Re: Outcome of PHPNuke discussion
Glenn Maynard wrote: On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 09:33:33PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: I'm sorry, but I'm totally lost in the discussion. Do we (=Debian) buy the statement from the FSF that the copyright notice at the bottom of any phpnuke-generated page must not be removed and that this is not a new restriction to the GPL? Was there such a statement, and are we sure it meant exactly this and wasn't being interpreted? (I seem to recall reading an interpretation of a statement that I didn't buy, but it was too long ago for me to remember clearly.) I found this one: http://phpnuke.org/modules.php?name=Newsfile=articlesid=49 says: I think a web-based message board clearly reads commands interactively. So, if there is such a notice, you can't remove it. But you could alter its form, so long as it is still appropriate. I guess this case is difficult, since you could interpret each php file as a program of its own, as well as the entire system as a program as a whole. Regards, Joey -- WARNING: Do not execute! This software violates patent EP0526034. http://www.elug.de/projekte/patent-party/patente/EP0526034 find / -name README -user root -print 2/dev/null Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Re: GDB manual
(Meanwhile, messages regarding the perceived problems have generally been ignored outright. Even messages asking for clarification: It looks to me like the FDL prohibits this. Depending on where and how you sent them, that might or might not indicate a problem. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the standard place for inquiries. If questions sent there did not get answered, please show me the unanswered message so I can investigate what went wrong. I will try to make sure it does not happen again. What about the entire set of comments on the draft version of the GFDL? [1] There was never a response to any of those comments. When people ask for explanation of a license, we try to answer in order to help them out. Criticism and demands are a different matter; we deal with that in whatever way suits us. Whether to change the GFDL is not a Debian decision, so I've decided not to discuss that here.
Re: Fw: [argouml-dev] Licence issue (debian in particular)
Henning == Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Henning Scripsit Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 09:33:50AM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: * You acknowledge that Software is not designed, licensed or intended for * use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear * facility. This seems to fail DFSG#6: No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor. Henning Im my reading, it is just a peculiarly written warranty Henning disclaimer ... hm, oops, no, the word licensed seems Henning definitely out of place here. Wonder what they mean by Henning that, but I agree that we should not consider it as free Henning until we get clarification from the licensor. It's not clear to me whether the word licenced refers to a software license, or to US regulatory licenses you would need to get in order to use said software in a nuclear facility. If we have the option of interpreting this text to mean that Sun asks you to acknowledge that the software has not been approved (licensed) for use in such facilities by the appropriate parts of the US government, then we should do so, especially if it renders the license free. --Sam
Re: GDB manual
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: What about the entire set of comments on the draft version of the GFDL? [1] There was never a response to any of those comments. When people ask for explanation of a license, we try to answer in order to help them out. Criticism and demands are a different matter; we deal with that in whatever way suits us. Whether to change the GFDL is not a Debian decision, so I've decided not to discuss that here. Is there a public forum where you are willing to discuss that? Edmund
Re: Outcome of PHPNuke discussion
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 02:06:38PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: Glenn Maynard wrote: On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 09:33:33PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: I'm sorry, but I'm totally lost in the discussion. Do we (=Debian) buy the statement from the FSF that the copyright notice at the bottom of any phpnuke-generated page must not be removed and that this is not a new restriction to the GPL? Was there such a statement, and are we sure it meant exactly this and wasn't being interpreted? (I seem to recall reading an interpretation of a statement that I didn't buy, but it was too long ago for me to remember clearly.) I found this one: http://phpnuke.org/modules.php?name=Newsfile=articlesid=49 says: I think a web-based message board clearly reads commands interactively. So, if there is such a notice, you can't remove it. But you could alter its form, so long as it is still appropriate. I guess this case is difficult, since you could interpret each php file as a program of its own, as well as the entire system as a program as a whole. The consensus was that, if you regard each php file as a program of its own, it fails the interactivity requirement; and that if you regard a web session as a single execution of the program, you don't get to require a copyright notice on *every* page -- just on the home page. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgplaMbQx3ttb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
From: Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] This problem is unfortunate, but no worse in the case of two ways of using the GFDL than with a pair of two different free software licenses. True, but this kind of problem never bites people who just use the GPL, while it seems to be biting people who just use the GFDL with alarming frequency. I would note that *even the FSF* has had trouble using the GFDL properly so as to avoid this problem. And even the FSF will be bitten by it again, should someone add some text to the GDB manual which the FSF incorporates back into its master copy, and then the FSF decides to modify the that document's invariant parts. The GFDL with any kind of invariant thing activated seems to largely break the commons property. In effect, each document is an isolated island, with serious transfer of text between documents made quite difficult. (At least, unless the same entity is in a position to relicense them both. In which case even a completely proprietary license would allow sharing, so this isn't a counterexample.) Regardless of whether this is an issue of freedom, it does seem to be a rather serious practical problem. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) Let me point out that just as Debian doesn't get to demand that the GFDL be changed, so also the FSF does not have a role in determining the interpretation of Debian's standards. I must take exception to this. Debian does indeed listen to the FSF, take its needs seriously, and listen to its arguments with an open mind and more importantly with an open heart. We are on the same side, working for the same ends. Debian is distributing the FSF's GNU system (plus a bunch of free applications and a kernel), a fact which we insist on acknowledging in the very name of our distribution. We nurture a Debian GNU/Hurd, and our founding documents codify ideas taken from the FSF. All of us were moved and motivated by RMS's eloquent writings on the subject. Debian has very close relations with upstream GNU developers, and strives to work together to solve technical problems and to advance our mutual goals. The same spirit of mutual respect and cooperation has carried through to license issues, where we should continue to strive to listen to and understand each other, and to try to work out any problems so as to together continue to advance the cause of the free software movement. Our cooperation on past license issues (KDE/Qt comes to mind) has been successful. So we do, in fact, have a history of working together to address license issues, both those of freedom per-se and those (like the KDE/Qt issue, and Mozilla as well) of convenience and the health of the copyleft commons.
Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
On 31/05/03 18:48 -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A political essay is (typically) written by certain persons to persuade the public of a certain position. If it is modified, it does not do its job. So it makes sense, socially, to say that these cannot be modified. This is an argument for invariant text, but not for irremovable text. Yes No. For example, a Free Software author wants to warn user for a specific usage of the software. The classical example is a RFID software that can be used as a tool against privacy. He adds a warning note in the documentation, the text is irremovable but other people can comment on the warning but they can't remove the warning. The (long) debate, as usual, is a matter of terminology. Can we find a solution by having a DFSG for documentation ? The scope of documentation and software seems to not be the same. For the documentation included in the software (in source code), this is software and the DFSG should apply. A software can have two documentation, a built-in and the official 'external' documentation. Just my .02 EUR, adulau -- -- Alexandre Dulaunoy (adulau) -- http://www.foo.be/ -- http://pgp.ael.be:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x44E6CBCD -- Knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance --that we can solve them Isaac Asimov pgpXUsBBzHErC.pgp Description: PGP signature
