Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:05:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:48:42PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: [database protection] Well, regardless of whether it's *called* copyright, it is a copy-right -- by virtue of the fact that it's an exclusive right granted to the creator to control the creation of copies of the work. That's not a very accurate definition of copyright, is it? If it involves controlling copies, surely there's copyright involved as well? Of course it's accurate. That's what copyright *means*. There are quite a few differences between copyright on the one hand, and database protecting laws on the other: s/copyright/the set of local laws labelled copyright/ Naturally the database directive isn't commonly referred to as a copyright. If it were, then someone might catch on that it's completely inconsistent with the rest of copyright law, and wonder why databases should enjoy such special protection. So the law is very carefully positioned as being separate from copyright; its purpose is, nevertheless, to control the creation of copies of works. * If you create a database, you have the right to - forbid reuse and/or requesting information from the database. Obviously, some people want to make some money out of creating a database :-) I don't understand this. It's self-evident to me that you have the right to not provide information to people if you so choose. How does this part of the law change anything? - Control the first sale inside the EU. However, you cannot forbid further sales; once the database has been sold inside the EU (with the permission of the creator of the database, obviously), the creator loses his right to control further selling of the database. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is not the case for copyrighted works. It is the case under any reasonable copyright regime. There are efforts now by various copyright holders to restrict the right of first sale through the enactment of shrink wrap licenses with the buyer, but at least in the US, copyright law still says that you can re-sell a copy of a work that's in your possession. You just can't copy it. Copyright isn't just about controlling who gets to copy what. It's also about protecting the original author. Under *your* copyright regime. In any case, those particular features would be more accurately described by the French term droit d'auteur rather than copyright. In English at least, the term copyright pretty clearly refers to the creation of copies. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpfChBhxn77S.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:11:03PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:05:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: * If you create a database, you have the right to - forbid reuse and/or requesting information from the database. Obviously, some people want to make some money out of creating a database :-) I don't understand this. It's self-evident to me that you have the right to not provide information to people if you so choose. How does this part of the law change anything? It doesn't. However, if it wouldn't be present, it would. It's a required part of the law to make it effective. - Control the first sale inside the EU. However, you cannot forbid further sales; once the database has been sold inside the EU (with the permission of the creator of the database, obviously), the creator loses his right to control further selling of the database. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is not the case for copyrighted works. It is the case under any reasonable copyright regime. There are efforts now by various copyright holders to restrict the right of first sale through the enactment of shrink wrap licenses with the buyer, but at least in the US, copyright law still says that you can re-sell a copy of a work that's in your possession. You just can't copy it. Hm. I wasn't too clear here, then. My course clearly states that once it's sold, you have the right to sell copies, too; the original creator does not have the right to restrict you to sell copies anymore. The difference between 'sale' and 'license' might be involved here, though, I'm not sure. As said, IANAL. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation. So is my neck, stop it anyway! -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462. pgpTlsCuFFOXt.pgp Description: PGP signature
license clarification for IRRToolSet
Hi *, what do you make of that? IRRToolSet is the Internet Routing Registry Toolset from RIPE containing very useful tools for admins of autonomous systems. I am pondering packaging it, so I took a look at its license and found that each source file contains two copyright statements and licenses. The copyright is now at RIPE NCC and they have a BSD-style (?) license. But below that is the notice from the old copyright holder (USC) with a license that only allows 'non-commercial' use and is thus non-free. See the complete text below. Now is this software DFSG-free or not? Thanks, Joerg // Copyright (c) 2001,2002RIPE NCC // // All Rights Reserved // // Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its // documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, // provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that // both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in // supporting documentation, and that the name of the author not be // used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the // software without specific, written prior permission. // // THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, INCLUDING // ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS; IN NO EVENT SHALL // AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY // DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN // AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF // OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. // // // Copyright (c) 1994 by the University of Southern California // All rights reserved. // // Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its // documentation in source and binary forms for lawful non-commercial // purposes and without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above // copyright notice appear in all copies and that both the copyright // notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, // and that any documentation, advertising materials, and other materials // related to such distribution and use acknowledge that the software was // developed by the University of Southern California, Information // Sciences Institute. The name of the USC may not be used to endorse or // promote products derived from this software without specific prior // written permission. // // THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DOES NOT MAKE ANY // REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE SUITABILITY OF THIS SOFTWARE FOR ANY // PURPOSE. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR // IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED // WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, // TITLE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. // // IN NO EVENT SHALL USC, OR ANY OTHER CONTRIBUTOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY // SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT, // OR OTHER FORM OF ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH, THE USE // OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. // // Questions concerning this software should be directed to // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // // Author(s): Cengiz Alaettinoglu [EMAIL PROTECTED] // John Mehringer [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Joerg joergland Wendland GPG: 51CF8417 FP: 79C0 7671 AFC7 315E 657A F318 57A3 7FBD 51CF 8417 pgpECMWAb2tVn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:11:14AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote: Let's play fair now: From WordNet (r) 1.7 : software n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or rules and associated documentation pertaining to the operation of a computer system and that are stored in read/write memory; the market for software is expected to expand I do not consider those files are associated documentation. They do not document the program they come with, unlike the manual. If the files are not associated then why are they THERE? If they are not associated, we can remove them. The license means we can NOT remove them, therefore, they are associated and are non-free. (or are you going to claim that a verbatim copying only license is Free?) No, qmail is non-free software and would not go into Debian. Considering we HAVE to include these non-free components, then neither is emacs free. Stephen
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Nathanael Nerode wrote: This is a very important point. I have stated before that I would not have serious objections to the FSF issuing a small number of non-free manuals for a good reason, as it has been doing for 15 years. (Nearly the entire GNU Project website is 'verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article' only, so there's further precedent for the GNU Project distributing non-free material.) What about DFSG FAQ draft? Do you think this can be applied to FDL documentation? # Q: Does whether some software is free depend solely on its license? A: Almost always, but there are rare exceptions. When necessary we take other considerations into account. So two packages with the same license could be judged differently based on extra-license comments the copyright holder has made regarding intent or interpretation, or based on how the contents of the package interact with license stipulations. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
Steve Langasek wrote: On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:05:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:48:42PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: [database protection] Well, regardless of whether it's *called* copyright, it is a copy-right -- by virtue of the fact that it's an exclusive right granted to the creator to control the creation of copies of the work. That's not a very accurate definition of copyright, is it? If it involves controlling copies, surely there's copyright involved as well? Of course it's accurate. That's what copyright *means*. Well, that may be so, but it does not mean you can apply all copyright law principles to database rights. There are other laws that give people rights to restrict copying, for example design patents, utility models or masks for chips. Naturally the database directive isn't commonly referred to as a copyright. If it were, then someone might catch on that it's completely inconsistent with the rest of copyright law, and wonder why databases should enjoy such special protection. So the law is very carefully positioned as being separate from copyright; its purpose is, nevertheless, to control the creation of copies of works. True. But my point was that you cannot use the criteria used in copyright law to determine whether a database has database rights. It is a separate law, and so must be interpreted in its own right. * If you create a database, you have the right to - forbid reuse and/or requesting information from the database. Obviously, some people want to make some money out of creating a database :-) I don't understand this. It's self-evident to me that you have the right to not provide information to people if you so choose. How does this part of the law change anything? The law forbids you to extract data from my protected database and to redistribute this data. It also forbids you to provide your own front-end to my database. Copyright isn't just about controlling who gets to copy what. It's also about protecting the original author. Under *your* copyright regime. In any case, those particular features would be more accurately described by the French term droit d'auteur rather than copyright. In English at least, the term copyright pretty clearly refers to the creation of copies. Unfortunately the legal meaning of copyright has gone way beyond the right to make copies. But maybe we should use droit d'auteur, copyright and database rights as three different terms to refer to different legal concepts. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Re: license clarification for IRRToolSet
On 2003-08-26 07:55:43 +0100 Joerg Wendland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] But below that is the notice from the old copyright holder (USC) with a license that only allows 'non-commercial' use and is thus non-free. See the complete text below. Now is this software DFSG-free or not? It seems fairly clearly not DFSG-free in the current form, but maybe RIPE have some permission to relicense the USC parts. It is probably worth seeking clarification. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
Branden Robinson wrote: If I recall correctly, U.S. legal tradition was ridiculed for not being grounded on sweat-of-the-brow arguments. In actual fact, very little IP law in the U.S. appears to be grounded on that. If I ridiculed US law for not supporting database rights, I apologize. However it is important to realize that database rights *are* based on a sweat-of-the-brow argument. And again, since they have nothing to do with copyright law, they do not need to be based on the Berne Convention, the Copyright Clause or other principles of copyright law. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Quoting Stephen Stafford [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:11:14AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote: Let's play fair now: From WordNet (r) 1.7 : software n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or rules and associated documentation pertaining to the operation of a computer system and that are stored in read/write memory; the market for software is expected to expand I do not consider those files are associated documentation. They do not document the program they come with, unlike the manual. If the files are not associated then why are they THERE? If they are not If they'd be out of the scope of DFSG, why would we care of them being there or not? I see nothing wrong in distributing Free Software advocacy. associated, we can remove them. The license means we can NOT remove them, therefore, they are associated and are non-free. (or are you going to claim No, we can remove them. that a verbatim copying only license is Free?) I claim that a speech is not software documentation and shall not be considered as such. You shall not modify someone speech, you shall not cut some part of someone's speech and tell everyone that you wrote it, and so on. There are limits everywhere in everyone's freedom. No, qmail is non-free software and would not go into Debian. Considering we HAVE to include these non-free components, then neither is emacs free. Again, keeping those files in Emacs doesn't make Debian less free, because they neither programs nor documentation so out of the scope of DFSG. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 01:27:41PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: Quoting Stephen Stafford [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:11:14AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote: Let's play fair now: From WordNet (r) 1.7 : software n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or rules and associated documentation pertaining to the operation of a computer system and that are stored in read/write memory; the market for software is expected to expand I do not consider those files are associated documentation. They do not document the program they come with, unlike the manual. If the files are not associated then why are they THERE? If they are not If they'd be out of the scope of DFSG, why would we care of them being there or not? I see nothing wrong in distributing Free Software advocacy. If we distribute it, it is currently not out of the scope of the DFSG. If you have a problem with this, write a GR -- but stop with the pointless grandstanding. Oh, and where the GFDL is concerned, what you apparently mean to say is, I see nothing wrong with requiring all distributors to also distribute Free Software advocacy. I do: it's a restriction on freedom. that a verbatim copying only license is Free?) I claim that a speech is not software documentation and shall not be considered as such. You shall not modify someone speech, you shall not cut some part of someone's speech and tell everyone that you wrote it, and so on. There are limits everywhere in everyone's freedom. We shall not distribute it. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpUojfYuMZm7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Quoting Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said: ^^^ Considering your attitude, I'm not going to discuss this with you any longer. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said: I claim that a speech is not software documentation and shall not be considered as such. You shall not modify someone speech, you shall not cut some part of someone's speech and tell everyone that you wrote it, and so on. There are limits everywhere in everyone's freedom. Nobody is suggesting that misattribution or misrepresentation should be allowed. This is a FAQ. See http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html, the section entitled It's Not About Misrepresentation.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Richard Braakman wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:26:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: In any case, your argument for Invariant Sections applies just as well to ^-(here I refer to Richard Stallman's argument) programs as it does to manuals! Would you consider a hypothetical program license to be free if it allowed 'off-topic' text which must be present unmodified in source and object code of all derived versions, and must be displayed (perhaps through a command-line option) by every derived program? Maybe you would, in which case you're consistent. I wouldn't. Heh, you choose an interesting example there. c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.) Richard Braakman My example was deliberate. :-) I am not very fond of that clause of the GPL myself. But it's worth noting that it doesn't specify any particular text. Instead, it gives a rather generic set of requirements. In a modified version, I can (must, in fact) fulfill these requirements with an announcement which is quite different from the one used on the original program. Furthermore, the announcement requirements are directly related to the legal status of the distributed program. So it's a very different case from GFDL-style Invariant Sections, and does not correspond to my example. --Nathanael
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Jerome Marant said: Quoting Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said: ^^^ Considering your attitude, I'm not going to discuss this with you any longer. -- Jérôme Marant My sincere apologies for the tone. I was telling you to please read the answer to a Frequently Asked Question before continuing to push an already-discredited argument. It gets *very* frustrating when people keep pulling out the same discredited straw-man arguments about misrepresentation and misattribution, which have nothing to do with the GFDL problems we're discussing. I think my statement was more polite than the rather common RTFM, and with pretty much the same intent, but I don't particularly approve of saying that either, so I apologize. --Nathanael Nerode
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 01:26:22AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andreas Barth wrote: So, this license is specific to be used only as part of a product or programm. You're missing the key phrase on which Branden's argument (and mine) is based on: 'developed by the user' This phrase read conservatively ...is not the author's intention, as indicated by second hand reports of clarifications (BSD, but can't use the original literally) by the copyright holder, and the copyright holder's (lack of) response to copious reuse and redistribution. As far as L/GPL incompatibility is concerned, you'll note that Sun, the copyright holders, specifically offer Linux systems that include glibc with GPLed applications, and an LGPLed libc, to their customers. See http://wwws.sun.com/software/linux/index.html . If anyone on -legal believes clarifications are necessary or would be helpful, please feel free to get them from Sun. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?'' pgp0LDoL0Tf8r.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:03:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Nor is Not being able to change it to look exactly like `solitaire.exe', but you can't do that, either. And yet we can still distribute lots of things that you can change to look exactly like `solitaire.exe' under the terms of the GPL. This is essentially false, as Branden has already commented. (Unless you happen to live in one of those freaky countries where copyright behaves like patents, but I think we'll have to ignore them) You're wrong, and we'll ignore anywhere where you may be right. Nice to see we're working towards consensus. You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent reinvention. For bonus points make it an instance where they had access to the original work. Personally, I consider the possibility of anyone being able to get away with a defense of that form exceedinly unlikely. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?'' pgpNIzMNiSjRM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:38:01PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: They cannot make any specific person forget, but they have led most US journalists to deny our existence, so that most people never find out about us. I don't know about US, but I know that here in Belarus this problem does not exist. People who care tend to know about both FSF and OSI and about their history. People who don't care just use the software and don't pay attention to underlying philosophy, and no amount of propaganda would make them care about either FSF or OSI. There's no use in blaming journalists or OSI for some people's indifference, that's a more fundamental problem and should be treated as such. We need every method of informing them that we can get. Every? That sounds just like Noble goal justifies vile means. Even if you don't believe that there is no such Good on Earth that is worth a single child's teardrop, can you at least agree that _some_ methods are not worth the goal, and that _some_ cure is worse than the desease? -- Dmitry Borodaenko
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 05:35:13PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: Quoting Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said: ^^^ Considering your attitude, I'm not going to discuss this with you any longer. It is annoying when people point out your distortions, isn't it? Makes it considerably more difficult to cheat fair and sqaure. -- G. Branden Robinson| There's nothing an agnostic can't Debian GNU/Linux | do if he doesn't know whether he [EMAIL PROTECTED] | believes in it or not. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Graham Chapman pgpsI5CVTWnNg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#181493: Is the Sun RPC License DFSG-free?
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 03:10:35PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote: On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 14:26, Branden Robinson wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:03:13AM -0400, Joe Drew wrote: On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 17:03, Branden Robinson wrote: On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:39:51AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote: We also have essentially the same license with ttf-bitstream-vera. IMO, that isn't Free Software, either. There are no practical restrictions on its freedom; I fail to see how it isn't free software. Sure there are. If my neighbor asks me for a copy of it, I burn it to a CD-R, and ask him for a quarter to recoup the cost of the blank CD-R, I've just violated the license. That's why you include on the CD the following shell script, echo.sh: #!/bin/sh echo $* Then you are selling echo.sh plus bitstream vera fonts, which is not a violation of the license. This is not different in principle from requiring me to include a licensed adjunct piece of code. What if that adjunct is under the GNU GPL? How about the Sun RPC license? How about the Microsoft EULA? I stand by my claim that such a requirement is unfree. I don't particularly care if you don't feel it's onerous enough to matter. A USD 0.0001 tax (one-hundreth of one cent) payable to Bitstream for each copy of Bitstream Vera so distributed wouldn't be regarded as onerous by most courts, either. -- G. Branden Robinson|Build a fire for a man, and he'll Debian GNU/Linux |be warm for a day. Set a man on [EMAIL PROTECTED] |fire, and he'll be warm for the http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett pgp0vmMt9KBTt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#181493: Info received (was Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free)
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding this problem report. It has been forwarded to the package maintainer(s) and to other interested parties to accompany the original report. Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s): GNU Libc Maintainers debian-glibc@lists.debian.org If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem, please send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED], as before. Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message, unless you wish to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 01:26:22AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: This phrase read conservatively ...is not the author's intention, as indicated by second hand reports of clarifications (BSD, but can't use the original literally) by the copyright holder, and the copyright holder's (lack of) response to copious reuse and redistribution. It would not surprise me that this was the case. If someone could just point to a first hand report of such a clarification, or someone who says that they talked to sun and got it clarified, that would satiate me about this issue. [We still might be wrong, but at least we've operatead on good faith.] As far as L/GPL incompatibility is concerned, you'll note that Sun, the copyright holders, specifically offer Linux systems that include glibc with GPLed applications, and an LGPLed libc, to their customers. See http://wwws.sun.com/software/linux/index.html . The inability to distribute it alone doesn't bode well for L/GPL compatibility. I'm not convinced that Sun's offering of glibc systems really circumvents the issue, but I presume that someone could make a convincing argument for it. If anyone on -legal believes clarifications are necessary or would be helpful, please feel free to get them from Sun. Perhaps upstream knows better about this issue? Surely the FSF got clarification from their legal team before including this code? If their (FSF's) legal team believes there is no problem with the code being under L/GPL (ie, they've made changes to it or got clarification) then we should be able to ignore the SunRPC license and just proceed as if it were totally L/GPL. (Heh. I've totally forgotten what license this part of glibc even has!) Don Armstrong -- A one-question geek test. If you get the joke, you're a geek: Seen on a California license plate on a VW Beetle: 'FEATURE'... -- Joshua D. Wachs - Natural Intelligence, Inc. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpqIabBYgZxE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 08:21:43PM +0300, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote: Every? That sounds just like Noble goal justifies vile means. Even if you don't believe that there is no such Good on Earth that is worth a single child's teardrop, can you at least agree that _some_ methods are not worth the goal, and that _some_ cure is worse than the desease? There's no point in asking that question. People seldom come to doubt their own means retrospectively. -- G. Branden Robinson| That's the saving grace of humor: Debian GNU/Linux | if you fail, no one is laughing at [EMAIL PROTECTED] | you. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- A. Whitney Brown pgpILBNTfbi0M.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:26:57AM +0200, Sergey Spiridonov wrote: What about DFSG FAQ draft? Do you think this can be applied to FDL documentation? # Q: Does whether some software is free depend solely on its license? A: Almost always, but there are rare exceptions. When necessary we take other considerations into account. So two packages with the same license could be judged differently based on extra-license comments the copyright holder has made regarding intent or interpretation, or based on how the contents of the package interact with license stipulations. I suggest: s/Almost always/Usually/ s/rare // Perhaps my perception of the frequency of exceptional cases is distorted by the fact that I subscribe to debian-legal, though. :) -- G. Branden Robinson| You could wire up a dead rat to a Debian GNU/Linux | DIMM socket and the PC BIOS memory [EMAIL PROTECTED] | test would pass it just fine. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Ethan Benson pgprOOJx5jU3M.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:10:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent reinvention. For bonus points make it an instance where they had access to the original work. This is not a fair request, at least within the U.S., because such cases will tend to get settled out-of-court with a gag order on the parties forbidding disclosure of the terms of the settlement. For example, it is at least plausible that this maybe been the case in the USL v. BSDI (a.k.a. ATT v. UCB) lawsuit. We still don't know what was admitted to by whom under that settlement. Computer source code, because of its formal nature, is particularly *likely*, in fact, to lead to such instances that you ridicule as vanishingly unlikely. Personally, I consider the possibility of anyone being able to get away with a defense of that form exceedinly unlikely. Ah, the argument from personal incredulity. -- G. Branden Robinson| It just seems to me that you are Debian GNU/Linux | willfully entering an arse-kicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] | contest with a monstrous entity http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | that has sixteen legs and no arse. pgpm7pmJVwCxK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:05:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: * Copyright requires the protected subject to be original. I think that principle is unique to the U.S.; in fact, that's the whole *point* of this subthread! -- G. Branden Robinson| No math genius, eh? Then perhaps Debian GNU/Linux | you could explain to me where you [EMAIL PROTECTED] | got these... PENROSE TILES! http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Stephen R. Notley pgpEkecMKKwuc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:16:34PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 01:26:22AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andreas Barth wrote: So, this license is specific to be used only as part of a product or programm. You're missing the key phrase on which Branden's argument (and mine) is based on: 'developed by the user' This phrase read conservatively ...is not the author's intention, as indicated by second hand reports of clarifications (BSD, but can't use the original literally) by the copyright holder, and the copyright holder's (lack of) response to copious reuse and redistribution. [...] If anyone on -legal believes clarifications are necessary or would be helpful, please feel free to get them from Sun. You ground your argument on second hand reports of clarifications in the first quoted paragraph, but then expect debian-legal to furnish first-hand clarifications? Well, I haven't heard of any such clarification being made, so we're down to the credibility of the claimants. Who has asserted to you the existence of these clarifications? Have these people any stake in the existence of such claims? The Sun RPC fails the DFSG on its face. The burden of proof is on those who claim it's been clarified to come up with evidence of such. This is the converse of the old UWash Pine license issue, where UWash took a license that was DFSG-free on its face and interpreted it in a non-free way. -- G. Branden Robinson| Never underestimate the power of Debian GNU/Linux | human stupidity. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpCSbQYGCsH5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is the Sun RPC License DFSG-free?
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:05:57PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: Sun has repeatedly clarified elsewhere that the intent of this is essentially MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product alone. Got any citations? The license certainly doesn't *read* like MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product alone. Sadly, I have no citation. It came up in the context of proprietary software developed with Sun RPC code, and I no longer have access to the e-mail thread. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Quoting Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If they'd be out of the scope of DFSG, why would we care of them being there or not? I see nothing wrong in distributing Free Software advocacy. If we distribute it, it is currently not out of the scope of the DFSG. If you have a problem with this, write a GR -- but stop with the pointless grandstanding. Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to distribute something else than software. Oh, and where the GFDL is concerned, what you apparently mean to say is, I see nothing wrong with requiring all distributors to also distribute Free Software advocacy. I do: it's a restriction on freedom. Free software is based on restrictions because they are needed to guaranty freedom. Free software obliges me to publish the source code with binaries. So, if I understand correctly, I'm not free to do what I want with my source? Free software advocacy is such a restriction I do consider as acceptable. that a verbatim copying only license is Free?) I claim that a speech is not software documentation and shall not be considered as such. You shall not modify someone speech, you shall not cut some part of someone's speech and tell everyone that you wrote it, and so on. There are limits everywhere in everyone's freedom. We shall not distribute it. This is an extreme vision of freedom I do not share. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Quoting Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 05:35:13PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: Quoting Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said: ^^^ Considering your attitude, I'm not going to discuss this with you any longer. It is annoying when people point out your distortions, isn't it? Does it make you happy this time? kinda revenge? Sorta punishment after my small joke? Makes it considerably more difficult to cheat fair and sqaure. Not at all. I don't care being wrong. I just request being respected within a serious discussion. Is it too much to ask? -- Jérôme Marant
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au: You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent reinvention. For bonus points make it an instance where they had access to the original work. Different people independently coming up with the same expression would perhaps be evidence for there being insufficient originality for there to be any copyright in the work. A case where this might arise would be translations of a short poem. A translation of a haiku would normally be covered by copyright, but it is not inconceivable that two people could independently come up with identical translations of the same haiku, particularly if both people do a dozen versions each.
Re: Decision GFDL
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 08:48:17PM +0200, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote: Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free Documentation License? There has been no formal statement issued by the developers, but Debian seldom bothers with such things. We go years without issuing non-technical position statements under clause 4.1.5 of our Consitution, and most of the time our license DFSG-analysis process is relatively uncontentious. However, a convenient way to gauge consensus on the issue can be found by reading the following thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01031.html As noted in the following message: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg01214.html I will be tallying results sometime on or about Thursday, 28 August. Whether or not the rest of the Debian Project agrees to whatever consensus this survey establishes, I cannot say. If that particular issue[1] remains divisive even afterwards, we may require a General Resolution to settle it. [1] not to be confused with should we apply the DFSG to the GNU FDL *at all*? -- G. Branden Robinson| It just seems to me that you are Debian GNU/Linux | willfully entering an arse-kicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] | contest with a monstrous entity http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | that has sixteen legs and no arse. pgpn78uZAjgZH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 16:28, Jérôme Marant wrote: Quoting Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If they'd be out of the scope of DFSG, why would we care of them being there or not? I see nothing wrong in distributing Free Software advocacy. If we distribute it, it is currently not out of the scope of the DFSG. If you have a problem with this, write a GR -- but stop with the pointless grandstanding. Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to distribute something else than software. The social contract says Debian will remain 100% free software. Not that Debian's software will remain 100% free. Bruce Perens has already stepped up to clarify that this is in fact the intent of the DFSG - that it applies to *everything* in Debian. If you think that Debian's software should remain 100% free, but Debian's non-software, if such a thing exists, does not need to be free, then propose a GR. debian-legal is not the place to propose GRs. Oh, and where the GFDL is concerned, what you apparently mean to say is, I see nothing wrong with requiring all distributors to also distribute Free Software advocacy. I do: it's a restriction on freedom. Free software is based on restrictions because they are needed to guaranty freedom. Free software obliges me to publish the source code with binaries. So, if I understand correctly, I'm not free to do what I want with my source? You are free to do whatever you want with *your* source, just not someone else's source. In situations where you are dealing with someone else's source, the GPL restricts you only insofar as it makes you give everyone else the same rights you had. The GFDL does not do this, because you can add invariant sections, and take away others' rights. Free software advocacy is such a restriction I do consider as acceptable. There are many things in this world more important, I think, than free software. Many people would agree with me about most of then (ending war and hunger, providing universal education, an end to racism, and so on). If we consider free software advocacy an acceptable restriction because we believe free software to be important, do we also accept advocacy for all of these as acceptable restrictions? What about anti-nuclear power advocacy? What about pro-racism advocacy? The GFDL's invariant sections are not restricted to things you agree with. If a useful program's GFDLd manual has an invariant pro-racism diatribe in it, will you distribute the manual? What if it has a pro-proprietary software diatribe? that a verbatim copying only license is Free?) I claim that a speech is not software documentation and shall not be considered as such. You shall not modify someone speech, you shall not cut some part of someone's speech and tell everyone that you wrote it, and so on. There are limits everywhere in everyone's freedom. We shall not distribute it. This is an extreme vision of freedom I do not share. So Debian doesn't have the freedom to *not* distribute GNU manuals? This makes no sense. -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Decision GFDL
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 06:48, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote: Hi, Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free Documentation License? Wouter, it is my understanding that Debian interprets the Social Contract and the Free Software Guidelines based upon consensus that develops upon debian-legal. This process should not be confused with 100% agreement. Over time a position may become clear as it has in relation to the GNU FDL. You should not expect an actual Debian-decision unless the consensus interpretation is challenged by proposing, seconding and voting upon a General Resolution to change the Social Contract/Free Software Guidelines. Right now there are implementation issues related to removing GFDL software from Debian and a claim that some members of the Free Software Foundation has asked for more time to make the GFDL a free software licence. Richard Stallman has recently stated on this list that one of the major issues--invariance--is not negotiable. It is possible (but unlikely) that Stallman's dictates could be challenged within the Free Software Foundation. I also see a wider context to this issue. The Debian project is now a very influential organisation and recent events indicate that Richard Stallman would like to undermine its influence. Even though Richard Stallman is in the process of becoming a Debian developer he recently denigrated Debian: http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=Newsfile=articlesid=260 RMS: When I recommend a GNU/Linux distribution, I choose based on ethical considerations. Today I would recommend GNU/LinEx, the distribution prepared by the government of Extremadura, because that's the only installable distribution that consists entirely of free software. If I knew of more than one such distribution, I would choose between them based on practical considerations. TRB: What about Debian GNU/Linux, which by default does not install any non-free software? RMS: Non-free programs are not officially considered part of Debian, but Debian does distribute them. The Debian web site describes non-free programs, and their ftp server distributes them. That's why we don't have links to their site on www.gnu.org. [For a while this was patently false: http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html It is truly extraordinary but the link to Debian GNU/Linux has been removed! Updated: $Date: 2003/08/18 21:42:23 $ $Author: rms $. The same version is now in Google's cache. Still around 100 links to go (but I'm pretty sure there were a lot more when I last checked): http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.gnu.org+%22debian.org%22] GNU/LinEx is better because it does not distribute or recommend those programs. TRB: How about distributions, such as Mandrake or Red Hat, that keep non-free software out of their downloadable versions all together? RMS: I would not rely on that, because I know they have not been very careful in checking whether packages really are free. TRB: Does your desktop run GNU/Linux, and if so, do you run GNU/LinEx or some other distribution? RMS: I travel most of the time, so I don't have a desktop machine, only a laptop. It runs Debian GNU/Linux, which was the best distribution in terms of respecting freedom as of the time we set up the machine. (The availability of GNU/LinEx is a recent development.) TRB: Has the Free Software Foundation ever considered publishing a complete GNU/Linux distribution? RMS: We sponsored the development of Debian GNU/Linux back in 1994. TRB: Especially with the selection of truly free distributions being somewhat lacking, why did the Foundation get out of the distribution development business? RMS: My thinking was that if we made our own modified version of Debian it would not get much usage, and that developing an entirely new distribution would be a lot of work and only worth doing with the Hurd. ... === Please note that Debian's decision making about the GNU FDL is definitely not based upon petty personality issues. The consensus process literally took years. It is a quality, reasoned consensus that respects Debian's social contract and the DFSG, and overturning it would require an amendment to Debian's founding principles. Regards, Adam
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
On 2003-08-26 22:28:45 +0100 Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to distribute something else than software. Are you deliberately misreading that? Here's the top levels of phrase structure for you: ((Debian) (is) (100% (free software))). That view has been endorsed many times on this list and elsewhere, if you cared to research. It looks like you need to change the SC if you want Debian to distribute things that cannot be considered free software. Feel free to bring drafts to this list or -project. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Re: Decision GFDL
On 2003-08-26 19:48:17 +0100 Wouter Vanden Hove [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Where can I find the actual Debian-decision on the GNU Free Documentation License? Inside the skulls of ftpmasters and release managers. Wrap up well, as there's no telling what else is lurking in there. It ain't called grey matter for nothing.
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 05:15:10 +, Branden Robinson wrote: === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === - -- JEREMY MALCOLM [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personal: http://www.malcolm.id.au Providing online networks of Australian lawyers (http://www.ilaw.com.au) and Linux experts (http://www.linuxconsultants.com.au) for instant help! Disclaimer: http://www.terminus.net.au/disclaimer.html. GPG key: finger. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE/S/kj9nWq4tKrIiARAdTzAKCkEg4p8HfM381Zq5QL0Zv7iONU/wCfXUhj Zalh3sW+aohg1CR7YLQ8fmM= =AlRc -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Demonstrations against Software Patents in Brussels, 27aug: Debian help?
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 02:24:55AM +0200, Henrion Benjamin wrote: I'm just forwading you the annoucement of the demo, but I would like to know if webmasters of www.debian.org can consider to participate to the online demonstration (see http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/BigDemo27aug and http://swpat.ffii.org/group/demo/index.en.html, and my homepage for more infos on the online demonstration)? So, it's already August 27th. I'd very much like to see Debian supporting this campaign. We're probably in the last days of patent-free Europe :( Other major Free Software projects like KDE, GIMP.org and GNOME have already changed their frontpages or will do in the next hours. Jordi -- Jordi Mallach Pérez -- Debian developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sindominio.net/ GnuPG public key information available at http://oskuro.net/~jordi/ pgpFSDD9AGXSp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Quoting Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If we distribute it, it is currently not out of the scope of the DFSG. If you have a problem with this, write a GR -- but stop with the pointless grandstanding. On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Jérôme Marant wrote: Software in Debian is 100% free. That's incorrect. Debian is 100% Free Software. You can read this as (100% Free) Software or as 100% (Free Software), but either way, debian doesn't include non-free non-software. It doesn't prevent Debian to distribute something else than software. True. We have non-free for just such a reason. The social contract DOES prevent such things (non-free stuff and non-software stuff) being part of Debian. If it's not free software, it's not debian. Personally, I consider electronic documents to be a subset of software, so non-free is sufficient to hold GFDL documents. If you'd rather introduce a non-software archive, feel free to propose it. This is an extreme vision of freedom I do not share. This is a rational vision of freedom which I do share. -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 09:36:13PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:10:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:03:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Nor is Not being able to change it to look exactly like
`solitaire.exe',
but you can't do that, either. And yet we can still distribute lots of
things that you can change to look exactly like `solitaire.exe' under
the terms of the GPL.
This is essentially false, as Branden has already commented. (Unless
you happen to live in one of those freaky countries where copyright
behaves like patents, but I think we'll have to ignore them)
You're wrong, and we'll ignore anywhere where you may be right.
Nice to see we're working towards consensus.
You have founded your argument upon laws which are inimical to
copyleft licenses, and which do not apply throughout the US or EU -
and which we still haven't seen any concrete examples of.
I can't rebut this any more than I can rebut an argument that says
But if local law prohibits commercial use of software, then
non-commercial-use-only clauses do not add any extra restrictions and
are therefore both DFSG-free and compatible with the GPL.
You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent
reinvention. For bonus points make it an instance where they had access
to the original work.
I'll have to pass on this one, as I've never heard of anybody being
sued for this at all, but I counter-invite you to come up with an
example of anybody coming up with the same expression of the same
copyrightable idea being sued for copyright infringement and
*losing*. I don't think any case law exists (or ever will exist) on
the subject, so we'll have to work with the statutes - which, at least
in the US and EU, are fairly clear that independant innovation is a
valid way to avoid copyright issues.
Furthermore, I invite you to find a country where laws which support
your position actually exist. Otherwise we'll have to dismiss your
argument as handwaving.
More handwaving, for your entertainment:
The set of all possible relevant legal statuses of the Sun RPC code is
as follows:
{
The Sun RPC code is not an independent, copyrightable work in its own
right, or does not enjoy copyrighted status.,
The Sun RPC code is an independent, copyrightable work in its own
right, and enjoys a copyrighted status.
}
If the code does not contain sufficient original expression that it
would be copyrightable, then the Sun RPC license does not matter; no one
is bound by it, and it can simply be ignored.
If the code is copyrighted, then we must consider the case of someone
incorporating the Sun RPC code into a work and distributing it to a
second person, who subsequently refines this work to create yet another
work which happens to be identical to the original Sun RPC code. In
such a case, there are two possible interpretations under copyright that
must be considered:
{
Provably independent creation of a work identical to another,
pre-existing work that enjoys copyright status is not an infringement
of the first work's copyright.,
Creation of an identical work, even if provably independent (no
copying took place from the original work), still infringes the
copyright of the earlier work.
}
In the first case, the original terms of the Sun RPC code no longer
matter. So long as we have no intention of taking the original Sun RPC
code and distributing it independently (I imagine we don't have a copy
to do so with even if we wished), we can do anything we want to with the
code, because it has been successfully laundered by passing through
glibc as permitted by the original license.
In the second case, we would have to consider the language of the GPL,
which says:
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
it.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.
Under a regime where independent creation of a given expression is a
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 23:37:46 +0200, Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Quoting Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 05:35:13PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: Quoting Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jerome Marant, missing the point AGAIN, said: ^^^ Considering your attitude, I'm not going to discuss this with you any longer. It is annoying when people point out your distortions, isn't it? Does it make you happy this time? kinda revenge? Sorta punishment after my small joke? Makes it considerably more difficult to cheat fair and sqaure. Not at all. I don't care being wrong. I just request being respected within a serious discussion. Is it too much to ask? Oh, the irony. You want to be respected by tohse you call zealots and bigots? manoj -- lisp, v.: To call a spade a thpade. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
