be *you*. Or others. Debian is for *everyone* and not only non-commercial uses. By your argument, we should just add realplayer to Debian! The only people who will have a problem with this, would be those guys who look at the debian stuff, and say, look at this nice book, let's get it print it withtout change, and sell it to make profit. This kind of behavior adds nothing to the debian community nor to the society in general, it only makes some people richer and that is it. Indeed. So why is O'Reilly doing it?
Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, please, remove it and clarify this stuff. (it would need a vote though, isn't it ? And discussion somewhere else. :) But it makes for lost time speaking about it, for misinterpretation from outside folk (like the oreilly guys reading the dfsg and thinking it is ok) and weaken our position. Again, clarifying this in the source would be much better than long discutions. ... Well, the DFSG is not some kind of if you meet this, we promise you pass. It's an *internal* guideline for Debian. We make *our* (Debian's) judgement--our includes you, Sven--and then decide what we do. If it's really important for their package to be in Debian, then they should ask us.
Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
Scripsit Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 06:36:37PM -0600, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote: At the QA following his lecture in Chicago on Halloween, 2001, RMS mentioned a problem he had just found out about at the time--Debian's different (I believe RMS used the term weaker which may be more appropriate) standard of free software compelled the FSF to make their own version of -something-. Yes, it is a serious problem for the FSF. It would be interesting to know what the exact problem in case is. It is well known the RMS does not sympathize with the existence of the non-free and contrib parts of the archive - but this has been well known indeed for several years now, and cannot be the thing that, supposedly, just suddenly turned up during last fall. Is there anything new I have missed here? -- Henning Makholm Man vælger jo selv sine forbilleder.
Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:03:47AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My feeling is that it is DFSG non free, or at least that we interpret the DFSG as such, it even seemed strange to me this bit about aggregation, which seem meaningless if you interpret it so, and i ask myself why it was put there, and for what useage. Ah, such questions are in the bowels of history. Probably it's best to chalk it up to a mistaken conception of what freeness needs to include, and one that we can harmlessly fix. Actually, I think it is meant to strengthen the clause, not weaken it. Some packages come with licenses that restrict what other software it can be bundled with. For example, a license might specify that if a package is distributed on CD, then all the other software on that CD must be free. DFSG#1 forbids such a restriction. Richard Braakman
Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:23:48AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, please, remove it and clarify this stuff. (it would need a vote though, isn't it ? And discussion somewhere else. :) Ok, i guess devbian-vote wqould be the right place ? Or maybe debian-dfsg-modifications ? But it makes for lost time speaking about it, for misinterpretation from outside folk (like the oreilly guys reading the dfsg and thinking it is ok) and weaken our position. Again, clarifying this in the source would be much better than long discutions. ... Well, the DFSG is not some kind of if you meet this, we promise you pass. It's an *internal* guideline for Debian. We make *our* (Debian's) judgement--our includes you, Sven--and then decide what we do. If it's really important for their package to be in Debian, then they should ask us. Mmm, not sure, the DFSG is more than just our internal standard, it is a guideline for all the people out there, and also it is an internal standard on which we have to look, especially as people change. Following the DFSG and clarifying it as possible if also the guarant of the fairness of the decision, and the guardians against cabalistic decision making on licences, ... That said, it is not oreilly who want their book into debian, it is stefano, and also the other debian/ocaml maintainers which think it would be a usefull addition for the debian users. Stefano did contact Oreilly about the licence issue, did discuss with them, and asked on advice on debian-legal, on how to best solve this. He is a valuable debian member, and i don't think his opinion is against freeness, nor is he advocating Oreilly's position, and that is quickly forgotten here. Ok, let's stop here, i don't think i have more to say anyway. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 10:15:34AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: At the QA following his lecture in Chicago on Halloween, 2001, RMS mentioned a problem he had just found out about at the time--Debian's different (I believe RMS used the term weaker which may be more appropriate) standard of free software compelled the FSF to make their own version of -something-. Yes, it is a serious problem for the FSF. It would be interesting to know what the exact problem in case is. It is well known the RMS does not sympathize with the existence of the non-free and contrib parts of the archive - but this has been well known indeed for several years now, and cannot be the thing that, supposedly, just suddenly turned up during last fall. Upon re-reading your mail I don't feel I exactly answered your question, although I hope you find my reply an interesting read anyway. One thing RMS thought for some time was that the Debian GNU/Hurd is independant from Debian GNU/Linux in its choice of packages and policy. Our infrastructure doesn't even give us the option for that (otherwise we could at least kick out that obnoxious makedev_all.deb ;) Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann GNUhttp://www.gnu.org[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
Debian/GNU/FSF (was Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section)
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:39:28PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: [...] The serious problem for the FSF is very easy to understand: It is not acceptable for the FSF that Debian decides what goes into the GNU system and what not. [...] So there is a third solution: remove GNU name from Debian GNU/* distros. Denis
Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
So far, we have generally chosen to interpret the aggregation clause *very* strictly, as requiring even trivial aggregations to be permitted. The license should also be neutral about the medium it is distributed on. Well, why not simply drop this clause, if it can be circumvented easily by adding a one liner, one wonders why it went into the DFSG in the first place, and what we would have to remove from debian if we would remove this clause. I agree that it would be nice if someone had the energy to follow through on changes like this. However changes to the DSFG are not easily done. But this does appear to be a weak spot. My problem is that i would really like to have this documentation installed on my computer, so i can look at itwhen i want, even if i don't own the book. This is already possible, since they make the full book available per web, but it would be ncie to have it also in debian, so i can install it form the debian CDs on my offline home box. (altough i own the book also) Not what is the problem with this ? It adds to the value of debian, adds to the freedom of the users, who may wich to ship only part of it, collect it with other valuable info and so on. It adds _some_ value to the CD for the end user. But the same can be argued about adding any non-free software. But the non printable clause, to whom does it add freedom, only to those who want to print the book and sell it, i guess it doesn't even block people from printing it for themselves, or joining money to have a set of them printed, where each copy will get to the personal use of the people printing them, and not sold. The only people who will have a problem with this, would be those guys who look at the debian stuff, and say, look at this nice book, let's get it print it without change, and sell it to make profit. This kind of behavior adds nothing to the debian community nor to the society in general, it only makes some people richer and that is it. Let me try the following: s/printing book/burning CDs/ But the non-burning clause, to whom does it add freedom, only to those who want to burn the CD and sell it, i guess it doesn't even block people from burning it for themselves, or joining money to have a set of them burned, where each copy will get to the personal use of the people burning them, and not sold. The only people who will have a problem with this, would be those guys who look at the debian stuff, and say, look at this nice distribution, let's burn CDs without change, and sell them to make profit. This kind of behavior adds nothing to the debian community nor to the society in general, it only makes some people richer and that is it. Now, we all now that the right to resell Debian CDs leads to a market where CDs costs a few dollars. Why would you think a company would get away with selling a re-printed O'Reilly book for $50 under such a license? Would the market allow it? The question becomes: Does O'Reilly wish to allow the possibility that the book will be reprinted for $5 or $10? Probably not before they have made their own money on the sale of the book. So let's acknowledge that the current license is non-free for this reason (unless they would allow a trivial aggregation). When they consider the book to have lost market value, they will consider releasing it under a free license, as they did with 'MH xmh: Email for Users Programmers' (http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/mh/) which I packaged for Debian as mh-book. Peter
Re: Debian/GNU/FSF (was Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section)
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Denis Barbier) On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:39:28PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: [...] The serious problem for the FSF is very easy to understand: It is not acceptable for the FSF that Debian decides what goes into the GNU system and what not. [...] So there is a third solution: remove GNU name from Debian GNU/* distros. Which won't solve any problem anyone has confessed to having. -- Henning Makholm Panic. Alarm. Incredulity. *Thing* has not enough legs. Topple walk. Fall over not. Why why why? What *is* it?
Re: Debian/GNU/FSF (was Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section)
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 03:38:02PM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:39:28PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: [...] The serious problem for the FSF is very easy to understand: It is not acceptable for the FSF that Debian decides what goes into the GNU system and what not. [...] So there is a third solution: remove GNU name from Debian GNU/* distros. The GNU in Debian GNU/* has nothing to do with what the FSF considers to be the GNU system. The system is called Debian GNU/* because it is based on the GNU system. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann GNUhttp://www.gnu.org[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
after a long thread and a clarification with O'Reilly ...
... I managed to obtain another version of their notes for the book redistribution, following this notes the answer to Thomas' question is: On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 11:42:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Can someone take all and only the O'Reilly books from the Debian distribution, and print them, and sell them (as an aggregate) to whoever they want? Yes. And these are the new notes that O'Reilly wants to be present in the debian package of the book. === This document is the official (1.0) electronic version of the book D?veloppement d'applications avec Objective Caml, written by Emmanuel Chailloux, Pascal Manoury, and Bruno Pagano, and published by ?ditions O'Reilly under ISBN 2-84177-121-0. Authors and publishers are willing to make this document freely available on any medium, provided that - the content of the official version is not modified without expressed agreement of the authors or the publisher. - unofficial modifications expressely state so, while always providing users with a live pointer to the corresponding official version. - commercial products that include this document are themselves compliant with the DSFG and don't consist of this document only. - this very notice is made easily available to any user of the document === Now, this new version seems to clarify a bounce of problems, starting from the medium ranging to the aggregate problem. What you think about this now? Note that I will not upload in main unless we manage to reach an agreement on this list; moreover, I know that decisions needs discussions, but if we can't manage to reach an agreement I will upload the book in non-free, continue the discussion on this list and with O'Reilly and move the book to main if this will be the case when we eventually reach an agreement. Note also that (YES, I'm repeating myself) I don't know if O'Reilly fully understand the conseguence of the above notes, but these are not what we are discussing for, we are discussing about compliance with DFSG. If somebody wants to help O'Reilly in writing book license I can forward the O'Reilly contact to him that can propose himself for a legal consulence. I also have to say that Sven understood my points and explained them correctly, probably with an english that is better than mine :) Thanks Sven. Thanks Debian-Legal guys. Cheers. -- Stefano Zack Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate student of Computer Science @ University of Bologna, Italy - Information wants to be Open - pgpsANWWwe5O8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: after a long thread and a clarification with O'Reilly ...
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: ... I managed to obtain another version of their notes for the book redistribution, following this notes the answer to Thomas' question is: On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 11:42:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Can someone take all and only the O'Reilly books from the Debian distribution, and print them, and sell them (as an aggregate) to whoever they want? Yes. And these are the new notes that O'Reilly wants to be present in the debian package of the book. I think that this note must be located within the book and at the download location as well, since it must not be specific to the debian package. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: after a long thread and a clarification with O'Reilly ...
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 04:28:59PM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote: And these are the new notes that O'Reilly wants to be present in the debian package of the book. I think that this note must be located within the book and at the download location as well, since it must not be specific to the debian package. O'Reilly wants that each copy of the book contains these notes. The web site is maintained by O'Reilly and I can't force them to modify the content of the web site, if they don't do so one can't distribute the book dowloaded from the web site without written permission but one can distribute the book obtained from debian package. Again: O'Reilly's problems. Anyway I will suggest O'Reilly to add these copyright notes also to the web site. Cheers. -- Stefano Zack Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ# 33538863 Home Page: http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro Undergraduate student of Computer Science @ University of Bologna, Italy - Information wants to be Open - pgpjA08D4DXRI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: after a long thread and a clarification with O'Reilly ...
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 04:55:01PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: O'Reilly wants that each copy of the book contains these notes. The web site is maintained by O'Reilly and I can't force them to modify the content of the web site, if they don't do so one can't distribute the book dowloaded from the web site without written permission but one can distribute the book obtained from debian package. But the content of the debian package is obtained from the website. (IIRC the source of the book is not available). The copyright notice of the debian package is related to what has been downloaded isn't? No matter the printed version has the notice or not. Anyway I will suggest O'Reilly to add these copyright notes also to the web site. This is a must-be IMHO. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:03:47AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Ah, such questions are in the bowels of history. Probably it's best to chalk it up to a mistaken conception of what freeness needs to include, and one that we can harmlessly fix. Actually, I think it is meant to strengthen the clause, not weaken it. Some packages come with licenses that restrict what other software it can be bundled with. For example, a license might specify that if a package is distributed on CD, then all the other software on that CD must be free. DFSG#1 forbids such a restriction. I think the intent of Section 1, and the consensus of debian-legal, would be expressed by the addition of the phrase in brackets: The license a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software [either alone or] as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. This would require discussion and a formal proposal, which I am not prepared to make at this time. Bob -- _ |_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] |_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palm City, FL USA GPG Key ID: 390D6559 PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9
Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:39:28PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: For example, we thought that some LDP documents are troublesome. Incidentially, the licenses of all LDP documents have been sorted out recently (Colin Watson was active at that), so this item seems to be resolved. Not quite, following a discussion with the release manager - but it certainly will be in the green and promised land after woody. 2. The external solution, this would mean that the FSF builds a distribution on top of Debian, which would really be mostly identical, with just a few changes. For example, some packages might be removed from main for license reasons. Some default configuration files might be changed to elide references to non-free. I have spent a bit of time (not enough) on the external solution, as I hoped that this would be the way of least resistance and maximum independence. It turns out that building such a distribution is not easy. For example, I had the idea of a repository in the FSF network which contains the necessary changes to the Debian repository, and otherwise just references to the Debian mirrors. But removing packages reliably seems to be impossible this way. If somebody has ideas about this, let me know. I'd say that the FSF ought to be building its own Packages file, which shouldn't be *too* difficult, provided that some care is taken to avoid packages suddenly losing dependencies. Perhaps it might be worth talking to people like Progeny who have maintained slightly-forked versions of Debian in the past. For example, just to remind everyone, RMS is not asking that Debian removes non-free and contrib. However, he requires that someone installing the GNU system will not have the option to add those to the apt config offered to him. So apt would be a good candidate to be replaced with a version of apt that contains a different sources.list configuration file, as one example (external solution). Alternatively, Debian could have a hidden flag that could be triggered by the FSF that does the same thing without overriding apt or other packages (internal solution). Sounds like this could be implemented with minor changes to base-config and/or debootstrap. It feels like most of the problems should be soluble using a Debian mirror with exclusions (could be implemented with reverse-depends logic from libapt-pkg feeding into the exclude list of a mirroring tool) plus an FSF autobuilder that helps to maintain the necessary forked versions. I confess that I've never personally done anything like this, though. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: after a long thread and a clarification with O'Reilly ...
Do they intend this as a notes or a license? On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: - commercial products that include this document are themselves compliant with the DSFG and don't consist of this document only. What's the point of the first statement: are themselves compliant with the DSFG? The statement doesn't make it any more true. A license saying this license is DSFG-compliant might well confuse people if the it was *not*. Even if it's found DSFG-compliant today, the interpretation might change. (Or the DSFG may change. Err, right.) Actually, they're saying that commercial products that include this document are, not the document itself, which is even messier. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:15:39PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:39:28PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: For example, we thought that some LDP documents are troublesome. Incidentially, the licenses of all LDP documents have been sorted out recently (Colin Watson was active at that), so this item seems to be resolved. Not quite, following a discussion with the release manager - but it certainly will be in the green and promised land after woody. Well, that counts fully in my book ;) It turns out that building such a distribution is not easy. For example, I had the idea of a repository in the FSF network which contains the necessary changes to the Debian repository, and otherwise just references to the Debian mirrors. But removing packages reliably seems to be impossible this way. If somebody has ideas about this, let me know. I'd say that the FSF ought to be building its own Packages file, which shouldn't be *too* difficult, provided that some care is taken to avoid packages suddenly losing dependencies. Perhaps it might be worth talking to people like Progeny who have maintained slightly-forked versions of Debian in the past. That was my very first idea. For the packages it would override, it would create a Packages file. For the packages that are in Debian, I don't see how you can make it work considering that filename entries in the packaging file are relative to the packages file location. So GNU would have to mirror the whole lot of Debian, which seems to be overkill. Or am I overlooking something? Extending it to absolute urls would probably work, but has the serious problem that you can only point to one mirror, and not let the user choose, so I don't like that at all. OTOH, having the exclusion list on the users system has also disadvantages, having it on the GNU server should be preferred. It feels like most of the problems should be soluble using a Debian mirror with exclusions (could be implemented with reverse-depends logic from libapt-pkg feeding into the exclude list of a mirroring tool) plus an FSF autobuilder that helps to maintain the necessary forked versions. I confess that I've never personally done anything like this, though. Well, yes. That is basically the worst case, but I hope for a solution with less overhead. I am not worried about the autobuilding of a few overrides, but mirroring the whole of Debian is expensive, and sounds a bit like overkill just to exclude one or two packages out of thousands. It might be the only way to do it properly, but I don't know if it is feasible for the FSF resource wise. I am still looking for a solution that has all the advantages of a seperate mirror but not its disadvantages. I have no good suggestion to make how to achieve this, though, at this stage. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann GNUhttp://www.gnu.org[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ok, i guess devbian-vote wqould be the right place ? Or maybe debian-dfsg-modifications ? Right now, there are people who think we are not allowed to even modify the DFSG. All that discussion is for debian-vote, I guess. Mmm, not sure, the DFSG is more than just our internal standard, it is a guideline for all the people out there, and also it is an internal standard on which we have to look, especially as people change. Following the DFSG and clarifying it as possible if also the guarant of the fairness of the decision, and the guardians against cabalistic decision making on licences, ... We make absolutely no promises that we are beholden to *anyone's* interpretation of the DFSG but our own.
Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The question is that we will block this package from enterring debian because of a clause which may, maybe, also have blocked other packages which we would not like being removed. But again, it can be dealt with at another time. If you know of any, we should discuss them. Are you saying the rule is being applied unfairly? If so, we need to have the details so they can be discussed. The real problem seems to be not the issue about aggregation, but specifically the case that distribution on different kinds of media is being treated differently, in a way which lets one be free, but not the other. But still, what you are opposing here, is the freedom of access to knowledge to the freedom of making money out of it. Which one do you feel is more important ? (Sorry, couldn't resist adding one more argument). Um, I'm in favor of both. I have no objection to O'Reilly making money by selling books. Free software (and free manuals) does not imply some kind of communistic lack-of-money world. Oreilly is a book publishing business, they had this book written, they published it, they distribute it all over the world, they want to make money from it, a part of which goes to the authors of the book. The FSF is also a book publishing business. The have books written, they publish them, they distribute them all over the world, they want to make money from them--and guess what--they don't find the need to have these kinds of restrictions on the manuals. (*) Debian is a software distribution (or at least that comes closest to what we do, but i guess we are much more than that, and the guardians of the only tru way too :))), we deal in free software, and documentation for it in electronic form, not book publishing. Where do you get electronic form from the DFSG? Thomas (*) The issues about the GFDL are very different in kind.
Re: after a long thread and a clarification with O'Reilly ...
Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - commercial products that include this document are themselves compliant with the DSFG and don't consist of this document only. This condition is not consistent with the DFSG. The DFSG requires that a program (or manual) be able to be distributed as part of an aggregate, even if other parts of that aggregate are themselves NOT free. A DFSG-free thing cannot restrict distribution to only free aggregations.
