Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 20:17, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: They are also not enforceable in the US. Can you please provide a citation for this? I've never been able to come up with one. This is what I know from Eben Moglen; I would ask him if he can give you more exact citations. Also maybe look at the briefs that ATT filed in the BSD v. ATT lawsuit. I'm not sure how controlling it is, because there is total agreement that the advertising clause *is* enforceable in Britain.
Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
They are also not enforceable in the US. Can you please provide a citation for this? I've never been able to come up with one. This is what I know from Eben Moglen; I would ask him if he can give you more exact citations. Also maybe look at the briefs that ATT filed in the BSD v. ATT lawsuit. As far as I know, ATT never addressed the issue in the BSD suit. Berkeley did not raise the issue until the California state court countersuit, which was not filed until shortly before the settlement (with Novell). Besides, ATT had no real argument on that point -- they got their license to Berkeley Unix under a signed contract (which, as far as I know, was how everybody got Berkeley Unix in those days). Greg (historical, not legal advice)
Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
Greg Pomerantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: They are also not enforceable in the US. Can you please provide a citation for this? I've never been able to come up with one. This is what I know from Eben Moglen; I would ask him if he can give you more exact citations. Also maybe look at the briefs that ATT filed in the BSD v. ATT lawsuit. As far as I know, ATT never addressed the issue in the BSD suit. Berkeley did not raise the issue until the California state court countersuit, which was not filed until shortly before the settlement (with Novell). Besides, ATT had no real argument on that point -- they got their license to Berkeley Unix under a signed contract (which, as far as I know, was how everybody got Berkeley Unix in those days). UCB countersued on the grounds that ATT had violated the advertising clause, and ATT apparently raised some of these issues.
Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How is this any worse than an advertizing clause or a requirement to make a statement in supporting documentation? We consider both of those free. Advertising clauses only need to be there if you are advertising. They are also not enforceable in the US. A requirement to make a statement is problematic if the statement is extensive.
Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 20:17, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: They are also not enforceable in the US. Can you please provide a citation for this? I've never been able to come up with one. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 11:16:29PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Besides, I don't think [...] the ftp masters want to become the Truth Police. Who says they aren't already? ;-) -- G. Branden Robinson| Never underestimate the power of Debian GNU/Linux | human stupidity. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpPwu2xfxRRX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 02:36:34AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Sun, 2003-05-04 at 17:29, MJ Ray wrote: Does the advertising clause restrict your ability to modify the original work more than copyright law? No, it restricts my ability to modify _other_ works, which, IMO, is far worse. Personally, I don't think the DFSG allows it, except by grandfathering it in (see, e.g., DSFG 9). This is a very good argument. I wish certain people would take the bugs I filed in December 2001 more seriously. :( -- 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 pgpZw6xHozEcV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
On Sun, 2003-05-04 at 17:29, MJ Ray wrote: Does the advertising clause restrict your ability to modify the original work more than copyright law? No, it restricts my ability to modify _other_ works, which, IMO, is far worse. Personally, I don't think the DFSG allows it, except by grandfathering it in (see, e.g., DSFG 9). Several times on -legal, the unenforceability of that clause has been questioned: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/debian-legal-22/msg00303.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200106/msg00041.html http://people.debian.org/~joey/goals/2.1/contrib-gpl.html I'd appreciate it if anyone has a good citation for where that belief comes from; my searching has not been able to turn it up. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 2003-05-03 at 21:28, Michael D. Crawford wrote: But what if it isn't? Must we only have the black-and-white distinction that invariant sections or cover texts are never allowed, or could we allow them if they are truthful? Besides, I don't think -legal or the ftp masters want to become the Truth Police. And even so, what is true now would not necessarily be true a year from now, or for a derivate work. -- Henning Makholm Larry wants to replicate all the time ... ah, no, all I meant was that he likes to have a bang everywhere.
Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
Michael D. Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nick Phillips sed: I wouldn't object to a clause which demanded fair credit, but I would object to a clause which demanded that that credit take a particular form. Well I can agree to be flexible. Can you suggest either another license, or another way to apply the GFDL so that I can achieve my objective? It's not just that I want to ensure I be personally be given proper credit for writing the articles, but that I ensure that future readers are always told that they can look to http://linuxquality.sunsite.dk/ for the originals or for other articles like it. If you are going to allow people to distribute modified versions of the document, I don't see how you can force them to make *good* modifications. You fundamentally have to trust them not to do something like the following is a word from the original author; just skip over to the next chapter. This situation doesn't seem so bad. I can see someone covering up attribution, so requiring attribution can prevent a plausible evil. (Although it is surely already illegal in many cases to outright lie about something like this, license issues aside!) I don't see people intentionally removing a useful web link, however. If they do remove it, or change it, then perhaps they actually have made an improvement? It seems like a waste of effort to worry about people screwing up documents and redistributing them. And even if they did, wouldn't readers just read the original document? Internet access is ubiquitous in most parts of the world. If such restrictions are truly so tempting to an author, then perhaps that author doesn't truly want to allow downstream modification Lex
Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
On Sat, 3 May 2003, Michael D. Crawford wrote: But what if it isn't? Must we only have the black-and-white distinction that invariant sections or cover texts are never allowed, or could we allow them if they are truthful? Eek. Truthful is hard to define usefully here, and for some statements the value can change from user to user. In my case my only desire is to guarantee that the reader will know where the documents came from, so they can look for more or others like it. I don't see how this is different from any software author's desire for a user to know that she wrote the software and may have more software like it. You can require a copyright statment, this is pretty clearly allowed in free software. You can include text that you request modifiers to leave in. You can give recipients just a tiny bit of credit that they'd be able to google you if they want. Putting the requirement into a license is understandable, but unnecessary and non-free. But I don't expect that my articles could ever get so many revisions by so many people who all want their own cover texts, separately from mentioning the Linux Quality Database Why would each author not have similiar motives as you do, and want proper cover text pointing to their version of the work, and similar writings? Moreover, would you accept the same argument for software? This software is pretty special-purpose, so I don't expect many people to want to modify it. Therefore, a license which mandates a splash screen be preserved is ok. -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
On Sat, 2003-05-03 at 21:28, Michael D. Crawford wrote: But what if it isn't? Must we only have the black-and-white distinction that invariant sections or cover texts are never allowed, or could we allow them if they are truthful? The cause is the non-freeness; one symptom of the non-freeness is that inaccurate information must be preserved. Fixing the symptom doesn't cure the cause. Besides, I don't think -legal or the ftp masters want to become the Truth Police. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
On Sun, 2003-05-04 at 01:22, Michael D. Crawford wrote: It's not just that I want to ensure I be personally be given proper credit for writing the articles, but that I ensure that future readers are always told that they can look to http://linuxquality.sunsite.dk/ for the originals or for other articles like it. Doing: Copyright (C) 2003 Michael D. Crawford and linuxquality.sunsite.dk might work. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
On Sat, May 03, 2003 at 10:37:54PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: One possible response is that the GFDL does not allow these texts to be modified while the BSD advertizing clause does. If someone has too long of a credit, I can shorten that credit and still follow the BSD license provided I include the name or name of the organization. If this ends up being your problem with attribution cover texts then I have no objection. That is essentially the straw that broke the camel's back, in my case. It's not so much that you can shorten the BSD ad, but that the cover text might be, or become, arbitrarily large, and that we have to draw a line somewhere. I wouldn't object to a clause which demanded fair credit, but I would object to a clause which demanded that that credit take a particular form. Cheers, Nick -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] A day for firm decisions! Or is it?
Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
Nick Phillips sed: I wouldn't object to a clause which demanded fair credit, but I would object to a clause which demanded that that credit take a particular form. Well I can agree to be flexible. Can you suggest either another license, or another way to apply the GFDL so that I can achieve my objective? It's not just that I want to ensure I be personally be given proper credit for writing the articles, but that I ensure that future readers are always told that they can look to http://linuxquality.sunsite.dk/ for the originals or for other articles like it. I can simply insert a section at the top that says this, but unless I make it an invariant section, I don't see how I can guarantee that the link is always there. That's quite a different thing from requiring that my name always be listed as an author and copyright holder. I'm actually less concerned about my name being associated with the articles than the website, but the website is not capable of claiming authorship for the articles. Regards, Mike -- Michael D. Crawford GoingWare Inc. - Expert Software Development and Consulting http://www.goingware.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tilting at Windmills for a Better Tomorrow. I give you this one rule of conduct. Do what you will, but speak out always. Be shunned, be hated, be ridiculed, be scared, be in doubt, but don't be gagged. -- John J. Chapman, Make a Bonfire of Your Reputations http://www.goingware.com/reputation/
Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 12:20:04AM -0400, Michael D. Crawford wrote: I don't have any invariant sections in any of them, but each of them specifies a brief back cover text: This contains material from the Linux Quality Database at http://linuxquality.sunsite.dk;. Is that a problem? It might become a problem if your site ever moves. I think this is what Walter meant with cover texts that are misleading. Fortunately, unlike with Invariant Sections, at least *you* have authority to change the cover text. That doesn't help if you can no longer be contacted, though. People do drop off the net sometimes :) Also, while I have your attention, I would also like to say that I would welcome any translations of these articles to other languages. The Open Source Development Lab has already translated the two kernel testing articles to Japanese. In that case, if you do go with the GFDL, you should use version 1.2. Version 1.1 is problematic with translations. Richard Braakman
Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 12:20:04AM -0400, Michael D. Crawford wrote: I don't have any invariant sections in any of them, but each of them specifies a brief back cover text: This contains material from the Linux Quality Database at http://linuxquality.sunsite.dk;. Is that a problem? It might become a problem if your site ever moves. I think this is what Walter meant with cover texts that are misleading. Among other things. Fortunately, unlike with Invariant Sections, at least *you* have authority to change the cover text. That doesn't help if you can no longer be contacted, though. People do drop off the net sometimes :) Or the author doesn't want to change it. One situation that I am all too familiar with has a cover text with something like Visit foo.com Unfortunately, foo.com has long disappeared. Even so, the original author refuses to take out that cover text. Also, while I have your attention, I would also like to say that I would welcome any translations of these articles to other languages. The Open Source Development Lab has already translated the two kernel testing articles to Japanese. In that case, if you do go with the GFDL, you should use version 1.2. Version 1.1 is problematic with translations. I'm starting to think that both versions of the GFDL are problematic, even without cover texts or invariant sections. They don't let me take content and put it in an openoffice or lyx document. Everything has to be modifiable with generic text editors (or paint or drawing programs). Version 1.1 was even worse in this regard, explicitly marking postscript as an opaque format. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mention you in advertizing material for my software is strictly worse than requiring mention in a cover text. ANd yet we consider the advertizing clause free. Does the advertising clause restrict your ability to modify the original work more than copyright law?
Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Henning == Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Henning Scripsit Michael D. Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't have any invariant sections in any of them, but each of them specifies a brief back cover text: Is that a problem? Henning My impression of the consensus that is shaping up is that Henning we're likely to consider *any* cover text as a Henning problem. The one you use does not seem to be particularly Henning obnoxious in itself, but it would be confusing and Henning unmanageable to use that kind of judgements for including Henning some docs and rejecting others. How is this any worse than an advertizing clause or a requirement to make a statement in supporting documentation? We consider both of those free. It can be misleading or wrong, and you'll never be able to take it out. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
It can be misleading or wrong, and you'll never be able to take it out. But what if it isn't? Must we only have the black-and-white distinction that invariant sections or cover texts are never allowed, or could we allow them if they are truthful? In my case my only desire is to guarantee that the reader will know where the documents came from, so they can look for more or others like it. There is no question that the articles came from where the cover text says they came from, so I can't see how this argument applies. While I acknowledge that there is a problem similar to the BSD advertising clause, in that many revisions can cause the accumulation of cover texts, I don't see how that argument really applies either. In the case of the old BSD license, there is the problem of limited space in advertising media, and the fact that complex software packages can get contributions from many people, so the advertising credits get unwieldy. But I don't expect that my articles could ever get so many revisions by so many people - who all want their own cover texts, separately from mentioning the Linux Quality Database - that it will ever be a problem during the period of history where my articles could possibly still be found useful. And even if it were, it could be managed by printing the cover text in a small font. Mike -- Michael D. Crawford GoingWare Inc. - Expert Software Development and Consulting http://www.goingware.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tilting at Windmills for a Better Tomorrow. I give you this one rule of conduct. Do what you will, but speak out always. Be shunned, be hated, be ridiculed, be scared, be in doubt, but don't be gagged. -- John J. Chapman, Make a Bonfire of Your Reputations http://www.goingware.com/reputation/
Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
Glenn == Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Glenn On Sat, May 03, 2003 at 08:31:15PM -0400, Sam Hartman Glenn wrote: How is this any worse than an advertizing clause or a requirement to make a statement in supporting documentation? We consider both of those free. Glenn Requiring that a piece of text be included on a cover is Glenn far more onerous than requiring a statement in the Glenn documentation. This applies equally well to advertizing clauses. Requiring me to mention you in advertizing material for my software is strictly worse than requiring mention in a cover text. ANd yet we consider the advertizing clause free. I think we need to distinguish somewhat between what is a bad idea and what is non-free. I can see the argument for invariant sections; I can see the argument for arbitrary cover texts. However we have a tradition of allowing some very annoying texts about attribution to be included in documentation and advertizing material. Thus I believe that allowing cover texts that are short credits is acceptable. One possible response is that the GFDL does not allow these texts to be modified while the BSD advertizing clause does. If someone has too long of a credit, I can shorten that credit and still follow the BSD license provided I include the name or name of the organization. If this ends up being your problem with attribution cover texts then I have no objection.
Re: GFDL Freeness and Cover Texts
Scripsit Michael D. Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't have any invariant sections in any of them, but each of them specifies a brief back cover text: Is that a problem? My impression of the consensus that is shaping up is that we're likely to consider *any* cover text as a problem. The one you use does not seem to be particularly obnoxious in itself, but it would be confusing and unmanageable to use that kind of judgements for including some docs and rejecting others. -- Henning Makholm En tapper tinsoldat. En dame i spagat. Du er en lykkelig mand ...
