Re: Is the GPL free?
We have a lot of good fights to fight, but freeness of actual license text isn't one of them. If someone thinks that is inconsistent, we can always answer them with that famous Emerson quote A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Thank Bruce
Re: Is haskell-doc acceptable in main? (was: Re: Is the GPL free?)
David Starner wrote: (1) We do make an exception for licenses. (2) I once heard something about that mentioned on one of the debian lists. (Yes, I can get vaguer. It might take work though.) Agreed so far. I think at least three of us vaguely remember that discussion, so it probably happened. :-) (3) There are some documents in main that need that exception. (a) GNAT User's Guide (note that this is something I've been planning to mention to RMS, that the main documentation distributed along with a GNU program is non-free.) Why are gnat's docs so special they can't go in non-free with the other non-free software? (b)The RFC's don't allow unlimited modification (restricting only to commenting on or explaining the RFC.) And are thus clearly non-free. It's not as if access to the RFC's on a debian cd is a crucial part of debian, so why leave the moral high ground of the dfsg to make an exception for them? (c)The translation of the dhammapada included with display-dhammapada has no right to modify. (d)nase-a60 includes Revised Report on Algol 60, which has no right to modify. And thus belongs in non-free for identical reasons to what I said above. -- see shy jo
Re: Is the GPL free?
Darren O. Benham wrote: Why? that's all overkill. DFSG doesn't dictate what goes into main, the policy document does. Policy uses DFSG as the yardstick to measure a piece of software's worthiness. Check for Policy to see if the GPL is allowed in main. Excuse me? Policy includes the complete text of the DFSG and unequivically states that all packages in main must comply with them. -- see shy jo
Re: Is the GPL free?
Joseph Carter wrote: Licenses cannot be themselves free and still mean anything. They're legal documents and as such need to be unchanging. The correct solution is to let it be. [ Playing devils advocate for a minute.. ] But wouldn't the GPL have the same protections if it's license said it could be modified, but only if you didn't claim the resulting license was the GPL? -- see shy jo
Re: Is haskell-doc acceptable in main? (was: Re: Is the GPL free?)
Yes, it definitely makes sense for license text to be non-alterable. In particular, you can't be allowed to change the license that someone else has applied to their work. However, you _can_ be allowed to copy that license, modify it, and apply it to your own work. The GPL doesn't really give you that privilege. I think we can live with that. Thanks Bruce
Re: Is haskell-doc acceptable in main? (was: Re: Is the GPL free?)
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 01:14:05PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: (d)nase-a60 includes Revised Report on Algol 60, which has no right to modify. And thus belongs in non-free for identical reasons to what I said above. In that case, if you file a bug, I'd rather drop the doc than move the package to non-free. It would be a shame. Considering the non-consensus we have here, I'd probably just close the bug as a non-bug, though. If we get a real consensus here, I'll follow it. I've already made the upload which - if approved by ftpmasters - will move haskell-doc to main, based on input I got on IRC. (Actually, it seems upstream will change the license for the specs but I don't know if this comes soon enough for potato. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% (John Cage)
Re: Is haskell-doc acceptable in main? (was: Re: Is the GPL free?)
On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 06:58:26PM -0500, David Starner wrote: Debian has not required documentation and other text documents to allow modifiaction to be in main. Barf with a spoon. Is that so? Bruce
Re: Is haskell-doc acceptable in main? (was: Re: Is the GPL free?)
On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 09:04:08PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 06:58:26PM -0500, David Starner wrote: Debian has not required documentation and other text documents to allow modifiaction to be in main. Barf with a spoon. Is that so? I have vague recollections of it being true for licenses and for standards. OTOH, I can't find any instances of the latter, so I may be mistaken. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred. ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.'' -- Linus Torvalds pgpY5hvCrxEdy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is haskell-doc acceptable in main? (was: Re: Is the GPL free?)
On Sat, Oct 23, 1999 at 04:06:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 09:04:08PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 06:58:26PM -0500, David Starner wrote: Debian has not required documentation and other text documents to allow modifiaction to be in main. Barf with a spoon. Is that so? I have vague recollections of it being true for licenses and for standards. OTOH, I can't find any instances of the latter, so I may be mistaken. There are several reasons I made the comment above. None of them are rock solid. (1) We do make an exception for licenses. (2) I once heard something about that mentioned on one of the debian lists. (Yes, I can get vaguer. It might take work though.) (3) There are some documents in main that need that exception. (a) GNAT User's Guide (note that this is something I've been planning to mention to RMS, that the main documentation distributed along with a GNU program is non-free.) (b)The RFC's don't allow unlimited modification (restricting only to commenting on or explaining the RFC.) (c)The translation of the dhammapada included with display-dhammapada has no right to modify. (d)nase-a60 includes Revised Report on Algol 60, which has no right to modify. So I don't know. Does Debian require text documents to be modifiable? At least licenses have to have an exception (GPL goes into non-free, the kernel must depend on it, so it goes into contrib . . . Debian/BSD anyone?). -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is haskell-doc acceptable in main? (was: Re: Is the GPL free?)
On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 21:04:08 -0700, Bruce Perens wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 06:58:26PM -0500, David Starner wrote: Debian has not required documentation and other text documents to allow modifiaction to be in main. Barf with a spoon. Is that so? Yes. See e.g. perlfaq(1p). Non-modification is defensible in the case of standards, and arguments have been made that writings are different than software, but this issue definitely needs to be addressed in full. Ray -- RUMOUR Believe all you hear. Your world may not be a better one than the one the blocks live in but it'll be a sight more vivid. - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
Re: Is the GPL free?
On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 09:27:41PM -0200, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote: I was wondering about the GPL and its restrictions. Not the GPL programs, but the GPL license text itself. Licenses cannot be themselves free and still mean anything. They're legal documents and as such need to be unchanging. The correct solution is to let it be. -- Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux developer GnuPG: 2048g/3F9C2A43 - 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 PGP 2.6: 2048R/50BDA0ED - E8 D6 84 81 E3 A8 BB 77 8E E2 29 96 C9 44 5F BE -- netgod is it me, or is Knghtbrd snoring? joeyh they killed knghtbrd! netgod Kysh: wichert, gecko, joeyh, and I are in a room trying to ignore Knghtbrd Kysh netgod: Knghtbrd is hard to ignore. pgpt7QkLB3WaB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is the GPL free?
On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 09:27:41PM -0200, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote: (from http://www.debian.org/social_contract) # 3.Derived Works # # The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them # to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original # software. Debian has not required documentation and other text documents to allow modifiaction to be in main. David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the GPL free?
On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 06:58:26PM -0500, David Starner wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 09:27:41PM -0200, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote: (from http://www.debian.org/social_contract) # 3.Derived Works # # The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them # to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original # software. Debian has not required documentation and other text documents to allow modifiaction to be in main. Then it should be stated clearly in the DFSG. David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Cesar Eduardo Barros [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the GPL free?
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote: # 3.Derived Works # # The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them # to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original # software. Something odd is going on. GPL'ed programs are free (according to the DFSG), but the GPL itself is not? The freeness of the GPL itself is irrelevant. The FSF does not want people messing with the GPL and making it broken in some way and calling it the GPL. This will confuse licensees and make the FSF look bad. As the GPL itself is not software it does not need to fall under the DFSG. In other words, the DFSG only requires that the license allow derived works of the software it covers. It doesn't require that the license allow derived works of itself. Not that the FSF seems to care, as the Artistic license claims to be a kindler, gentler version of the GPL, and nobody has objected (presumably because the Artistic license doesn't claim to *be* the GPL).
