Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield 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. Personally, I consider the possibility of anyone being able to get away with a defense of that form exceedinly unlikely. AFAIK, this is called lack of originality|creativity and there a lot of cases worldwide. At least I can remember several cases for the last decade only in Russia. If you google 'lack of originality copyright', you probably get some examples yourself. Of course, if you can independently reinvent the same work, it prove that work unoriginal and, therefore, does not deserve copyright protection at all. Because of that, sides often prefer not to wait judge's verdict, but settle the case out-of-court.
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Jerome Marant said: Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to distribute something else than software. From this sentence, I see that you are not fluent in English. (It doesn't prevent Debian from distributing something other than software would be correct.) Perhaps this is in fact the source of your confusion. The phrase Debian will remain 100% Free Software, interpreted by a fluent English speaker, means one of the following: 100% of Debian is (and will remain) Free Software Debian is (and will remain) Software, and that Software is 100% Free Practically, the difference between these is not significant, although the second interpretation is a little bizarre. Your interpretation is: 100% of the Software in Debian will remain Free That's simply not a correct interpretation. However, I could understand if someone who was not fluent in English misinterpreted it that way.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote: Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Documentation in not a software. This has been refuted so many times. What about help2man, which turns software into documentation? What about the numerous other times documentation is embedded into source code or source code is embedded into documentation? What about literate programming? I aware. Yes, distinction is often unclear. But this is irrelevant. It is enough that _law_ (majority of existed copyright laws) makes this difference. Difference, based not on the structure of work, but on its function, btw. In some cases you can't anyway ignore such difference, because law demands to make it. And in some other cases you should not ignore it, even if you can, because such difference benefits you. There is no any one-way transformation from the source to the binary. It so happens that I do a lot of work for Project Gutenberg, and have experience in this matter. Our output - no output I've seen to anything meaningfully called source - is not convertable into the original. We lose a lot of book related detail, and even stuff that may or may not be relevant like fonts and font sizes. The original in this digital age is maybe the result of a lossy conversion from an original that was marked up with content orientated tags to a paper format or a more presentation orientated format. HTML - ASCII loses information and has no reliable reverse transformation even for the information it doesn't loose. Of course. But, please note, 1) All this is a elements of formatting, not a copyrighted|public domain literary work itself. Formatting usually not copyrighted, but where it is (AFAIK, in UK) copyright to formatting is different from copyright to the work itself. 2) You, probably, lose information while converting not because you can't preserve it al all, but because you do not have proper convention for preserving such things. 3) And you do not have convention just because in majority of cases this elements of formatting is completely unimportant for using the text. On the flip side, the transformation from the source to the binary for programs is not one-way. You can turn that binary back into source - look at dozens of Java disassemblers, and the theory is the same for any source-binary language. No. It is essentially one-way. At least for the PDP11, x80, x86, 68xxx. In many cases you can't even monosemantic disassemble the binary. As for more abstract languagesto _which_ language (or dialect of language) you going to decompile the binary? Of course, there are some excetpions, where decompilation possible, but they are rare. if you can read the document, you always, technically, can OCR it. No. OCR programs only work at DPIs and quality levels much higher then the human threshold. And only if they can get images, which is may be hard to do for a proprietary reader. 72 or 100 DPI isn't high enough to OCR from, anyway. You can resize the picture in GIMP. Or you can photograph a computer display. Both techniques are really used by me or my friends and gives reasonable results. Not perfect, but reasonable to use. it takes no more than 24-48 man\hours to completely OCR a large 500-700pages book. For a simple novel, yes. A computer software manual would be much harder. Many OCR programs preserve much from formatting also. How long would it take to turn ls back into a reasonable facsimile of the source code? Probably not a whole lot longer, given a skilled programmer. A simple quantitive difference does not a qualitative difference make. Longer. Much longer. Specifically, much longer than rewrite ls from scratch, using only manpage for reference. There are _many_ OCR programs in the world. There is _no_ x86-disassembler, which assure compilable output, in the world.
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote: 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. Mm. Some comment. Please note, that at least in several countries (at least Russia, Ukraine, Latvia but, probably, much more) databases _can_ be copyrightable. As compilations under the terms of Berne convention (Art 2, p 5). But, only, if they are constitute intellectual creations (the Convention term, corresponds to original work of authorship in the US law) itself. Of course, there may be _other_ laws (or special articles in law as for Latvia), which cover all databases, both original and unoriginal.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 03:28:28PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote: No. Freedom of _distributor_ is not an issue for the free software _at_ _all_. No written document says that goal of a free software is to promote freedom of a mere distributors (besides, of course, the freedom to distribute itself). Free software is about the freedom of _users_ and _authors_. What are you blabbering about? In many jurisdictions, the _only_ people who can be restricted _at all_ by copyright law are the distributors. The word copy in copyright is there for a reason. Yes, of course. And while copyright _really_, not formally, affects only professional distributors, there was little or no problem with copyright. Problems begins, when copyright grow so large, that it affect the rights and interests of users and authors.
Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:22:49PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote: There, IMHO, is a subtle difference between a creating derivative work, and using a part of work in the completely unrelated other work. But you, of course, may disagree. I just reply to the words, and not try to clairvoyant a thoughts. You don't get to play word games with derivative work; it is explicitly defined by copyright law. Both of these constitute derivation. Not exactly. There is a some difference between derivative work, compilation and quoting even in copyright law. But this unimportant. This differnece existed in reality even if it is not reflected in law.
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
Fedor Zuev wrote: On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote: 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. Mm. Some comment. Please note, that at least in several countries (at least Russia, Ukraine, Latvia but, probably, much more) databases _can_ be copyrightable. Original databases are also copyrighted in Europe. There has to be originality in the selection, arrangement etc. This is pretty much like Feist in the USA, and as you note it is required to be like this under Berne. Independently from copyright protection, a database can be protected under the Database Regulation. 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 Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 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? If you can make no difference between jokes and serious discussions, then you have a real problem in your life. You're overreacting and you always feel offended. I'm afraid, I can't do anything for you. Now, please stop reminding this joke whenever we want to discuss seriously between gentle men. Friendly, -- Jérôme Marant If you can't get a life, at least, get a sense of humour -- Branden Robinson.
Re: Re: A possible GFDL compromise
But this is irrelevant. It is enough that _law_ (majority of existed copyright laws) makes this difference. What differences the law, made by people who never heard of free software and probably had their pen guided by people from large proprietary software companies, is of little relevance to what we should do here. Difference, based not on the structure of work, but on its function, btw. There's not much point in writing a literate program if it's going to be proprietary. Since few copyright suits approach these details anyway, courts probably haven't been called on to split those hairs. Since we interpret the theoritical and deal with solely software and software-related things, it's a problem we have to deal with. And in some other cases you should not ignore it, even if you can, because such difference benefits you. That's the argument - should we or should we not ignore it? Just stating your side without evidence isn't useful. __ Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Quoting Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jerome Marant said: Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to distribute something else than software. From this sentence, I see that you are not fluent in English. (It doesn't prevent Debian from distributing something other than software would be correct.) Thanks. Perhaps this is in fact the source of your confusion. The phrase Debian will remain 100% Free Software, interpreted by a fluent English speaker, means one of the following: 100% of Debian is (and will remain) Free Software Debian is (and will remain) Software, and that Software is 100% Free Practically, the difference between these is not significant, although the second interpretation is a little bizarre. Your interpretation is: 100% of the Software in Debian will remain Free That's simply not a correct interpretation. However, I could understand if someone who was not fluent in English misinterpreted it that way. I think you got it. It was too ambiguous for me. Thanks for the clarification. I've been deceived. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Le mer 27/08/2003 à 05:45, Nathanael Nerode a écrit : Jerome Marant said: Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to distribute something else than software. From this sentence, I see that you are not fluent in English. (It doesn't prevent Debian from distributing something other than software would be correct.) Perhaps this is in fact the source of your confusion. The phrase Debian will remain 100% Free Software, interpreted by a fluent English speaker, means one of the following: 100% of Debian is (and will remain) Free Software Debian is (and will remain) Software, and that Software is 100% Free Practically, the difference between these is not significant, although the second interpretation is a little bizarre. Your interpretation is: 100% of the Software in Debian will remain Free That's simply not a correct interpretation. However, I could understand if someone who was not fluent in English misinterpreted it that way. Then you are also asserting that Jérôme is not fluent in French either. The translated clause writes as: « Debian demeurera un ensemble logiciel totalement libre. » This sentence is perfectly clear, and can not be read as: « L'ensemble des logiciels dans Debian demeureront totalement libres. » However, I believe Jérôme can read correctly and is not stupid; maybe he said that on purpose, and wants the social contract to be changed. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Yes, of course. And while copyright _really_, not formally, affects only professional distributors, there was little or no problem with copyright. Problems begins, when copyright grow so large, that it affect the rights and interests of users and authors. I don't understand how copyright has grown? It's always been about the rights and interests of authors - that's theoritically who the copyright law is for. It still doesn't affect pure users. It just happens that during the duration of copyright law it's gone from a time when copying a book meant owning a printing press, to running off a few copies at Kinko's, to making an unlimited number of copies effortlessly* and cheaply from your computer. * The first copy may be difficult - though easier then ever, but the next 10,000 are a breeze. __ Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
Op di 26-08-2003, om 22:09 schreef Branden Robinson: 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.; I wrote that sentence only after checking my course papers, so no, it's not unique to the U.S. in fact, that's the whole *point* of this subthread! I don't know about you, but _my_ point was that there's a difference between copyright law and database law; and that while copyright requires originality, database law *does* *not*. -- 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. signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Florian Weimer wrote: Nowadays we have to struggle constantly against the tendency to bury the free software movement and pretend that we advocate open source. So I don't think we can conclude that such precautions are no longer necessary. It's true that many have gladly taken GNU software while ignoring the GNU philosophy (or actively working against it). But I doubt that invariant sections alone can ensure that the message will be heard. IMHO, it is not about be heard. It is about not to be muted. For example, I might want to distribute the GNU Emacs manual without the GNU Manifesto. I could achieve something which is very close, even though the Manifesto is an invariant section: I just patch the Info viewers not to display the Manifesto. As far as I can see, I'm still allowed to distribute the modified Info viewer under the GPL, and the (unmodified) manual under the GFDL. It is not the case. Users still have the copies of Manifesto, and everyone can find and remove the maleficient code. However, if someone did something similar, I'd expect quite a lot of additional publicity for the GNU Manifesto. Furthermore, the publicity wouldn't depend much on the legality of the removal or suppression. Journalists who are interested in free software philosphy and its battles would report it nevertheless, and those who are after awkward legal problems have such a limited audience that their silence wouldn't matter that much. Jourhalists, heh. Your position is excessively depends on existense of large amounts of independnent honest journalists, independent honest distributors of free software|manuals, independent honest web-hosters, reasonable laws etc. Often, it is not the case even now. Very likely, it will not be the case at all in foreseeable future. System of free documentation, like the system of free software, should be robust, and should not depends of the honesty and willingness of someone outside this system. Btw, in the FAQ of this list mentioned several noteworthy tests for freenes, namely Dissident test and Evil Corporation Test. Why not apply they to this situation? Consider the cases * Evil Co takes a free manual, removes all mentions about free software and published it as documentation of (compatible in some aspect) its own proprietary program. * Evil Co takes control over writer's site and replaces all copies of manual there by stripped version. Majority of mirror hoster notices errata only after upgrading the manual.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Le mer 27/08/2003 à 06:52, Fedor Zuev a écrit : 3) And you do not have convention just because in majority of cases this elements of formatting is completely unimportant for using the text. [blah blah] There are _many_ OCR programs in the world. There is _no_ x86-disassembler, which assure compilable output, in the world. Funny one. I am sure you will point us to a magical OCR that can gather structural information and extract e.g. scientific formulas from a document. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Quoting Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Then you are also asserting that Jérôme is not fluent in French either. The translated clause writes as: « Debian demeurera un ensemble logiciel totalement libre. » This sentence is perfectly clear, and can not be read as: « L'ensemble des logiciels dans Debian demeureront totalement libres. » I've never read the French translation. Translations are usually not accurate. I trust more what Nathanoel said and I can admit I misinterpreted this clause of the Social Contract. However, I believe Jérôme can read correctly and is not stupid; maybe he said that on purpose, and wants the social contract to be changed. I don't need a spokesman. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 03:01:40PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: 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. No answer is also an answer. People seldom come to doubt their own means retrospectively. That's not a retrospective, we are discussing the means that FSF is applying right now (no matter if it always been this way), and there are obvious and direct consequences of this discussion for GNU FDL, Debian, and FSF. -- Dmitry Borodaenko
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On 2003-08-27 05:52:57 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But this is irrelevant. It is enough that _law_ (majority of existed copyright laws) makes this difference. [...] Just a small reminder that you've not presented such a law yet (at all, I think, and definitely not that we've had independently verified). Some treat computer programs differently, but not software in general. It is unusual to base your whole reasoning on something not yet seen. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Quoting Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 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. We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software This is from Clause 1 of the Social Contract. It is ambiguous. 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. No need for a GR. 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. This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be acceptable (like Free Software advocacy), others not. 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? (against, I'm not dealing with GFDL) This would be a case per case study. As an individual, I would study and decide what can be kept or not. 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? We are no longer dealing with GFDL here. Please follow the thread properly. 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. This discussion was not about GFDL manuals. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:52:57 +0900 (IRKST), Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote: Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Documentation in not a software. This has been refuted so many times. What about help2man, which turns software into documentation? What about the numerous other times documentation is embedded into source code or source code is embedded into documentation? What about literate programming? I aware. Yes, distinction is often unclear. But this is irrelevant. It is enough that _law_ (majority of existed copyright laws) makes this difference. Difference, based not on the structure of work, but on its function, btw. In some cases you can't anyway ignore such difference, because law demands to make it. And in some other cases you should not ignore it, even if you can, because such difference benefits you. So what does the law say when the same bits serve as code, data, and documentation, all at once? What if there is no separation possible, based even on function, since the same software serves all these purposes? manoj -- If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some dead stuff. Dave Enyeart 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
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, David B Harris wrote: On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:55:05 +0900 (IRKST) Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote: JM the freedom of _users_ and _authors_. It is in the best interest of JM users to receive unstripped version of manual. It is also in the JM best interest of authors. Interest of distributor is non-issue. JMAre you trying to assert point 2 of the GFDL doesn't restrict JMfreedom of users? Exactly, I still not see any non-stupid demonstration of the contrary. I prefer not to state anything else. My $HOME is on an encrypted filesystem. If I have any GFDL documents on that filesystem, I'm in violation of the license. It is not a violation of license to _have_ GFDL documents anywhere. I already discuss this example in all details. If I want to send a friend one of these GFDL documents, I may not use SSL or any other form of encryption. If I'm on a shared, multi-user system, I must leave any directories a GFDL document is in as world-readable; to restrict permissions would be to use a technical measure to restrict the further reading of the document. Heh. And, according to the same logic, you should not lock the door of your home, because someone may want to copy document from your desktop. Get real! GFDL says about _further_ distribution of already received work, not about initial copying you may allow or not allow to someone. But, ever regardless of particular terms of license it is clear from the law, that you can have any obligations only to the _legitimate_ recipient of a copy of work. If someone get a copy by the means, which is illegal itself, without your will, consent and ever awareness, this can't create for you any obligations to him. Are those examples allright? I could come up with more if you'd like. Please. Maybe you find a less silly example. I can accept you may.
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:53:01 +0200, Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Quoting Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 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? If you can make no difference between jokes and serious discussions, then you have a real problem in your life. A joke is when the the butt of the joke, as well as the bystanders, find it funny. Suffixing insults with smilies does not make things suddenly funny. You're overreacting and I am not sure you have the right to tell my how to react to insults, really. you always feel offended. I'm afraid, I can't do anything for you. You have no idea how thankful I am for that last bit. Now, please stop reminding this joke whenever we want to discuss seriously between gentle men. I doubt that gentlemen call each other bigots, even as misplaced humour. manoj -- If you can't read this, blame a teacher. 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
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Le mer 27/08/2003 à 10:43, Jérôme Marant a écrit : However, I believe Jérôme can read correctly and is not stupid; maybe he said that on purpose, and wants the social contract to be changed. I don't need a spokesman. Without clarification from your side, it was hard to know how to understand your sayings. I did believe you had read the translation, so sorry if my answer seemed a bit rude, it was not meant to. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Fedor Zuev wrote: On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, David B Harris wrote: If I'm on a shared, multi-user system, I must leave any directories a GFDL document is in as world-readable; to restrict permissions would be to use a technical measure to restrict the further reading of the document. Heh. And, according to the same logic, you should not lock the door of your home, because someone may want to copy document from your desktop. Get real! Exactly. According to the logic of the GFDL you should not lock the door of your home. See why the GFDL is a bad license? GFDL says about _further_ distribution of already received work, not about initial copying you may allow or not allow to someone. But, ever regardless of particular terms of license it is clear from the law, that you can have any obligations only to the _legitimate_ recipient of a copy of work. If someone get a copy by the means, which is illegal itself, without your will, consent and ever awareness, this can't create for you any obligations to him. From the infamous document, section 2: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you /make/ or distribute. (emphisis mine) By downloading a copy of a GFDL document you are making a copy of it -- no redistribution required -- Keith Dunwoody
swirl infringement by electrostore.se
Hi! Any news on the case of the swirl they have in their logo? I can't see any trace about this at all, the last question on this topic still stands unanswered (from what I can see). It looks like noone seems to care about this rip off at all and I don't know where Sunnanvind Fenderson too the following from: ,- quote - | the company using the logo, elektrostore, said something to the effect | of for all we know, it could be some clipart or font image that Debian | just used, didn't invent `- quote - For all I know it was original art by Raul M. Silva according to http://www.debian.org/News/1999/19990826 so the people who received the above could maybe kindly tell them about the facts instead of letting them assume that it was some clipart or font image? So long, Alfie P.S.: It would be nice to Cc: me on replies, I scan only through the archives otherwise and might miss it. -- Also eigentlich wird immer mehr automatisiert. Warum nicht auch die Konvertierung von Umlauten von einem characterset in einen anderen? Weil dann Nöl, der Pöt, eine Pälla verspeist ;-) -- Thomas Dehn in de.admin.news.groups pgprDWltQJ0Fh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: license clarification for IRRToolSet
Branden Robinson, on 2003-08-26, 15:16, you wrote: It's probably good enough for the Release Manager as-is... Now what do you mean with that? Joerg -- Joerg joergland Wendland GPG: 51CF8417 FP: 79C0 7671 AFC7 315E 657A F318 57A3 7FBD 51CF 8417 pgpmlS5F4fROB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
* Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030825 20:33]: Sorry, but GPL have restrictions on what you can do with the code. One of the most noticeble is a restriction on using GPL code in(with) proprietary works. As far as I know, there is no such restriction in usage. It only limits copying and distributing of the result, as one cannot find a common licence term for the combination. But this is merely a thing about incompatible licences, not about a licence in itself... Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be acceptable (like Free Software advocacy), others not. My goodness. And we thought we already had flame-war problems! -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote: Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But if you take Acrobat, remove, say, the Adobe EULA, and distribute the rest, it will be censorship or, at least, very similar. Because you conceal from users the information from creator, that they reasonable expect to receive from you. Against the will both the user and creator. First, let's be honest here. The number of users who will be annoyed by the wasted disk space probably outnumber the number of users who want the GNU manifesto attached to every GNU manual. It is in the nature of users to be pragmatic. The number of users who really want to see the Adobe EULA is much lower. Furthermore, the Adobe EULA, being a license document, is moot. I do not say, that users want to read Manifesto or Adobe EULA. I say that they can reasonable expect to receive it from you. There may be reasons for this, other than pleasure of reading. May be user will decide not to use Emacs at all, if he will know, that Emacs and Manifesto written by the same man. (Btw, this if a far more usual and far more honest behavior, than strip Manifesto and continue to use it) May be user will avoid lawsuit, if he will be aware about ridiculous interpretation of law by Adobe. Taken to the extreme, a program which happens to search through your files for porn and emails it back to the upstream is performance art, and therefore should not be touched. More classic free speech would be a program that pops up a box if you run it on a non-free system and reads to you the GNU manifesto before letting you do anything. Would we tolerate that as free software? I sure wouldn't. If an author wants to tack his lecture onto his free manual for free software, I expect the same rights, to delete the annoying and space-wasting parts. More importantly, what happens when Joe Bob's pop-mail 0.1 becomes ESR's fetchmail 179.3? Free software means that can happen; but your definition won't let that happen for free documentation, because Joe Bob hated guns and put a thirty page manifesto to that effect in his 'free' documentation, making it unusable for ESR's fetchmail. I guess ESR could toss in a thirty page manifest about how guns are good, but I'd rather not see a flame war in my manual. That is the nature of free software and free documentation, to put Debian under our control, to let things go beyond one solitary point of control and one opinion. According to my understanding of your words, all that a bit stricter than public domain is not free. And even a bit of discrimination toward proprietary OS makes software non-free. Right? Please excuse me, but I do not believe that let things go beyond one solitary point of control and one opinion is the official position of any free software organisation and, particularly, the Debian Project. Any definition of free software I read about, including DFSG, was not declaration of total nihilizm, but carefully selected set of _specific_ freedoms, and say nothing abous control or absense of control. You may believe that any fixed set of specific freedoms insufficient to feel youself free. But, please, do not call this a nature of free software and free documentation. It is not.
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Quoting Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be acceptable (like Free Software advocacy), others not. My goodness. And we thought we already had flame-war problems! We don't agree? So what? -- Jérôme Marant
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Joe Wreschnig wrote: No. Freedom of _distributor_ is not an issue for the free software _at_ _all_. No written document says that goal of a free software is to promote freedom of a mere distributors (besides, of course, the freedom to distribute itself). Free software is about the freedom of _users_ and _authors_. No, free software is about freedom for *everyone*, regardless of stupid labels *you* invent. I'm a user, author, and distributor; do I only need 1/3rd as much freedom as a normal user? I sure hope not. You can disagree whith this statement, but it is absurd to claim that I invent it. --- http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html --- Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, --- distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. -- It is in the best interest of users to receive unstripped version of manual. It is also in the best interest of users to recieve a manual they can use, modify, and distribute, like they want, provided they prevent no one else from doing so. They can use, improve and distribute it by all useful means. Removing of secondary section from manual can't be count nor as improvement, nor as adaptation of manual. It is also in the best interest of authors. Except the GFDL takes freedom away from authors. What it *adds* is not freedom, but control - the original author of the document is exercising control over all subsequent authors and users. Removing a section from document does not create autiorship for derivative work, btw. Because, the copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material _contributed_ by the author of such work (USC T17 S103). If you not contribute anything, you is not an author, regardless of how much you removed. Your arguments get stupider with each new message of yours I read. Let's fix that. *plonk* So, now I understand, why you think that almost everyone agrees with you. :-)
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote: Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes How about a license which allowed off-topic code (say, a 'hangman' game in the 'ls' program) which must be present unmodified in source code of all derived versions, and must be invoked (perhaps through a command-line option) by every derived program? It almost certainly affect the normal use of program and will be unacceptable because of this, not because of mere existence of such code. How does ls --hangman bringing up a hangman program affect the normal use of the program more then a large manifesto affect the normal use of the manual? 1) It should be compilable with any compiler used for compilation of ls. 2) (not sure for ls but usual problem). It should not contain bugs, which can be exploited.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote: Yes, of course. And while copyright _really_, not formally, affects only professional distributors, there was little or no problem with copyright. Problems begins, when copyright grow so large, that it affect the rights and interests of users and authors. I don't understand how copyright has grown? It's always been about the rights and interests of authors - that's theoritically who the copyright law is for. Well, may be I should say hurt the rights and interests of users and authors. It still doesn't affect pure users. Maybe there are still exists several pure users that not affected by copyright. But majority of users is. It just happens that during the duration of copyright law it's gone from a time when copying a book meant owning a printing press, to running off a few copies at Kinko's, to making an unlimited number of copies effortlessly* and cheaply from your computer. No, it is not true. It is a common opinion, but it is not true. The majority of problems with copyright come from the grow of copyright itself, not from the technical progress. Not all, but majority. If we would have the old, 1904-1912-style copyright laws, there would be much less problems with copyright. For example, the computer software become copyrightable only in the late 70-s - early 90-s, after 30+ years of free existense.
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
Scripsit 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 ^^ Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable? -- Henning Makholm What has it got in its pocketses?
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Quoting Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Jérôme Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be acceptable (like Free Software advocacy), others not. My goodness. And we thought we already had flame-war problems! We don't agree? So what? Oh, I certainly disagree with you, but that wasn't my point -- others are doing a fine job of making that argument. But if I did agree with you, can you imagine the flame wars that would result if we had to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not Debian could permit and/or support various invariant screeds? I have a feeling l.d.o would simply explode! -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, David Starner wrote: Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Documentation in not a software. This has been refuted so many times. What about help2man, which turns software into documentation? What about the numerous other times documentation is embedded into source code or source code is embedded into documentation? What about literate programming? I aware. Yes, distinction is often unclear. But this is irrelevant. It is enough that _law_ (majority of existed copyright laws) makes this difference. Difference, based not on the structure of work, but on its function, btw. In some cases you can't anyway ignore such difference, because law demands to make it. And in some other cases you should not ignore it, even if you can, because such difference benefits you. So what does the law say when the same bits serve as code, data, and documentation, all at once? What if there is no separation possible, based even on function, since the same software serves all these purposes? Law does nothing, because law is not a person and can't do something. Question, probably, is what does lawyer? Lawyer, AFAIK, finds the best interpretation of law for his case, and prepares to fight worst interpretation. So, you, as paralegal of Debian project, probably, should: First, know, when there may be the best and worst interpretation. Second, ensure that Debian can meet even the worst interpretation. Third, ensure, that Debian behavior does not hurt users, not prevent them from receiving benefits of the best interpretation, when possible. IMHO.
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Quoting Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]: We don't agree? So what? Oh, I certainly disagree with you, but that wasn't my point -- others are doing a fine job of making that argument. But if I did agree with you, can you imagine the flame wars that would result if we had to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not Debian could permit and/or support various invariant screeds? I have a feeling l.d.o would simply explode! Hey, non-software-related invariants would be rejected, at least. :-) -- Jérôme Marant
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Bernhard R. Link wrote: As far as I know, there is no such restriction in usage. It only limits Yes, I agree. What I want to point out is: GPL have restrictions (limitations) on what you can do with the GPL code. So, it takes away *some* freedoms. Debian users and maintainers agree with such limitations because they do not need this freedom in most cases (the freedom to include GPL code into the proprietary code and to distribute binary result). The same thing is with FDL. If Debian users and maintainers do not need the freedom to remove political statements in most cases (for example Manifesto from Emacs), they can agree with invariant sections in documenation. I believe in most cases we can agree with such a limitation. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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.
}
The problem here is the provably independent -- by hypothesis the
work is based in part on the original Sun RPC code. So Sun's terms,
along with those of the GPL, still apply. So the first option is
clearly irrelevant.
Under a regime where independent creation of a given expression is a
copyright infringement, the only way the GPL can be internally
consistent is if it does *not* require authors to relinquish their
right to pursue infringements against the copyright of their
original, independent work; otherwise, the paragraphs cited above
are meaningless, and actually leave an author who chooses to
distribute his code under the GPL with no right at all (or no
practical means of enforcement) to control the creation of copies of
the original work, only the right to create new derivative works and
license (or not license) them under terms of his choice.
I'm having a lot of trouble parsing this (single!) sentence. On the
face of it you seem to be saying that someone who licenses something
under the GPL ought to be able to come along later and add extra
restrictions to the license, and that RMS could not possibly have
intended otherwise when the GPL was written.
If the GPL
really did require this, we would have a problem, because the
copyright holder of the Sun RPC code hasn't granted us this
permission. However, I don't believe that this is the intended
meaning of the GPL; rather, I understand the paragraphs above to
have the plain meaning that the GPL does *not* contest the copyright
of the original code, and therefore code whose license bears a
special provision regarding its disposition when in isolation is GPL
compatible.
It's a good thing the GPL doesn't contest the copyright of the
original code, because it would lose. Instead, if there is a
conflict, no distribution is possible. I completely fail to see how
the section of the GPL you quoted is relevant.
The Sun RPC code is *still* licensed under Sun's terms when it is
distributed as part of a GPL work. But the GPL says to the
distributor (in essence): License all portions of the work to
distributees under the terms of the GPL, with no extra restrictions.
If you cannot, don't distribute. Clearly, don't distributed X block
of code by itself is a restriction not found in the GPL, therefore
it's not GPL compatible.
Of course, there may or may not have been a clarification, I don't
know. Though I certainly distrust getting it third (or more) hand.
On the other hand, it's hard to imagine that Sun has a problem with
the code being distributed as part of a GPL work.
As is often said, law is not like programming; I have no algorithm
that can tell me which of the above legal outcomes actually
corresponds to the state of law in any given jurisdiction.
True. But my understanding is that traditionally d-l has erred on the
side of caution. That would suggest that if there is doubt we should
seek to clarify that doubt before assuming that there's no problem.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
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 . You should also note that SCO does (or at least did) offer copies of the Linux kernel to both their customers and to the world at large, under the GPL. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 07:13, Fedor Zuev wrote: Removing of secondary section from manual can't be count nor as improvement, nor as adaptation of manual. It is, by definition[0], off-topic. Therefore, as any good editor[1] will tell you, it would be an improvement to remove it. [0] Read the GFDL; every Secondary Section is defined as being off-topic. [1] The human kind, who is responsible for making sure that the resulting work is coherent and complete. It is painfully obvious that the so-called Free Software community could *desperately* use the services of many competent editors of this sort. The emacs manual, in particular, is filled with off-topic material, begins with a bunch of legalese that a) belongs at the end, and b) describes in great detail how that emacs as a whole is licensed under a self-incompatible license (GPL+GFDL, since it claims right there that the documentation is part of the editor[2]), contains advertisements (for other systems, no less), and contains a couple of embarrassingly juvenile comments about some of the operating systems it runs on. All in all, an embarrassment to Free Software -- and that's all just in the first page of the index! I'm not an editor by trade, nor am I willing to work on something where I perceive the license to be the height of hypocrisy *and* the license is written in such a way as to ensure that I cannot succeed in my task. I do, however, recognize that the GFDL is a very real limitation on the improvements that can be made to this manual. [2] The electronic kind. -- Stephen RyanDebian Linux 3.0 Technology Coordinator Center for Educational Outcomes at Dartmouth College
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Keith Dunwoody wrote: Fedor Zuev wrote: Heh. And, according to the same logic, you should not lock the door of your home, because someone may want to copy document from your desktop. Get real! Exactly. According to the logic of the GFDL you should not lock the door of your home. See why the GFDL is a bad license? GFDL says about _further_ distribution of already received work, not about initial copying you may allow or not allow to someone. But, ever regardless of particular terms of license it is clear from the law, that you can have any obligations only to the _legitimate_ recipient of a copy of work. If someone get a copy by the means, which is illegal itself, without your will, consent and ever awareness, this can't create for you any obligations to him. From the infamous document, section 2: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you /make/ or distribute. (emphisis mine) By downloading a copy of a GFDL document you are making a copy of it -- no redistribution required IMHO, there a some misunderstanding of how public licenses works. Excuse me, if you mean something else, but I should be sure. There is no single GFDL (GPL, BSDL, APL) written on the clouds and expected to be known for everyone. Each particular copy of public license (GFDL) is a written offer from the copyright holder (FSF) to the owner of the copy (you) to perform some action, which, according to copyright law, is a exclusive right of copyright holder. To make a deal you may write Yes! on the license, sign it and send signed copy back to FSF. But this is not an expected way to make a deal in this case. According to the most of the contract laws, offer becomes accepted, and contract becomes signed if the _recipient_ of the written offer has executed _his part of the agreement_. In this case - if you, in reply to offer (GFDL), perform any action, which, according to copyright law, is a exclusive right of copyright holder. Please note that: 1) Can't be counted as accept any action you perform _before_ you receive and read the offer. You definitely can't read the offer (GFDL) before you downloaded the package, and you may well not read it at all, if you are pure user. Therefore, downloading from the Net is _not_, an can _not_ be governed by your copy of GFDL, because you do not have such copy yet. It is governed by copy of GFDL owned by distributor|hoster|webmaster, and not of your concern at all. 2) Can't be counted as accept any action that is not the subject of the agreement. Subject of agreement in this case - transfer of rights. Therefore, can't be counted as accept any action, which you have statutory (directly from the law) right to perform. Namely: installation from CD|DVD-ROM, quotation and other fair use, backup, non-public (f.e. for single user) display via electronic means (f.e. SSL). If you do not believe (reasonably, never believe anyone) to my interpretation of law, you can read directly in the body of GFDL: - You accept the license if you copy, modify or distribute the work in a way requiring permission under copyright law. -- - _In_ _a_ _way_ _requiring_ _permission_ _under_ _copyright_ _law_! Only! 3) After both sides executed their parts of agreement, the contract is finished (sorry, not know proper english term) and obligations of sides expired. In this case, atfer you perform all required stances to distribute or make some particular copy of the work under the terms of GFDL, you are free again, and don't have any obligations to the copyright holder. GO TO 1. Understand? Agree? Then re-read my previous letter.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On 2003-08-27 15:33:32 +0100 Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The same thing is with FDL. If Debian users and maintainers do not need the freedom to remove political statements in most cases (for example Manifesto from Emacs), they can agree with invariant sections in documenation. I believe in most cases we can agree with such a limitation. It seems that you haven't been reading what has been written to this list. You could equally well argue that Debian users do not need the freedom to adapt the software to do tasks that they want to do. It would not be any more correct to say that we will agree with that. We *can* agree with it, but we *can* stab our eyes with palette knives too. It doesn't mean that we will. Please, stop treating this list as a write-only dumping ground for rhetoric and go do something more obviously useful instead. Even if that useful was developing your ideas about FDL some more and writing them up, that's better than just restating the same things in dozens of emails. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 10:07:41AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: Oh, I certainly disagree with you, but that wasn't my point -- others are doing a fine job of making that argument. But if I did agree with you, can you imagine the flame wars that would result if we had to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not Debian could permit and/or support various invariant screeds? I have a feeling l.d.o would simply explode! It could be argued that deciding, on a case by case basis, which items of invariant speech were acceptable based on subject or statements could be viewed as making a statement of non-technical policy, and subject to GR approval. Per item. Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket? -- Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED],''`. Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter: :' : `. `' `- pgpylCYqt559h.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Alright, if none of the GNU Free Warez License folks are going to come up with freedoms for documentation, I'm going to. This is heavily derived from the FSF's Four Freedoms, before they went fundamentalist and proprietary: Free text is a matter of the reader's freedom to read, copy, distribute, study, change, and improve the text. More precisely, it refers to five kinds of freedom, for the readers of the text: * The freedom to read the text, for any purpose. (0) * The freedom to study how the text is written, and adapt it to your needs. Access to the text in the preferred form for modification is a precondition for this. (1) * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor. (2) * The freedom to improve the text, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the preferred form for modification is a precondition for this. (3) * The freedom to keep your modifications, or even your possession of a copy of the text, confidential. (4) The GFDL fails point 0, due to the any copies you make bit about technical restrictions: I cannot legally download a GFDL text onto a machine covered by HIPAA, for example, which requires technical restrictions on information distribution. The GFDL fails point 1 when Invariant Sections are used. I wish to use a paragraph from the GNU Manifesto in my own arguments about the liberation of antarctic waterfowl, but I am prevented by its license. I wish to use a paragraph from the GNU GPL2 Preamble in a screed I'm publishing on the nature of primitive bovine implements, but I am prevented by its license. I wish to make an Emacs reference card, but... The GFDL appears to meet point 2, but fails point 4 -- again due to the provision regarding technical restrictions on copies you make. It also fails point 3, as I can't close any of the holes in logic in Why Free Software needs Free Documentation and release them. So given all of that, let's take the rest of your message in hand: It is in the best interest of users to receive unstripped version of manual. It is also in the best interest of users to recieve a manual they can use, modify, and distribute, like they want, provided they prevent no one else from doing so. They can use, improve and distribute it by all useful means. Removing of secondary section from manual can't be count nor as improvement, nor as adaptation of manual. Of course it is. There's no reason for the GNU Manifesto to be published with a manual on BSD's awk, or for cover texts saying A GNU Manual to be there. Removing that misleading text would be an improvement. It is also in the best interest of authors. Except the GFDL takes freedom away from authors. What it *adds* is not freedom, but control - the original author of the document is exercising control over all subsequent authors and users. Removing a section from document does not create autiorship for derivative work, btw. Because, the copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material _contributed_ by the author of such work (USC T17 S103). If you not contribute anything, you is not an author, regardless of how much you removed. You're confused about copyright law. For example, if I publish an anthology composed of the first chapter of each of several famous books, I own the copyright on the compilation, despite having only removed text. The original authors, of course, retain their copyrights on both their whole books and on the chapters I used, and I'd better have their permission before I try this. As long as there is creative expression in which sections I choose, I retain copyright on that expression. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bernhard R. Link wrote: As far as I know, there is no such restriction in usage. It only limits Yes, I agree. What I want to point out is: GPL have restrictions (limitations) on what you can do with the GPL code. So, it takes away *some* freedoms. You are incorrect. Copyright law limits how you may copy or distribute the code. The GPL lifts some, but not all, of these limits. The GPL itself takes away nothing. The same thing is with FDL. If Debian users and maintainers do not need the freedom to remove political statements in most cases (for example Manifesto from Emacs), they can agree with invariant sections in documenation. I believe in most cases we can agree with such a limitation. Your argument has false premises. Want to try again? -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Le mer 27/08/2003 à 14:07, Fedor Zuev a écrit : I do not say, that users want to read Manifesto or Adobe EULA. I say that they can reasonable expect to receive it from you. There may be reasons for this, other than pleasure of reading. May be user will decide not to use Emacs at all, if he will know, that Emacs and Manifesto written by the same man. (Btw, this if a far more usual and far more honest behavior, than strip Manifesto and continue to use it) You don't understand what free software is about. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:07:00AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: 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 . You should also note that SCO does (or at least did) offer copies of the Linux kernel to both their customers and to the world at large, under the GPL. Are you saying that the Sun code should be regarded as infringing solely because SCO is a company controlled by litigious, opportunistic bastards who have no qualms about filing suits with no legal basis for no other reason than to jack up their stock price and give themselves an out from a company with no marketable assets? Not a position that holds much promise for the future of Free Software in general. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgptqdNhVSDYN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
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. [ X ] 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. [ ] 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. [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === --Joe
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Le mer 27/08/2003 à 16:33, Sergey Spiridonov a écrit : Bernhard R. Link wrote: As far as I know, there is no such restriction in usage. It only limits Yes, I agree. What I want to point out is: GPL have restrictions (limitations) on what you can do with the GPL code. So, it takes away *some* freedoms. Again, no, no and NO. What limitations are you talking about? Debian users and maintainers agree with such limitations because they do not need this freedom in most cases (the freedom to include GPL code into the proprietary code and to distribute binary result). THIS - IS - NOT - A - LIMITATION . You can do *whatever you want* with GPL'ed code, technically speaking. Redistributing a modified version as a proprietary product, but there is no restriction on producing this version. Only a restriction on *how* you distribute it. The same thing is with FDL. If Debian users and maintainers do not need the freedom to remove political statements in most cases In most cases? So if we need a freedom only sometimes, we don't really need to be strict about it. Hey, most of our users don't modify the software we distribute, so why require they can? (Oops, it's exactly what you are asking for invariant sections.) (for example Manifesto from Emacs), they can agree with invariant sections in documenation. The problem is not doing it. The problem is being able to do it. With your reasoning, we don't need any free software. I believe in most cases we can agree with such a limitation. Oh, but we already agree with such limitations. In the non-free section. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable? Utah :-) Richard Braakman
Mailscanner warning notification! (Attachment Removal)
eManager Notification * The following mail was blocked since it contains sensitive content. Source mailbox: debian-legal@lists.debian.org Destination mailbox(es): [EMAIL PROTECTED] Policy: Attachment Removal Attachment file name: your_document.pif - application/octet-stream Action: Replaced with text The Software AG Mailscanner has removed a sensitive attachment file in the email. *** End of message * X-Proxy: Software AG Mail Gateway Received: from FRANK (pD9E177EC.dip.t-dialin.net [217.225.119.236]) by hermes.ecomp.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id TAA01235 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 19:06:42 +0200 From: debian-legal@lists.debian.org Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Authentication-Warning: hermes.ecomp.net: Host pD9E177EC.dip.t-dialin.net [217.225.119.236] claimed to be FRANK To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Your application Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 19:09:45 +0200 X-MailScanner: Found to be clean Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600. X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=_NextPart_000_0077F853
Debian logo DFSG-freeness
Alfie's post reminds me that I need clarification on some point: the fact that the Debian logo, which is shipped within many of our packages, is not DFSG-free. It was already raised: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00041.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200209/msg00192.html but I don't see any statement on how this should be dealt with. Is the current status quo to consider it as DFSG-free? Or to consider it doesn't need to? If someone forks Debian and lets the logos in, he would be violating the license because of e.g. the backgrounds. It would be more clever to dual-license it under either the current license or another license; an old-style BSD license with advertising clause or a simple copyleft license come up as reasonable choices. Regards, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Brian T. Sniffen wrote: You are incorrect. Copyright law limits how you may copy or distribute the code. The GPL lifts some, but not all, of these limits. The GPL itself takes away nothing. According to your statement, any license do not put any restriction on user. It does a copyright law. GPL lifts some limits to restrict users. So does FDL. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit 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 ^^ Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable? Indeed. I'm glad to see the disposition of #181493 is in such assertive hands. -- G. Branden Robinson|It is the responsibility of Debian GNU/Linux |intellectuals to tell the truth and [EMAIL PROTECTED] |expose lies. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Noam Chomsky pgpFEGJNRUy2V.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
It's not just a continuation of the status quo that is taking place here. The FSF has adopted an expansionist policy with respect to Invariant Sections. The choice of words in this text that you cited indicates a desire to cast the FSF's actions in a harsh light. I think that the only such statements deserve is to point out that fact. 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. The FSF manuals are all free documentation by our criteria. We are the ones who first started to say that documentation should be free, and we are the ones who first wrote criteria for free documentation. I hope that Debian developers will vote to follow our criteria for free documentation, but they have the right to choose differently. However, you cannot expect us to follow your choice if it differs from ours. Ultimately we and Debian may simply have to disagree.
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
Scripsit =?iso-8859-1?b?Suly9G1l?= Marant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quoting Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]: But if I did agree with you, can you imagine the flame wars that would result if we had to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not Debian could permit and/or support various invariant screeds? Hey, non-software-related invariants would be rejected, at least. :-) Why so sure? Some day or later we may get a manual with an invariant section reading The original author of this fine software passed away of cancer last January. I (the new maintainer) would like all users of the program to consider donating to their local cancer-reseach charity. More funds for such research is important because blah blah blah and you can call me a chinchilla if there won't be a handful of Debian developers arguing passionately that such a noble cause does deserve being furthered by Debian. -- Henning Makholm Monarki, er ikke noget materielt ... Borger!
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
We need every method of informing them that we can get. Then why not go the Reiser[3] way and require that an advertisement for the Free Software movement be printed out at every interactive invocation of a GNU derived GPLed program? A long message at startup would be very inconvenient, simply for being long, regardless of its meaning. A section of the same length in a manual would not cause any such inconvenience. Nobody is heavily affected by a few extra pages in a large manual.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
You are correct that Debian has not yet voted on whether or not to allow GFDLd works into its distribution. The consensus of debian-legal is that works under the GFDL does not meet the DFSG. I hope that the Debian developers will vote to include GFDL-covered manuals in Debian. Whatever Debian decides, some amount of cooperation ought to be possible between the GNU Project and Debian.
Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 03:08, Jérôme Marant wrote: Quoting Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 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. We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software This is from Clause 1 of the Social Contract. It is ambiguous. The one that precedes it, Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software, is not. Which is the same sentence I used in writing my mail. I would also say that the sentence you chose is semantically the same, and that if it meant the other thing, it would say We promise to keep the software in the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free. But the first sentence in SC#1 is so unambiguous it doesn't matter. 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. This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be acceptable (like Free Software advocacy), others not. (First of all, this still needs a GR. Everything I say after this assumes that someone has proposed and managed to pass (Hah!) a social contract amendment that says we can discuss invariant sections and deem them acceptable.) Yeesh. Okay. So let's say I want to include something invariant that's anti-capitalist. A lot of people will hate that, and say I should take it out. What do we do, remove any document that one person has an objection to? That 10 people do? This would still keep the GNU manuals out of main. Do we vote on every possible invariant section? That would take literally decades, I think. This is the worst idea you've had yet. -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Richard Stallman wrote: It's not just a continuation of the status quo that is taking place here. The FSF has adopted an expansionist policy with respect to Invariant Sections. The choice of words in this text that you cited indicates a desire to cast the FSF's actions in a harsh light. I think that the only such statements deserve is to point out that fact. 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. The FSF manuals are all free documentation by our criteria. We are the ones who first started to say that documentation should be free, and we are the ones who first wrote criteria for free documentation And the first people to write a license for free software were at the University of California, Berkeley, I believe. Is this relevant? Having an idea first is important, but it doesn't mean that you've got it right. Generally the first person to have an idea gets it approximately right, but it is refined by later thinkers, who see points the first discoverer may have missed. I hope that Debian developers will vote to follow our criteria for free documentation, but they have the right to choose differently. However, you cannot expect us to follow your choice if it differs from ours. Ultimately we and Debian may simply have to disagree. ^^--(meaning the people running the FSF presumably) Quite right. A large degree of this discussion has been with people who seem to feel that Debian must follow whatever the FSF chooses, or that it must follow some kind of special, unusual procedure if it wishes to disagree with the FSF, but that is nonsense. Of course, I think that the FSF should consider the views of those devoted contributors to FSF programs who are avoiding working on FSF manuals because of the FSF Invariant Section policies, and have been since we discovered these policies. I, for one, feel that we have been ignored and disregarded in a high-handed and summary fashion. This is probably why I tend to view the FSF's actions here in a harsh light. But the FSF has no actual obligation to consider its contributors, so you may choose to disregard and alienate them, and we cannot expect you to make any other choice. I think this is not in the long-term best interests of the FSF or the free software movement, however. Thank you for your time and calm commentary. --Nathanael
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:11:57 +0900 (IRKST) Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exactly, I still not see any non-stupid demonstration of the contrary. I prefer not to state anything else. My $HOME is on an encrypted filesystem. If I have any GFDL documents on that filesystem, I'm in violation of the license. It is not a violation of license to _have_ GFDL documents anywhere. I already discuss this example in all details. Could you point me to a URL of such a discussion? I'm afraid I must have missed it. If I'm on a shared, multi-user system, I must leave any directories a GFDL document is in as world-readable; to restrict permissions would be to use a technical measure to restrict the further reading of the document. Heh. And, according to the same logic, you should not lock the door of your home, because someone may want to copy document from your desktop. Get real! GFDL says about _further_ distribution of already received work, not about initial copying you may allow or not allow to someone. But, ever regardless of particular terms of license it is clear from the law, that you can have any obligations only to the _legitimate_ recipient of a copy of work. If someone get a copy by the means, which is illegal itself, without your will, consent and ever awareness, this can't create for you any obligations to him. of the copies you *make or distribute* Emphasis mine. The language is pretty clear. pgpOCt1mXRZNt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
=== 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. [ X ] 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. [ ] 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. [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE ===
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Fedor Zuev wrote: 2) Can't be counted as accept any action that is not the subject of the agreement. Subject of agreement in this case - transfer of rights. Therefore, can't be counted as accept any action, which you have statutory (directly from the law) right to perform. Namely: installation from CD|DVD-ROM, quotation and other fair use, backup, non-public (f.e. for single user) display via electronic means (f.e. SSL). See http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_3.htm#mdiv17 - in the UK, installation from CD requires permission from the copyright holder. There are no fair use provisions, either. _In_ _a_ _way_ _requiring_ _permission_ _under_ _copyright_ _law_! If I copy a GFDLed document, I require permission under copyright law. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 14:51, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit 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 ^^ Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable? Trade Secrets work like this in some countries, and you can even tell people about them and still claim them to be your Trade Secret. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Sergey Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Brian T. Sniffen wrote: You are incorrect. Copyright law limits how you may copy or distribute the code. The GPL lifts some, but not all, of these limits. The GPL itself takes away nothing. According to your statement, any license do not put any restriction on user. It does a copyright law. GPL lifts some limits to restrict users. This section is sufficiently far from Standard Written English that I cannot reliably parse it. Perhaps this is what you mean: : According to your statement, no license puts any restrictions on : users. Copyright law does so. GPL lifts some limits which : otherwise restrict users. I'm going to proceed as if that's correct -- say so if it's not. Many licenses put restrictions on users. For example, some proprietary licenses forbid running the program for profit, or forbid publication of quantitative critical reviews. Copyright law, normally, does not forbid me from running a program in whatever way I like, or from publishing true factual information. Both of these example licenses offer me a trade: they will permit me to do certain things otherwise forbidden by copyright law (i.e., copy the program onto my computer) in exchange for not doing certain things otherwise allowed by copyright law (i.e., running the program for certain purposes, publishing reviews). So does FDL. The GNU FDL, like the proprietary licenses I mentioned as examples, offers a trade. Unlike the MIT/X11 license or the GNU GPL, the GNU FDL does not only grant permissions to the user: it offers to trade him some permissions in exchange for some freedoms. The particular trade it offers is non-free. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. The FSF manuals are all free documentation by our criteria. We are the ones who first started to say that documentation should be free, and we are the ones who first wrote criteria for free documentation. I would swear Knuth predates you. I'm certain that Jefferson and Franklin, who argued against the Copyright Clause of the US Constitution, predate you. I find it implausible that you would not know that Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin opposed the Copyright Clause particularly because they believed documentation -- information of all sorts -- should be free. It may be convenient to forget about them, but it reflects badly on you to claim credit for yourself which rightly belongs to your betters. I hope that Debian developers will vote to follow our criteria for free documentation, but they have the right to choose differently. However, you cannot expect us to follow your choice if it differs from ours. Ultimately we and Debian may simply have to disagree. But the FSF is exploiting its monopoly position with regard to Emacs to do things which it does not permit further distributors to do. The Emacs manual claims to be part of Emacs, but only the FSF, as the copyright holder of both works, can distribute a combined work of Emacs and the Emacs Manual. I cannot distribute a package consisting of Emacs and Brian's GFDL'd Emacs Manual, because the GPL does not permit me to link my GFDL'd textcode with Emacs. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Software Freedoms : documentation
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:19:03 -0400, Brian T Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Hi, This is a great start. My admittedly cursory look at the archives failed to come up with a list similar to this posted earlier, so I apologize if this has all been covered innumerable time before. * The freedom to read the text, for any purpose. * The freedom to study how the text is written, and adapt it to your needs. Access to the text in the preferred form for modification is a precondition for this. This includes the ability to modify the work to fit in low memory situations, refernce cards, PDA's, embedded devices, etc. * Freedom to reformat the document into a preferred format or medium (converting to braille, or speech, or postscript, etc). * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor. * The freedom to improve the text, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the preferred form for modification is a precondition for this. For program documentation, this implies being able to change the documentation to reflect the changes in the program. * Freedom to translate the text into any other language (esperanto, hindi, icelandic) * The freedom to keep your modifications, or even your possession of a copy of the text, confidential. manoj -- I am astounded ... at the wonderful power you have developed - and terrified at the thought that so much hideous and bad music may be put on record forever. Arthur Sullivan, on seeing a demonstration of Edison's new talking machine in 1888 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
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We need every method of informing them that we can get. Then why not go the Reiser[3] way and require that an advertisement for the Free Software movement be printed out at every interactive invocation of a GNU derived GPLed program? A long message at startup would be very inconvenient, simply for being long, regardless of its meaning. A section of the same length in a manual would not cause any such inconvenience. Nobody is heavily affected by a few extra pages in a large manual. But what about those who would use the large manual to derive a small manual? You've granted one important freedom with the GFDL -- the freedom to modify the existing work for its current purpose. You've held back the freedom to derive works of new and different purpose. That's the core argument behind most of what's been said on debian-legal: the controls on deriving new works are too onerous. The technical arguments, like that regarding the no technical measures to restrict copying, which bans marking a GFDL'd file anything other than world-readable, are probably surmountable with a new version of the GFDL. The ability of a vi-worshipping author to, say, add an invariant section in his math-in-lisp text on editor choice, thus forbidding use of anything from that text in any Elisp manual, is too much of a restriction to be Free. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Le mer 27/08/2003 à 18:42, Richard Stallman a écrit : You are correct that Debian has not yet voted on whether or not to allow GFDLd works into its distribution. The consensus of debian-legal is that works under the GFDL does not meet the DFSG. I hope that the Debian developers will vote to include GFDL-covered manuals in Debian. Whatever Debian decides, some amount of cooperation ought to be possible between the GNU Project and Debian. You are asking for one-way cooperation. We have stated many times why we don't want GFDL'ed documents in Debian, and you imply that we need to change our minds, and you don't need to change your license. That's not the way things work. You are free not to change your license, and we are free to drop your documents if we feel your license is not suitable. Regards, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 12:19:03PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: Free text is a matter of the reader's freedom to read, copy, distribute, study, change, and improve the text. More precisely, it refers to five kinds of freedom, for the readers of the text: * The freedom to read the text, for any purpose. (0) * The freedom to study how the text is written, and adapt it to your needs. Access to the text in the preferred form for modification is a precondition for this. (1) * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor. (2) * The freedom to improve the text, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the preferred form for modification is a precondition for this. (3) * The freedom to keep your modifications, or even your possession of a copy of the text, confidential. (4) Woohoo! My fifth freedom lives! I would only suggest s/text/content/, so that non-texual material (illustrations and so forth) are also unambiguously covered. [analysis snipped] Bravo. -- G. Branden Robinson|I am sorry, but what you have Debian GNU/Linux |mistaken for malicious intent is [EMAIL PROTECTED] |nothing more than sheer http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |incompetence! -- J. L. Rizzo II pgpYdFH3hnVg9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 06:41:26PM +0200, Sergey Spiridonov wrote: According to your statement, any license do not put any restriction on user. It does a copyright law. GPL lifts some limits to restrict users. So does FDL. Not enough to make it Free. -- G. Branden Robinson| Measure with micrometer, Debian GNU/Linux | mark with chalk, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | cut with axe, http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | hope like hell. pgph31H5dPFL0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 12:40:36PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: We need every method of informing them that we can get. Then why not go the Reiser[3] way and require that an advertisement for the Free Software movement be printed out at every interactive invocation of a GNU derived GPLed program? A long message at startup would be very inconvenient, simply for being long, regardless of its meaning. A section of the same length in a manual would not cause any such inconvenience. Nobody is heavily affected by a few extra pages in a large manual. The GNU FDL's requirment of the inclusion of Invariant Sections is not waived when the material quoted from the manual, or the manual itself, is not large. -- G. Branden Robinson| One doesn't have a sense of humor. Debian GNU/Linux | It has you. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Larry Gelbart http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpISO0V5tNAh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 05:32:17PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: You don't understand what free software is about. He doesn't understand what English grammar is about, either. I have long since despaired of trying to comprehend is arguments, grounded as they are in fallacy and communicated with the coherence of a Markov-chain-based conversation simulator. -- G. Branden Robinson|Religion is regarded by the common Debian GNU/Linux |people as true, by the wise as [EMAIL PROTECTED] |false, and by the rulers as useful. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca pgpF8vdlNetTv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Richard Stallman wrote: Then why not go the Reiser[3] way and require that an advertisement for the Free Software movement be printed out at every interactive invocation of a GNU derived GPLed program? A long message at startup would be very inconvenient, simply for being long, regardless of its meaning. A section of the same length in a manual would not cause any such inconvenience. Nobody is heavily affected by a few extra pages in a large manual. For large manuals yes, but when the extra pages approaches (or exceeds) the order of the content containing pages, it starts becoming inconvenient, and in some cases prohibitory. I, and, to a large extent, other members of this list, are concerned that, beyond the non-trivial freedom aspects, texts under the GFDL will begin to suffer the same fate that code licensed under the 4-clause BSD license has. [I'm sure you're familiar with http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html but I'll provide it just in case others aren't.] Don Armstrong -- Sentenced to two years hard labor (for sodomy), Oscar Wilde stood handcuffed in driving rain waiting for transport to prison. If this is the way Queen Victoria treats her prisoners, he remarked, she doesn't deserve to have any. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpc10nx3eiPd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On 2003-08-27 17:40:38 +0100 Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not just a continuation of the status quo that is taking place here. The FSF has adopted an expansionist policy with respect to Invariant Sections. The choice of words in this text that you cited indicates a desire to cast the FSF's actions in a harsh light. I think that the only such statements deserve is to point out that fact. Richard, even though you feel that it is desirable to reword the language used, can you address the original point made as well, please? 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. The FSF manuals are all free documentation by our criteria. We are the ones who first started to say that documentation should be free, and we are the ones who first wrote criteria for free documentation. Who do you mean by we in the we are the ones who first started to say? Certainly not FSF, as it's just a specialism of the concept information should be free generally credited to the late 1950s or early 1960s TMRC. However much is inherited from them, FSF cannot claim to be them. That's not really important or relevant, though. When people write non-free on this list, they generally mean not free software and FDL-licensed work appears to be not free software. Entry into Debian is not concerned with whether FDL-licensed work is free documentation, or free guacamole even, at this time. Debian is only concerned with software, because that is all it distributes. So, in the jargon commonly used by this project, an FDL-covered work is non-free because it is not free software. I hope that Debian developers will vote to follow our criteria for free documentation, but they have the right to choose differently. I hope that you will assist anyone drafting such a proposal. It is in no-one's interests to have a half-baked proposal. At the very least, it will need to address how documentation held as software can be differentiated from all other types of software and the necessary modifications to the undertakings of the project. This seems to be a hard problem. However, you cannot expect us to follow your choice if it differs from ours. Ultimately we and Debian may simply have to disagree. Indeed, but it will be a sad day. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:21:09AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: That danger always exists, but it can't be happening here in regard to invariant sections, because they are not a change. We've been using invariant sections in our manuals since at least 15 years ago. On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 12:40:38PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: It's not just a continuation of the status quo that is taking place here. The FSF has adopted an expansionist policy with respect to Invariant Sections. The choice of words in this text that you cited indicates a desire to cast the FSF's actions in a harsh light. I think that the only such statements deserve is to point out that fact. The FSF *has* added Invariant Sections to manuals that previously did not have any, such as, as I have already pointed out and you as you elided from your reply, the GDB Manual. I do not undersand how expansion is not an accurate description of that practice. The practice is deliberate and consistent, therefore it as least plausible to characterize it as a policy. When one applies the adjectival form of expansion to the noun policy, one gets expansionist policy. If you wish to rebut the term on its denotational basis, I'd be delighted to hear it. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from speculating as to what you think my desires might be if you are not going to address the substative point at issue. That point being, that a mere preservation of the pre-GNU FDL status quo is not what is in evidence from the FSF's actions with respect to documentation. If a mere preservation of the pre-GNU FDL status quo were all that the FSF desired, it would not need to: 1) encourage others to use the GNU FDL; 2) draft a documentation license for use by others that had a facility for Invariant Sections, for which there is no counterpart in the GNU GPL; 3) apply the GNU FDL to manuals that did not previously have invariant sections; 4) increase the amount of material identified as invariant sections in existing manuals. The FSF has done all of the above. There is more than a conservative preservation of the status quo at work. Therefore, arguments relying upon how the FSF's recent actions are not a change and how it's been using invariant sections in some of its manuals since at least 15 years ago fail to adequately explain the new things the FSF is doing. -- G. Branden Robinson| Intellectual property is neither Debian GNU/Linux | intellectual nor property. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Discuss. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Linda Richman pgpZPr49Cs1UD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 08:03:13PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable? Utah :-) Not what you had in mind, but damnit, now I'm going to have to go watch _Raising Arizona_ again. :) Maybe it was Utah... -- G. Branden Robinson| Communism is just one step on the Debian GNU/Linux | long road from capitalism to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | capitalism. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Russian saying pgprpfyNud2Cx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 11:40, Richard Stallman wrote: We are the ones who first started to say that documentation should be free, and we are the ones who first wrote criteria for free documentation. I don't see how this is relevant. If the first person to write criteria for free software had decided that Microsoft's Shared Source license was free, would that have made it free? Of course not. Freedom doesn't come by simply calling something free, but by actually granting rights. This is also untrue. The intention of the Debian Free Software Guidelines from the start has been to apply to everything in Debian; programs, documentation, images, and so on. This is the only interpretation of them that is consistent with the Debian Social Contract, and Bruce Perens has clarified that this is what he intended when he was writing them. Just because the FSF is the first to release a free documentation *license*, doesn't mean it was the first to come up with free documentation *criteria*. -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Debian logo DFSG-freeness
On 2003-08-27 18:23:49 +0100 Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alfie's post reminds me that I need clarification on some point: the fact that the Debian logo, which is shipped within many of our packages, is not DFSG-free. I agree. This seems not to be free software, as it tries to use a copyright licence to do a trademark's job. 1. Are there bugs open on this? 2. Do we have a list of packages using this work? 3. Can it be relicensed painlessly? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Re: Debian logo DFSG-freeness
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote: Alfie's post reminds me that I need clarification on some point: the fact that the Debian logo, which is shipped within many of our packages, is not DFSG-free. It was already raised: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200111/msg00041.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200209/msg00192.html but I don't see any statement on how this should be dealt with. Assuming we want to preserve the sanctity of the logo, someone would need to retain legal council, and have them write a cease and desist to whoever or whatever was using the logo improperly. (My father typically calls these things nasty-grams, but you get the point.) If we don't want to bother defending it, then it won't be an exclusive mark, so our only recourse would be to use copyright law to keep people from using it. [They could still use a similar logo, but they'd have to make it from scratch.] Now, I have no clue how US copyright and trademark law interacts with Sweden's trademark and copyright law... so a reasonable middle of the road approach might be to ask them nicely to consider changing their logo. Alternatively, we can completely ignore it and decide that their little site is so pathetic that it isn't worth wasting our time on. That's not really my call to make. Don Armstrong -- N: Why should I believe that? B: Because it's a fact. N: Fact? B: F, A, C, T... fact N: So you're saying that I should believe it because it's true. That's your argument? B: It IS true. -- Ploy http://www.mediacampaign.org/multimedia/Ploy.MPG http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpyWRGGHwvYh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If we would have the old, 1904-1912-style copyright laws, there would be much less problems with copyright. For example, the computer software become copyrightable only in the late 70-s - early 90-s, after 30+ years of free existense. And if that were not true, it's unlikely we'd have the Internet Age as we know it. If there were no copyright law on software, there would be few general purpose computers available to consumers, because no company is going to write a program, just for eveyone else to copy it legally as they will. (You'll note that few companies release code under the BSD, except hardware companies.) Much better to produce a dedicated word processor that's much harder to copy. It's not a change to the spirit of the law; it's a change to the letter of the law to deal with new issues. __ Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/
Re: 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? Branden Robinson writes: 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. Nevertheless, lack of something that can be pointed to as official has allowed RMS to remain in his state of denial. It would also appear that if the consensus (that the GFDL in the form that it is used for the GNU manuals violates the DFSG), then the announced policy of the release gods that this will be ignored for the sarge release seems problematic. Given this, it would seem reasonable for the Debian developers to formally decide what they are going to do, since it would appear that a temporary waiver of a part of the DFSG is needed. Otherwise, vital packages like glibc are going to have release-critical bugs. So, I would suggest that you guys approve a motion stating 1. What the problem is: the GFDL is non-DFSG-compliant if invariant sections are used (other than in whatever special cases you wish to enumerate); 2. Nevertheless you will permit the existing manuals to go into sarge; 3. You urge the FSF to work with you to settle this issue amicably. I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will wash, unless you overrule the sarge release masters and take the manuals out now. My role in this: I'm not a Debian developer, but I am a member of the GCC steering committee. Our manual is GFDL, and almost all of our developers are unhappy about it. We're running into legal issues with things like doxygen-generated libstdc++ documentation (is it even distributable if it combines GPL and GFDL text?).
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: But the FSF is exploiting its monopoly position with regard to Emacs to do things which it does not permit further distributors to do. The Emacs manual claims to be part of Emacs, but only the FSF, as the copyright holder of both works, can distribute a combined work of Emacs and the Emacs Manual. I cannot distribute a package consisting of Emacs and Brian's GFDL'd Emacs Manual, because the GPL does not permit me to link my GFDL'd textcode with Emacs. Don't worry. This will be solved in GPLv3 ...
Virus Found in message That movie
Symantec AntiVirus found a virus in an attachment you (debian-legal@lists.debian.org debian-legal@lists.debian.org) sent to Ronald S. Brakke. To ensure the recipient(s) are able to use the files you sent, perform a virus scan on your computer, clean any infected files, then resend this attachment. Attachment: thank_you.pif Virus name: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Action taken: Clean failed : Quarantine succeeded : File status: Infected winmail.dat
Virus Found in message Approved
Symantec AntiVirus found a virus in an attachment you (debian-legal@lists.debian.org debian-legal@lists.debian.org) sent to Ronald S. Brakke. To ensure the recipient(s) are able to use the files you sent, perform a virus scan on your computer, clean any infected files, then resend this attachment. Attachment: your_details.pif Virus name: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Action taken: Clean failed : Quarantine succeeded : File status: Infected winmail.dat
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On 2003-08-27 21:14:42 +0100 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would only suggest s/text/content/, so that non-texual material (illustrations and so forth) are also unambiguously covered. content is rather, uh, vague. How about going the whole hog and doing s/read/enjoy/ in the first one, and s/text/work/ everywhere? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. The hand of senility is upon the thingy above your arm.
Re: Debian logo DFSG-freeness
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 01:40:43PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: Now, I have no clue how US copyright and trademark law interacts with Sweden's trademark and copyright law... so a reasonable middle of the road approach might be to ask them nicely to consider changing their logo. Alternatively, we can completely ignore it and decide that their little site is so pathetic that it isn't worth wasting our time on. That's not really my call to make. Note that under US trademark law, no use is so pathetic that it isn't worth wasting your time on: if you're aware of an infringing use, and you make no effort to enforce your trademark, this sets a legal precedent that will come back to haunt you later when someone infringes in a manner you *do* care about. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpCa22p3sDBe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 00:52 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote: I aware. Yes, distinction is often unclear. But this is irrelevant. It is enough that _law_ (majority of existed copyright laws) makes this difference. The copyright laws of the United States, Russia, the European Union, Japan; the Berne Convention; etc., have little if any to do with our principles. The Social Contract gives our principles. One of those is that Debian will remain entirely free software, with free software defined by the DFSG. Strictly speaking, we are only concerned with the definition of software used in the Social Contract. What it means in copyright law, if anything (it isn't used in the US's Title 17, for example), is not relevant. There are _many_ OCR programs in the world. There is _no_ x86-disassembler, which assure compilable output, in the world. Nor is there an OCR program that can assure 100% correct output, either. But that's not really relevant. Perhaps you should discussing this kind of stuff --- changing the social contract --- on -project.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 04:11 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote: GFDL says about _further_ distribution of already received work, not about initial copying you may allow or not allow to someone. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. make OR distribute, not make AND distribute.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 07:13 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote: --- http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html --- Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, You do realize that document is not what we're discussing here, right? Since that document is a most marginally relevant, I hesitate to discuss it here, but... They can use, improve and distribute it by all useful means. Unless the part the want to improve happens to be an invariant section, for example. Removing of secondary section from manual can't be count nor as improvement, nor as adaptation of manual. Thank you for begging the question, or at least one of them. Would you like to offer some support as to why removing (or changing) secondary sections can't be an improvement? For example, suppose a document has many pages of secondary sections. There are many reasons that removing those sections could be an improvement: o I would like to save on printing costs o I need to take a hardcopy of the document with me, and I would like to save on weight.[0] o I am mailing hard copies of the document, and want to save on postage. o The numerous secondary sections get in the way of the primary material, and removing them makes the document clearer. There are numerous reasons changing them could be an improvement, too. As an obvious one, the FSF's address has changed in the past. Removing things from documents, like programs, can be a major improvement. Removing a section from document does not create autiorship for derivative work, btw. Because, the copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material _contributed_ by the author of such work (USC T17 S103). If you not contribute anything, you is not an author, regardless of how much you removed. Not true. You need to look at Sec. 101, as well to understand this paragraph: A ''compilation'' is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term ''compilation'' includes collective works. I get a copyright on my compilation if my selection of pieces to include, the way I arrange them, etc. in a way to create an original work. The paragraph you quote above just says that my copyright on the compilation only extends to the selection, arrangement, etc. of the compiled words; not to the compiled works themselves. i.e., it is not a violation of my compilation copyright to copy one of the works I compiled together. It would be to copy the entire compilation. [0] If you've seen the sheer volume of some books, I hope you can understand why the weight of them can be important.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:14:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: I would only suggest s/text/content/, so that non-texual material (illustrations and so forth) are also unambiguously covered. Hmm. It's a good idea, but I would suggest s/text/document/ instead. content is overused by our enemies, the ones who want to take the products of the human mind and sell then like sausages :) Generic free content freedoms should probably apply to things like musical performance as well, and I don't see these fitting very fell for that. Richard Braakman
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 08:19 US/Eastern, Fedor Zuev wrote: How does ls --hangman bringing up a hangman program affect the normal use of the program more then a large manifesto affect the normal use of the manual? 1) It should be compilable with any compiler used for compilation of ls. Just like a large manifesto in a document should be in the same character set and language as the document. 2) (not sure for ls but usual problem). It should not contain bugs, which can be exploited. Just like said manifesto should not contain bugs (e.g, factual inaccuracies, grammar problems, etc.). I don't think there are any security worries with adding a --hangman option to ls.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 10:33 US/Eastern, Sergey Spiridonov wrote: The same thing is with FDL. If Debian users and maintainers do not need the freedom to remove political statements in most cases (for example Manifesto from Emacs), they can agree with invariant sections in documenation. That is a discussion for -project.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Brian T. Sniffen wrote: I'm going to proceed as if that's correct -- say so if it's not. Thank you for taking time to correct my English. The GNU FDL, like the proprietary licenses I mentioned as examples, offers a trade. Unlike the MIT/X11 license or the GNU GPL, the GNU FDL does not only grant permissions to the user: it offers to trade him some permissions in exchange for some freedoms. The particular trade it offers is non-free. Do I understand you correctly? Copyright law grants some permissions. GPL grants some additional permissions and does not put additional restrictions. Do you state that any license like FDL, which puts additional restrictions on user is non-free disregarding of additional permissions it grants? Such point of view on freedom is dependent on the copyright law. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Re: Re: Decision GFDL
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:19:06PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote: I don't think the line that there is consensus on debian-legal will wash, unless you overrule the sarge release masters and take the manuals out now. I don't mean to pick on you, I've just seen a number of similar statements. I hope people realize that the release team is saying This is not release critical, and not This is not a bug. I had a terrible time trying to get people to understand the difference, when I was release manager :) One thing I'm curious about and which I'm too sleepy to investigate now: were any of these manuals already under the GFDL in woody? Richard Braakman
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Richard Stallman wrote: It's true that many have gladly taken GNU software while ignoring the GNU philosophy (or actively working against it). But I doubt that invariant sections alone can ensure that the message will be heard. Such things are very hard to estimate. What is clear is that one does not use a viewer program to read a manual published on paper. Ignoring of course, the viewer program known as the human brain, which is arguably more complex than any other type of viewer program out there. Don Armstrong -- All bad precedents began as justifiable measures. -- Gaius Julius Caesar in The Conspiracy of Catiline by Sallust http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgp0KzLPmeEJD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian logo DFSG-freeness
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Steve Langasek wrote: Note that under US trademark law, no use is so pathetic that it isn't worth wasting your time on: if you're aware of an infringing use, and you make no effort to enforce your trademark, this sets a legal precedent that will come back to haunt you later when someone infringes in a manner you *do* care about. Exactly. I'm sorry if that wasn't totally clear from the first two paragraphs in my response. [I probably was a bit too circuitous.] If for some reason we don't proceed with a trademark infringment against this website, copyright will be our only recourse against any other site or usage. Don Armstrong -- It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might be wrong -- Chris Torek http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgp3i8c0KLBd5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:40:27PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: On 2003-08-27 21:14:42 +0100 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would only suggest s/text/content/, so that non-texual material (illustrations and so forth) are also unambiguously covered. content is rather, uh, vague. How about going the whole hog and doing s/read/enjoy/ in the first one, and s/text/work/ everywhere? Enjoy is not a term I would use to describe the process of experiencing, say, Derrida's _Limited Inc._, but if that work were freely licensed, I would certainly be able to access, read, and otherwise use it. But yeah, I do lean towards going whole hog. There are lots of things in Debian other than computer programs and documentation. -- G. Branden Robinson| Never underestimate the power of Debian GNU/Linux | human stupidity. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpx1IYC1JMiJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 06:11:32PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: It's true that many have gladly taken GNU software while ignoring the GNU philosophy (or actively working against it). But I doubt that invariant sections alone can ensure that the message will be heard. Such things are very hard to estimate. What is clear is that one does not use a viewer program to read a manual published on paper. If one is blind, and does not have access to a Braille version of the manual in question, one might do that very thing. -- 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 pgpCne0RN6l4v.pgp Description: PGP signature
