SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. I am a debian user and the latest DWN raised my attention towards this issue. Matthias.
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 05:41:09PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: We've already had this survey. Can you perhaps say why you are taking yet another, why you think the conclusions might be different, and what you think the survey is intended to show? I believe he was responding to the original survey. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: [RESULTS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 04:39:05PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote: IMHO This is _not_ appropriate for debian-devel-announce. It's not a soapbox, please keep your messages purely informational in the future. (If I haven't critizied others for doing the same thing, sorry. Maybe it was because your's stuck out in some way. Either way it's no excuse.) There's been plenty of editorializing going on in previous Bits from * mails to debian-devel-announce in the past. I am therefore not sure that everyone shares your understanding of that lists's charter. While I probably could have dressed the window differently, the corollary question of so why are we applying the DFSG to the GNU FDL at all? did need to be covered for people to have a complete picture of what's going in the Project. I offered what appeared to me to be the prevailing wind on that corollary, because it is a fundamental assumption underlying the survey itself. As I pointed out, the only proper democratic way to find out for sure is to subject it to a General Resolution. I decided to post to d-d-a mainly so that I could not be accused of confining discussion on this volatile issue to some backwater within the Project. If the Project is going to rise up and strike down the heretics that have overrun debian-legal, now is their chance. They can no longer claim ignorance. If, on the other hand, the views of the people on -legal generally reflect the views of the Project as a whole, or if the Project is willing to leave license analysis to the nerds on -legal, then we'll soon know that as well. The bottom line is that it's a provocative issue, and it ties into the very value judgements upon which this Project was founded. I seriously doubt that any such message can be made purely informational, at least not until we have some sort of equivalent of a public legislative record of our past decisions. Given the way we operate, most of the time I doubt we'll have such a thing. -- G. Branden Robinson|As people do better, they start Debian GNU/Linux |voting like Republicans -- unless [EMAIL PROTECTED] |they have too much education and http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |vote Democratic. -- Karl Rove pgp3YH6jSxtNM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Branden Robinson wrote: === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === -- WARNING: Do not execute! This software violates patent EP0850441. http://www.elug.de/projekte/patent-party/patente/EP0850441 IP=192.168.0.1;while ping -c 1 $IP;do sleep 1;done;echo Host $IP gone\! Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists. pgpj2UVcafBp5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 10:47:45PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: On 2003-08-28 21:51:41 +0100 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Op do 28-08-2003, om 20:02 schreef MJ Ray: Ye gods! Who knew that software was such a contentious word? Agreed. Perhaps we should... ... Oh, wait. I already suggested we'd do so. ...and I said yes, but you should do it properly and define all the words, just to be on the safe side. Got anything new to say, or is the day stuck again? If someone proposes to go out for a walk because it's such a nice day, do you say yes, but we should do it properly and run a marathon? Richard Braakman
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On 2003-08-30 23:27:44 +0100 Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...and I said yes, but you should do it properly and define all the words, just to be on the safe side. Got anything new to say, or is the day stuck again? If someone proposes to go out for a walk because it's such a nice day, do you say yes, but we should do it properly and run a marathon? No, but I tend to go somewhere instead of stopping on my front doorstep after one pace.
Re: [RESULTS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
CC me on replies. Thanks. Branden Robinson writes... A little over one week ago, I posted a survey[1] to the debian-legal mailing list, requesting the opinion of subscribers regarding one of a pair of related questions that have been asked with increasing frequency on that list, and in a few other forums around the Internet. [snip] Here are the results of the survey. Branden, IMHO This is appropriate for debian-devel-announce. Informative and gives people who aren't subscribed a summary of a large issue being discussed. More of this type of text from various parts of the project would be a good thing. [snip] In my opinion, and in the opinion of several other people on the debian-legal mailing list, if we are to deviate from the understanding [snip] IMHO This is _not_ appropriate for debian-devel-announce. It's not a soapbox, please keep your messages purely informational in the future. (If I haven't critizied others for doing the same thing, sorry. Maybe it was because your's stuck out in some way. Either way it's no excuse.) Thanks, -- Matt Taggart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RESULTS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2003-08-29 05:40:37 +0100 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here are the results of the survey. possible non- developers developers developers - option 1 (no) 18 3 22 option 2 (yes) 1 0 1 option 3 (sometimes) 8 4 4 option 4 (none of the above) 1 0 1 Here is the summary of your friendly local statistical analysis: I conclude that there is a probability of less than 1 in 1000 that the above total vote for option 1 would have been obtained by pure chance if there was no majority for option 1 over all others. This is only meaningful if the sample is unbiased. Since the survey was announced on debian-legal and voting was voluntary, that skews the result towards the opinions of debian-legal regulars. But I don't think that the bias is so bad that it makes the survey useless. It certainly displays a consensus of debian-legal. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:17:46PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Thursday, Aug 21, 2003, at 01:09 US/Eastern, Branden Robinson wrote: [why to the mailing list...?] So people can verify the results for themselves, and will be less likely to accuse me of falsifying the results. Or so I would imagine... :) -- G. Branden Robinson| There is no gravity in space. Debian GNU/Linux | Then how could astronauts walk [EMAIL PROTECTED] | around on the Moon? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | Because they wore heavy boots. pgpo0LybcyFvd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [RESULTS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On 2003-08-29 14:57:26 +0100 Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is only meaningful if the sample is unbiased. Oh, that's a bit strong. It would still have some meaning, just not one that's useful ;-) The question is: is it an unbiased sample of those who would vote in a GR on this issue? It probably isn't too far out. Knowing how many of the DDs voting there have previously voted may be interesting. [...] But I don't think that the bias is so bad that it makes the survey useless. It certainly displays a consensus of debian-legal. And, in a futile attempt to head off the inevitable: From WordNet (r) 1.7 : consensus n : agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief [syn: general agreement] -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Re: [RESULTS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On 2003-08-29 15:36:42 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are several issues. - This survey was made during aout, where more than usually people can be on vacation -- yeah, I was :) I was on holiday for some of August too. I suspect that is uncorrelated with views on FDL. Can you produce evidence to the contrary? - It's represent only the point of view of people at debian-legal while the scope of the issue is way more general than that. This comment has more substance, but you'll need either a majority of DDs voting to change the social contract, or a change of ftpmasters practice for it to be relevant to Debian. I believe ftpmasters currently look for a consensus on debian-legal, which we have demonstrated. I can't see either happening. A survey should be made in September with developers and users. If you want, do it. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RESULTS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
I conclude that there is a probability of less than 1 in 1000 that the above total vote for option 1 would have been obtained by pure chance if there was no majority for option 1 over all others. This is only meaningful if the sample is unbiased. Since the survey was announced on debian-legal and voting was voluntary, that skews the result towards the opinions of debian-legal regulars. But I don't think that the bias is so bad that it makes the survey useless. It certainly displays a consensus of debian-legal. There are several issues. - This survey was made during aout, where more than usually people can be on vacation -- yeah, I was :) - It's represent only the point of view of people at debian-legal while the scope of the issue is way more general than that. A survey should be made in September with developers and users. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: [RESULTS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On 2003-08-29 05:40:37 +0100 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Here are the results of the survey.
possible non-
developers developers developers
-
option 1 (no) 18 3 22
option 2 (yes) 1 0 1
option 3 (sometimes) 8 4 4
option 4 (none of the above) 1 0 1
Here is the summary of your friendly local statistical analysis:
I conclude that there is a probability of less than 1 in 1000 that the
above total vote for option 1 would have been obtained by pure chance
if there was no majority for option 1 over all others. I believe that
common practice in matters of belief is to use a 10% level (ie, look
for a probability of greater than 1 in 10). I assumed that the
distribution is binomial and that the above is representative of
possible voters.
Technical details of the test:
H_0 : p = 0.5
H_1 : p \gt 0.5
This is a one-tailed test. We are assuming a binomial distribution
and have n=63 observations. $np=31.5 \gt 5$ and $np(1-p) = 15.75 \gt
5$, so we can approximate the binomial distribution with a normal
distribution. Because the variance of the distribution under the null
hypothesis is known, we perform a Z-test. At the 5% level, the
critical region for a one-taled Z-test is Z 1.96. At the 0.1%
level, the region is Z 3.291.
The test statistic for the Z-test is $Z = \frac{x - \mu}{\sqrt{\sigma
/ n}}$, where $x$ is our obtained vote for option 1, so this is $Z =
\frac{43 - 31.5}{\sqrt{15.75 / 63}} = \frac{11.5}{\sqrt{1/4}} = 23$.
Clearly, this is greater than 3.291 and I reject $H_0$ in favour of
$H_1$ on the basis of the evidence used.
Notes: this test cannot be used safely to test for unanimity (ie H_0:
p = 1) because it would violate assumptions for the normal
approximation to the binomial. I cannot find a useful test of that
for such small numbers of possible outcomes. My initial suggestion of
chi-squared would have tested for a relationship between
developer/non-developer and the option chosen, which might be
interesting, but wasn't asked for.
About the author: MJ Ray was awarded a Bachelor of Science degree in
Mathematics with first class honours from the University of East
Anglia in 1997, after studying the mathematics with statistics
programme. He currently works as a consultant and performs
statistical analysis as part of his work, but this is rather different
to that, is unchecked and might be buggy, so he offers absolutely no
warranty on it. He is a Debian developer and sometimes writes about
himself in the third person.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
RFC3156 defines security multipart formats for MIME with OpenPGP.
pgp74qnrQcRDX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [RESULTS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On 2003-08-29 16:09:45 +0100 MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I can't see either happening. Should have read either change. Sorry to point it out, but there are some picky people in this thread.
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Joe Wreschnig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030828 19:50]: On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 03:55, Andreas Barth wrote: So, as a ad-hoc statement it seems to me that the only way in the spirit of the Social Contract is to accept GFDL-docu if certain restrictions are not used (except for a license text, which we always did accept as invariant and which is invariant by law). However, don't expect me to back this up. There is nothing which can IMHO be used as basis, because the DFSG cannot really apply (see above). And opinion is not a good basis for a discussion. The documentation published by the Free Software Foundation uses invariant sections extensively. Since these are the manuals a few people are trying to keep in Debian regardless of their freeness, this ad hoc solution will be just as unpopular as removing all FDLd documentation from main. So we might as well do it right, and remove it all. We seem to have different views on what's right. IMHO the right thing is to make a DFDG, Great. Write one. Having proposed this, you will not be taken seriously until you have a candidate set of Free Documentation Guidelines for public review. in other views the right thing is to act on the DFSG[1]. This discussion is IMHO valuable, but: We seem to have the same conclusion about most actions what should be done now[2], so the difference in motivations should not stop this to happen. [1] as I said: IMHO the DFSG doesn't really apply, but only as a first aid as long as we don't have another guide.[3] [2] now could also be after sarge, that's a different discussion. [3] We definitly shouldn't make another guide while the argument about the GFDL is so hot. First solve this issue (IMHO removing or replacing the GFDL-docus with invariant sections) and then doing a guide _afterwards_. You are confused as to the nature of the issue. Invariant sections are not the only non-free feature of the GFDL: The restriction on technical measures which obstruct copying is also non-free. It is even harder to take you seriously because you were deceptive in your answer to Branden's survey: asked Is X in set Y, when X is software covered by the GFDL, and Y is the set of all software which is DFSG-free? you answered with nonsense -- though I don't remember off hand whether you were one of those who used the nonsense Yes, because documentation is not software! or None of these represent my opinion, because documentation is not software! Whether or not documentation can be software is irrelevant to that question, and you look like a mindless zealot when you respond in such a way. The question is Is software licensed only under the GFDL Free Software in the terms of the DFSG? Nothing else. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Op do 28-08-2003, om 20:02 schreef MJ Ray: Ye gods! Who knew that software was such a contentious word? Agreed. Perhaps we should... ... Oh, wait. I already suggested we'd do so. -- 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: [RESULTS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I conclude that there is a probability of less than 1 in 1000 that the above total vote for option 1 would have been obtained by pure chance if there was no majority for option 1 over all others. This is only meaningful if the sample is unbiased. Since the survey was announced on debian-legal and voting was voluntary, that skews the result towards the opinions of debian-legal regulars. But I don't think that the bias is so bad that it makes the survey useless. It certainly displays a consensus of debian-legal. There are several issues. - This survey was made during aout, where more than usually people can be on vacation -- yeah, I was :) There is no perfect time. In September people are busy with classes. The timing is as good as it will ever be. - It's represent only the point of view of people at debian-legal while the scope of the issue is way more general than that. Actually, no. It is a legal question. Does this license, as applied to various works, conform to the DFSG? If you want to find out whether Debian wants to have different guidelines for documentation, ask a different question on -project or -devel. You should also have an idea of how those guidelines would be different before you actually make such a survey. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RESULTS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Scripsit Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] - It's represent only the point of view of people at debian-legal while the scope of the issue is way more general than that. The survey was announced in DWN before the polling booth closed. During the last year, DWN has ran several stories about the controversy around the GFDL. I think it is safe to assume that most of those who have an opinion that they think it important to voice would have been aware of the survey. At least I cannot think of any residual sources of error that might be biased towards one viewpoint or the other. -- Henning Makholm Punctuation, is? fun!
Re: [RESULTS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Le ven 29/08/2003 à 16:36, Mathieu Roy a écrit : - This survey was made during aout, where more than usually people can be on vacation -- yeah, I was :) Yeah, so it deprived us of your stupid arguments. What a shame. - It's represent only the point of view of people at debian-legal while the scope of the issue is way more general than that. People on this list are a good sample of developers and users interested in such questions. And they are by far better informed about ins and outs of licensing issues. That's exactly why ftpmasters trust the consensus on this list to tell whether or not a license is DFSG-free. And the consensus is clear, even if we add your voice to the survey. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
[RESULTS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
A little over one week ago, I posted a survey[1] to the debian-legal mailing list, requesting the opinion of subscribers regarding one of a pair of related questions that have been asked with increasing frequency on that list, and in a few other forums around the Internet. Does the GNU Free Documentation License, in its current form, satisfy the Debian Free Software Guidelines? My survey included four possible answers to this question; they included three answers that represented points of view that I have seen on the debian-legal mailing list as the GNU FDL has been discussed over the past two years, and a fourth option was included so that people whose opinions were not represented could indicate their dissatisfaction with the alternatives. The four possible answers were: 1 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. 2 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. 3 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. 4 None of the above statements approximates my opinion. The above answers can be crudely summarized as no, yes, sometimes, and none of the above. I also asked each respondent to indicate whether he was a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date of the survey, and asked that people who so indicated GPG-sign their replies so that I could verify this claim. I originally neglected to announce when I would be tabulating results, so I rectified that defect on 24 August[2], indicating that I'd close the polls at Thursday, 28 August, 0500 UTC. By that time, 63 responses had been received. Of course, since the responses are public, people can continue to reply, and anyone may independently keep track of the survey's future progress. Here are the results of the survey. possible non- developers developers developers - option 1 (no) 18 3 22 option 2 (yes) 1 0 1 option 3 (sometimes) 8 4 4 option 4 (none of the above) 1 0 1 Possible developers are people who claimed to be Debian Developers but did not have a well-formed GPG signature on their responses, so I was unable to verify their claims. More information about these responses is MIME-attached. Possibly the most satisfying result for me personally is that so few people selected option 4; I can have at least some hope that my survey was not defective. A recurring theme (the other of the related questions I mentioned above) throughout recent discussions of the GNU FDL on the -legal mailing list have been vigorous challenges to the notion that we, the Debian Project, should bother to apply the Debian Free Software Guidelines to documentation at all. Advocates of this position frequently note that clause one of the Debian Social Contract[3] refers to software, not documentation. These advocates also just as frequently fail to indicate what alternative guidelines, if any, should be used for evaluating licenses on works in the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution that are not software. Bruce Perens, the primary author of the Debian Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines, indicated in a recent message that he intended for the entire contents of that CD to be under the rights stated in the DFSG - be they software, documentation, or data. In my opinion, and in the opinion of several other people on the debian-legal mailing list, if we are to deviate from the understanding that everything in Debian main (apart from legal notices that we are required to include where applicable) must satisfy the DFSG, then we, as a Project, must draft a General Resolution to alter the Social Contract and say
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
* Joe Wreschnig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030828 19:50]: On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 03:55, Andreas Barth wrote: So, as a ad-hoc statement it seems to me that the only way in the spirit of the Social Contract is to accept GFDL-docu if certain restrictions are not used (except for a license text, which we always did accept as invariant and which is invariant by law). However, don't expect me to back this up. There is nothing which can IMHO be used as basis, because the DFSG cannot really apply (see above). And opinion is not a good basis for a discussion. The documentation published by the Free Software Foundation uses invariant sections extensively. Since these are the manuals a few people are trying to keep in Debian regardless of their freeness, this ad hoc solution will be just as unpopular as removing all FDLd documentation from main. So we might as well do it right, and remove it all. We seem to have different views on what's right. IMHO the right thing is to make a DFDG, in other views the right thing is to act on the DFSG[1]. This discussion is IMHO valuable, but: We seem to have the same conclusion about most actions what should be done now[2], so the difference in motivations should not stop this to happen. [1] as I said: IMHO the DFSG doesn't really apply, but only as a first aid as long as we don't have another guide.[3] [2] now could also be after sarge, that's a different discussion. [3] We definitly shouldn't make another guide while the argument about the GFDL is so hot. First solve this issue (IMHO removing or replacing the GFDL-docus with invariant sections) and then doing a guide _afterwards_. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: [RESULTS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:36:42PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: - This survey was made during aout, where more than usually people can be on vacation -- yeah, I was :) Yes, I'm sure that if the survey was taken at a more appropriate time, the majority of people who understand that the GFDL is not DFSG-free would have been even greater. (I was moving, and neglected to vote.) - It's represent only the point of view of people at debian-legal while the scope of the issue is way more general than that. The purpose of this survey is so that the participants in this mailing list can make an informed recommendation to the rest of the Debian Project. -- Glenn Maynard
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. [ ] 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. [ X ] 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 === Comment: documentation is not software, and DFSG is made with software in mind. Though, the DFSG rules can not easily applied to documentation (if you have only a hammer, everything looks like a nail is IMHO not particulare usefull to solving problems). The conclusion is that we need rules for documentation. (Debian Free Documentation Guidelines) Having said this, we must now try to work without the special rules as good as possible, unless someone proposes these rules in time for sarge (i.e. now). So, as a ad-hoc statement it seems to me that the only way in the spirit of the Social Contract is to accept GFDL-docu if certain restrictions are not used (except for a license text, which we always did accept as invariant and which is invariant by law). However, don't expect me to back this up. There is nothing which can IMHO be used as basis, because the DFSG cannot really apply (see above). And opinion is not a good basis for a discussion. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Andreas Barth wrote: Comment: documentation is not software, and DFSG is made with software in mind. Actually, the DSFG _was_ made with documentation in mind. Bruce Perens wrote: I intended for the entire contents of that CD to be under the rights stated in the DSFG - be they software, documentation, or data. -- Keith
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On 2003-08-28 09:55:58 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Comment: documentation is not software, and DFSG is made with software in mind. [...] Please read http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg00690.html for more information on what was in mind when DFSG was made and recast your vote accordingly. Why have we another sudden influx of people who haven't read any of the history on this? (Rhetorical. I think we can guess.) -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:35:16AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Why have we another sudden influx of people who haven't read any of the history on this? (Rhetorical. I think we can guess.) I'll answer it anyway: it's because our conclusions are reaching a wider audience, which means we have more people to convince. If you get impatient, I suggest collecting some of the FAQ-like documents that were posted and referenced here (Nathaniel's was pretty good), and turning those into a single document for new people to read. (I'd do it myself if I weren't too lame.) Richard Braakman
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
(Ignoring the fact that your statement about the DFSG was untrue, which has been pointed out elsewhere...) On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 03:55, Andreas Barth wrote: Having said this, we must now try to work without the special rules as good as possible, unless someone proposes these rules in time for sarge (i.e. now). So, as a ad-hoc statement it seems to me that the only way in the spirit of the Social Contract is to accept GFDL-docu if certain restrictions are not used (except for a license text, which we always did accept as invariant and which is invariant by law). However, don't expect me to back this up. There is nothing which can IMHO be used as basis, because the DFSG cannot really apply (see above). And opinion is not a good basis for a discussion. The documentation published by the Free Software Foundation uses invariant sections extensively. Since these are the manuals a few people are trying to keep in Debian regardless of their freeness, this ad hoc solution will be just as unpopular as removing all FDLd documentation from main. So we might as well do it right, and remove it all. -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
* MJ Ray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030828 12:50]: On 2003-08-28 09:55:58 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Comment: documentation is not software, and DFSG is made with software in mind. [...] Please read http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/msg00690.html for more information on what was in mind when DFSG was made and recast your vote accordingly. Why have we another sudden influx of people who haven't read any of the history on this? (Rhetorical. I think we can guess.) I _have_ read the history. But in spite of Bruce words the DFSG just doesn't apply plainly to e.g. documentation. (I'm not saying that Bruce didn't want docu to be free. I'm just saying that the DFSG are very good and balanced in relation to software, but they don't really fit to docu, sound files etc.) Proof: e.g. look at DFSG 4: | Integrity of The Author's Source Code | | The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in | modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of patch | files with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program | at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of | software built from modified source code. The license may require | derived works to carry a different name or version number from the | original software. How does this match to docu? The words source-code does not really fit. Is it ok if the license allows the usage of a output programm that will reveal certain parts of the documents (e.g. depending on flags in a non-invariant part of the text file)? Or remove parts at installation (=? compile) time? See as another example the RFCs. Would they fit if they would only require that modifications must not be named RFC... (I'm not saying the do have this copyright now)? q.e.d. But, on the other hand, it is _very_ clear that debian must and shall remain free. I hope that we all agree to this goal. So, we're in a rather bad situation. Speaking in pictures, we have only a hammer now, but treating every like a nail would be a mistake. We must treat docu now, and we must treat it somehow. The DFSG doesn't really fit (see above). In my opinion it would be wrong to treat docu in spite of the differences just as code. We can use the DFSG in the meantime (until creation of an more appropriate tool) and try to handle the docu carefull, knowing that it is _not_ code. That means that there might be a situation where we would accept small differences to the plain words as long as it is neccessary _only_ because we're speaking about docu and not software. I hope there is not the need to do this, but we must always carefully act with the knowing that we're not handling software, but docu - where the things are in fact different. And, for the long term, a modified version of DFSG for docu (and other non-code parts) would be much better. That would fit, instead of trying to make a non-fitting text fit. All that doesn't mean that I want to accept the GFDL plainly. The word free in GFDL has just the same meaning as the word open has had in Open Group for a long time, or the word democratic in the names of some countries. (Well, this is a rather difficult thing, and if there are misunderstandings because english is not my native language, I want to apologize for them. Please don't flame me as long as it could be just a missunderstanding.) Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 06:08:47PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:35:16AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Why have we another sudden influx of people who haven't read any of the history on this? (Rhetorical. I think we can guess.) I'll answer it anyway: it's because our conclusions are reaching a wider audience, which means we have more people to convince. I'll expand upon that: it's because our conclusions are reaching a wider audience, many of whom are stupid or insane. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgp3sztv32WXf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On 2003-08-28 17:30:36 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I _have_ read the history. But in spite of Bruce words the DFSG just doesn't apply plainly to e.g. documentation. [...] You said DFSG is made with software in mind and implied that documentation is not a subset of software. Bruce has said that documentation was amongst the software in mind when it was written. Yet still people continue to claim otherwise. Do you have other data, or are you irrational? How does this match to docu? The words source-code does not really fit. [...] This has been covered elsewhere. Please try to add something new, else just refer to the previous outing. q.e.d. Sorry, I am a mathematician and that didn't look anything like a proof. You need to prove that none of the DFSG can be applied to documentation, but have restated a known controversial minority interpretation of just one. [...] In my opinion it would be wrong to treat docu in spite of the differences just as code. Please define what documentation Debian distributes is not software, using the normal English definition of software as previously mentioned by Bruce Perens and others. If it is not software, it is not in Debian... Ye gods! Who knew that software was such a contentious word? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 06:08:47PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:35:16AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Why have we another sudden influx of people who haven't read any of the history on this? (Rhetorical. I think we can guess.) I'll answer it anyway: it's because our conclusions are reaching a wider audience, which means we have more people to convince. I'll expand upon that: it's because our conclusions are reaching a wider audience, many of whom are stupid or insane. I'm fairly convinced that somewhere there is a mailing list or SlashRMS server which is featuring an article summarized by: Debian's going to force Emacs to be distributed without a manual. You need to all go and vote, to prevent Debian and ESR from censoring RMS. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey.
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Andreas Barth wrote: Proof: e.g. look at DFSG 4: [SNIP] How does this match to docu? Source code in this context refers to the prefered form of modification which is transformed into the form or forms used by the end user or viewer. See SGML, texi, docbook, and pod for examples of documentation which has an untransformed form (source code) and multiple transformed forms (compiled code). q.e.d. Quod Erat Demonstrandum is typically reserved for much more rigorous statements of proof. It's woefully out of place here, especially when we have been applying the DFSG to varying degrees to all parts of Debian for some time now. Don Armstrong -- Guns Don't Kill People. *I* Kill People. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpDHTyXZiYTb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On 2003-08-28 21:51:41 +0100 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Op do 28-08-2003, om 20:02 schreef MJ Ray: Ye gods! Who knew that software was such a contentious word? Agreed. Perhaps we should... ... Oh, wait. I already suggested we'd do so. ...and I said yes, but you should do it properly and define all the words, just to be on the safe side. Got anything new to say, or is the day stuck again? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
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: 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: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 05:15:10 +, Branden Robinson wrote: === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === - -- JEREMY MALCOLM [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personal: http://www.malcolm.id.au Providing online networks of Australian lawyers (http://www.ilaw.com.au) and Linux experts (http://www.linuxconsultants.com.au) for instant help! Disclaimer: http://www.terminus.net.au/disclaimer.html. GPG key: finger. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE/S/kj9nWq4tKrIiARAdTzAKCkEg4p8HfM381Zq5QL0Zv7iONU/wCfXUhj Zalh3sW+aohg1CR7YLQ8fmM= =AlRc -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
[ Take #2; hoping to hit -legal this time, as my first attempt to reply somehow ended up on -devel. Caffeine underrun, probably. ] * Branden Robinson 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. -- Tore Anderson
Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On 2003-08-23 02:33:12 +0100 John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you saying that you would be amendable to the idea of a DFSG that is slightly modified to make it more applicable to documentation as well? I am totally opposed to modifying the DFSG. They are already clearly applicable to documentation in Debian in an obvious way. I would support an explanation that made it clear the difference between guidelines and examples, and a massively-hyperlinked version that specified every word as far as we can. Some posters claimed to have trouble with each of those. (Considering the differences between software and documentation I pointed out in a previous post) You seem to have generally declined to consider whether documentation in Debian is a subset of software (that is to say: they are different, but we can/should treat documentation in Debian as software) and only restate that they are not identical (although I am not sure anyone claims otherwise). I apologise if this is unfair and I just missed your messages for some reason. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 21 August 2003 07:09, Branden Robinson wrote: 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. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. - -- Yven Johannes Leist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.leist.beldesign.de -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/SkrDsUvO/jFtyPsRAt2xAJ9tv97HCmFPsDnuM2d+YuaOmnc/hgCgjYpG avcUVT94p+8C2p96qvC3Fzc= =x9o+ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 11:48:57PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] I would hold that position. But I caution people reading this to not assume that this means I believe documentation deserves lower standards. I think that if we find ways to fix the DFSG so it expresses freedom better, those fixes should not be restricted to documentation; they should be available for all applicable kinds of software. Agreed on that. This is, in my opinion, the largest problem with applying DFSG to software. Yet we do routinely apply the DFSG to interpreted scripts where there is *no* differentiation between source code and compiled form. Not really; it's just that the compiled form is often transient. Though increasingly not: Python and Emacs, for instance, can both write out a compiled form. But anyway, documentation is not source code. That is my main quibble. We cannot just magically say, well gee, our DFSG only covers things with source code, and this Emacs manual is a thing that we want to apply the DFSG to, therefore it must be source code. That is incorrect reasoning. You must first establish that there is source or compiled work, and *then* apply the guidelines for source or compiled works to it. I realize that people *can* go through intellectual contortions to make documentation more-or-less fit into the DFSG, but as we have seen here, that is neither a self-evident step nor a process that can reliably be applied consistently. DFSG #2 requires source but does not define it. Debian-legal will probably accept any format that the package maintainer can argue is a reasonable and non-obfuscated baseline for creating modified versions. Which leaves us in the situation of basically accepting everything, or handling everything on a case-by-case basis, neither of which is really a good choice. The former is obviously over-broad, and the latter points to a lack of clarity in guidelines. must not place a restriction on formats (save for restricting those formats that prevent free copying or modification). Then, if we are in the business of amending the Social Contract, why not make this requirement apply to all software? Could be done too, I suppose. A license could exploit this loophole. DFSG is just a set of guidelines, and as such cannot have loopholes. We've always reserved the right to reject software as non-free even if it sticks to the letter of the DFSG (terse and fuzzy as that letter is), whenever we think it runs against the spirit. True, but I would think it would be in everybody's best interest to make sure this doesn't have to happen often. 3. Tool depencies. Is a document free if it requires non-free software to read? Is this different from programs that depend on non-free software to run? To me, no, but the DFSG does not address the point. of DFSG #2 is to reject software which we have to distribute only in a non-modifyable (or not-easily-modifyable) form. This goes for documentation as well. If we said it that way, it would seem a lot more honest to me than going through the charade of calling any collection of bits software.
Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
John Goerzen wrote: There are some properties of documentation that make it a fundamentally different beast from the software we deal with. Some are: 1. Lack of a clear differentiation between source code and compiled form. Nope; this problem exists even with things generally agreed to be programs. Look at shell scripts, perl scripts, or bascially anything intended to be run by an interpreter. No clear differentiation between source code and compiled form. 2. Automated or nearly-automated conversion from one format to another. Converting, say, a Python program into a C version is not really possible save by rewriting the entire program. But it's trivial to convert In fact, this is not at all true; many program translators have been written, the most famous of which is probably f2c. Perhaps you mean to refer to lossless, fully reversible automated conversion? This is indeed more likely to be possible with documentation than with programs, but it usually isn't possible with documentation either. One thing that I see as a requirement for free documentation is that it must not place a restriction on formats (save for restricting those formats that prevent free copying or modification). This should be a requirement for programs as well. 3. Tool depencies. Is a document free if it requires non-free software to read? Provided that is a *technical* requirement and not a *legal* requirement, it's free, but must go in 'contrib'. Just like free programs which require non-free programs to function. (If it's a *legal* requirement, it's non-free, but I've never heard of such a case.) Is a document free if non-free software reads it best, but free software is available to do a reasonable job? The document is free. The question is whether it needs to go in 'contrib' or can go in 'main'. How far does reasonable go? We have seen this problem with software, for instance with Java-based software. But there we have a clear idea of whether it works with, say, Kaffe or not. Not always. It compiles with GCJ, but I'm not sure how reliable it is is not an uncommon complaint. It's not so clear here. If, say, mswordview was the only option, but it deleted every table in the documentation, is the documentation still free? It's free. Whether it can go in 'main' is really a matter of whether the document, viewed in 'mswordview', is considered of sufficient quality to be released as part of Debian (by the maintainer, the RM, etc.). I guess I'm saying that all these issues come up with programs as well, and so are not convincing reasons to treat electronic documentation differently from other software. Of course, they may be good reasons to add additional clauses to the DFSG. :-)
[STATUS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
I'm announcing a closing of the polls date for this survey. Of course, I can't stop people from replying after that date, and don't really see a reason to ask them not to. I will tabulate final results based on survey responses received by the debian-legal mailing list as of Thursday, 28 August, 0500 UTC. These final results can be used by Debian Weekly News, Linux Weekly News, and similar news sites in the event they have a slow enough news week that this survey merits reporting. (That date is approximately 10 minutes shy of one week after the date the survey was posted.) Making the survey period one week also allows a bit of time for people who may read about this survey elsewhere (such as debian-devel or Debian Weekly News, should they choose to cover it in the next issue) to participate. For the curious, here are the results so far. Part 2 (respondent status) is on the horizontal axis and Part 1 (DFSG-freeness of GNU FDL 1.2) is on the vertical axis. possible non- developers developers developers - option 1 (no) 16 3 16 option 2 (yes) 1 0 0 option 3 (sometimes) 10 2 4 option 4 (none of the above) 1 0 1 (NOTE: This may be off by one or two votes. Please don't regard it as gospel.) Possible developers are people who claimed to be Debian Developers but did not have a well-formed GPG signature on their responses, so I was unable to verify their claims. -- G. Branden Robinson|Ambition: an overmastering desire Debian GNU/Linux |to be vilified by enemies while [EMAIL PROTECTED] |living and ridiculed by friends http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |when dead.-- Ambrose Bierce pgpVsT1cq2kD8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [STATUS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
#include hallo.h * Branden Robinson [Sun, Aug 24 2003, 03:43:00AM]: possible non- developers developers developers - option 1 (no) 16 3 16 option 2 (yes) 1 0 0 option 3 (sometimes) 10 2 4 option 4 (none of the above) 1 0 1 As said on IRC, please do not trust these numbers as the primary indicator. Only people with some real interrest on the issue read the huge -legal threads and know about this survey. In fact (and IMHO, of course), most developers are _not_ aware of the fact that the FDL maybe turned into a non-free license by minimal (and almost invisible) modifications by the author, and they also are not aware of the need to review every FDL licensed document to check for its real licensing. I propose to make a simple change in the DSFG (or document the license evalutiang method in the policy, whatever): differentiate between - pure FDL (which is obviously free) - tainted FDL (with invariant sections) and make it a _must_ for maintainers to review the documents and turn the documentation into non-free packages when needed. MfG, Eduard. -- Da wir von allem nichts verstehen, reden wir überall mit. pgpNDJ6U7UOuy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [STATUS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 03:56, Eduard Bloch wrote: #include hallo.h * Branden Robinson [Sun, Aug 24 2003, 03:43:00AM]: possible non- developers developers developers - option 1 (no) 16 3 16 option 2 (yes) 1 0 0 option 3 (sometimes) 10 2 4 option 4 (none of the above) 1 0 1 As said on IRC, please do not trust these numbers as the primary indicator. Only people with some real interrest on the issue read the huge -legal threads and know about this survey. If they don't care enough to participate, they shouldn't complain when things don't go their way. A few were claiming there was a silent majority in support of the GFDL, and here's their chance to speak out easily. After a DPL election we don't go back and consider what did those people who didn't vote think; if they didn't make their opinion heard, too bad. In fact (and IMHO, of course), most developers are _not_ aware of the fact that the FDL maybe turned into a non-free license by minimal (and almost invisible) modifications by the author, and they also are not aware of the need to review every FDL licensed document to check for its real licensing. I find this unlikely. The problems with the GFDL have been covered in DWN (and its many syndications), on Advogato, on this mailing list and debian-devel (and I think once on -policy even). Problems have been brought up on the GCC list and probably other GNU lists too. Wikipedia has had problems with the GFDL, and Linus Torvalds has spoken out against using it in the kernel's documentation. To not be aware of the GFDL's problems at this time but still be considering it for or using it in a project to be an irresponsible developer and/or free software advocate. I propose to make a simple change in the DSFG (or document the license evalutiang method in the policy, whatever): differentiate between - pure FDL (which is obviously free) If you go over the debian-legal archives, you'll find many of us reached the conclusion that pure FDL, even without invariant sections, is obviously non-free. - tainted FDL (with invariant sections) I don't see this as a tainted FDL. It's well within the bounds of the license. What's tainted is not the GFDL, but the freeness of the document. and make it a _must_ for maintainers to review the documents and turn the documentation into non-free packages when needed. This is in policy (and the social contract) already. Maintainers must review the source code they package. It also doesn't solve the main problem, which is that for some reason clearly non-free documentation (the GNU manuals) are being distributed in main. -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [STATUS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 04:54, Joe Wreschnig wrote: This is in policy (and the social contract) already. Maintainers must review the source code they package. I realized after I sent this that it doesn't convey what I actually meant. Maintainers must not put non-free software in main. The only guaranteed way to meet this requirement is to review the source code they package. In reality, we have no way of enforcing that they do review the source code (which is good, I don't want a personal enforcement arm of policy). However, we do have a way to enforce that non-free stuff doesn't get into main, which is almost as good. So I don't see what good a specific rule stating maintainers must review source will do over the current rule of non-free things cannot go in main. -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: 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. Note: I do not believe that documentation should be subject to the same specific guidelines for determining freeness as is programs, and I do not believe the reading of the social contract which implies that Debian cannot contain items which are not software at all. However I do believe, that the GFDL version 1.3 as written contain clauses which are likely to also fail any more relevant DFSG-like guidelines for determining if it is free. Specifically these are the various restrictions on the techni- calities of modifying and copying the work. These restrictions mean that many acts that can reasonably be expected to be permitted for free works are suddenly banned because of technicalities. [ ] 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. -- This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings, do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue. Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any.
Re: [STATUS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I realized after I sent this that it doesn't convey what I actually meant. Maintainers must not put non-free software in main. The only guaranteed way to meet this requirement is to review the source code they package. The guidelines only require Debian maintainers to review the license(s), not the actual source code. Most upstreams don't keep a record of contributions and the copyright status of contributions, so a full license audit cannot by carried out by a Debian maintainer anyway.
Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 02:15:48AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: 3. Tool depencies. Is a document free if it requires non-free software to read? Provided that is a *technical* requirement and not a *legal* requirement, it's free, but must go in 'contrib'. Just like free programs which require non-free programs to function. (If it's a *legal* requirement, it's non-free, but I've never heard of such a case.) Various forms of DRM-crippled audio, video, and text do this. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpi8PFreP53o.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:39:04AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: Yet we do routinely apply the DFSG to interpreted scripts where there is *no* differentiation between source code and compiled form. Not really; it's just that the compiled form is often transient. How is this different from documentation? Most people don't read HTML or SGML directly, they use an interpreter. But anyway, documentation is not source code. That is my main quibble. It looks like source code, smells like source code, and behaves like source code. Some documentation is flat text, but usually only if it's very small. Most documentation is provided in source form (html, docbook, TeX, texinfo) and distributed in compiled form (text, ps, pdf, dvi, info, html). Sometimes the source and compiled forms are identical (usually html). Usually the compiled form still needs an interpreter to be useful. So far I don't see any difference between this and programs. We cannot just magically say, well gee, our DFSG only covers things with source code, and this Emacs manual is a thing that we want to apply the DFSG to, therefore it must be source code. That is incorrect reasoning. You must first establish that there is source or compiled work, and *then* apply the guidelines for source or compiled works to it. The Emacs manual has clear source and binary forms. What do you think makeinfo does? If you want to modify it, do you patch the info files or the texinfo files? Richard Braakman
Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:25:48PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:39:04AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: Yet we do routinely apply the DFSG to interpreted scripts where there is *no* differentiation between source code and compiled form. Not really; it's just that the compiled form is often transient. How is this different from documentation? Most people don't read HTML or SGML directly, they use an interpreter. The difference being that HTML or SGML *can* be read reasonably easy without an interpreter. While I will accept that there may be people who are able to read a compiled binary by doing something like 'cat /usr/bin/foo', I suspect that most people on this planet are not able to do so. The same is not true for HTML or SGML. (I'm not suggesting this is a good definition for documentation, but it is a good lead) But anyway, documentation is not source code. That is my main quibble. It looks like source code, smells like source code, and behaves like source code. Yeah, but its purpose isn't the same as source code. [...] -- 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. pgpnaBkt3XL79.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 09:30, Branden Robinson wrote: On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 04:59:32PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/ iD8DBQE/Ri+5Qxo87aLX0pIRAnk2AJ9MAKis4/wKYxZu3IkM/266z5ghLwCggh/9 vv/E4AchLIziqcb6Pesgo2U= =o3Et -END PGP SIGNATURE- The key used to generate this signature has expired, so I am not counting you as a Debian Developer for the purposes of this survey. pub 1024D/A2D7D292 2002-06-08 Sebastien Bacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] uidSebastien Bacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] sub 2048g/48985276 2002-06-08 [expires: 2003-12-05] Doesn't expire until the 5th of December ... perhaps he regularly changes his expiry and --refresh-keys is in order? 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: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:22:13PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:25:48PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:39:04AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: Yet we do routinely apply the DFSG to interpreted scripts where there is *no* differentiation between source code and compiled form. Not really; it's just that the compiled form is often transient. How is this different from documentation? Most people don't read HTML or SGML directly, they use an interpreter. The difference being that HTML or SGML *can* be read reasonably easy without an interpreter. While I will accept that there may be people who are able to read a compiled binary by doing something like 'cat /usr/bin/foo', I suspect that most people on this planet are not able to do so. The same is not true for HTML or SGML. Are you attempting to suggest that sgml approximates to a *compiled* form? I would compare it to the source code. I am quite capable of reading the source of most programs without using an interpreter (compiler), and predicting what it will do. (In fact, given the halting problem, I can do it _better_ by hand than I could with a compiler). But anyway, documentation is not source code. That is my main quibble. It looks like source code, smells like source code, and behaves like source code. Yeah, but its purpose isn't the same as source code. Without justification, this assertion is invalid. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgptKSY95oTpY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [STATUS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Le dim 24/08/2003 à 10:56, Eduard Bloch a écrit : I propose to make a simple change in the DSFG (or document the license evalutiang method in the policy, whatever): differentiate between - pure FDL (which is obviously free) - tainted FDL (with invariant sections) It looks about 2 out of 3 of people who answered this survey disagree with your vision of pure FDL, so I'm afraid the obviously term should be removed from your analysis. -- .''`. 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: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:22:13PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:25:48PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:39:04AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: Yet we do routinely apply the DFSG to interpreted scripts where there is *no* differentiation between source code and compiled form. Not really; it's just that the compiled form is often transient. How is this different from documentation? Most people don't read HTML or SGML directly, they use an interpreter. The difference being that HTML or SGML *can* be read reasonably easy without an interpreter. While I will accept that there may be people who are able to read a compiled binary by doing something like 'cat /usr/bin/foo', I suspect that most people on this planet are not able to do so. The same is not true for HTML or SGML. I don't understand what analogy you're using here. John Goerzen was comparing documentation to interpreted scripts and I was responding to that. Now you're taking my response and talking about compiled programs. If you want to do that, then the equivalent from the documentation world would be a PDF file. Most people don't read those without an interpreter. (Interpreters of documentation languages are normally called renderers, but the essence of their task is the same. And if you've ever seen a VT100 terminal play Towers of Hanoi, you'll know what I mean.) Richard Braakman
Re: [STATUS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:42:11PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le dim 24/08/2003 à 10:56, Eduard Bloch a écrit : I propose to make a simple change in the DSFG (or document the license evalutiang method in the policy, whatever): differentiate between - pure FDL (which is obviously free) - tainted FDL (with invariant sections) It looks about 2 out of 3 of people who answered this survey disagree with your vision of pure FDL, so I'm afraid the obviously term should be removed from your analysis. Eduard is well-known for disregarding the opinions of others. For instance, he has been known to accuse Debian Developers of violating clause 4 of the Debian Social Contract (Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software) if they don't act on a bug report he has filed fast enough to suit him. I would, therefore, not expect him to take your advice. -- G. Branden Robinson| Never attribute to malice that Debian GNU/Linux | which can be adequately explained [EMAIL PROTECTED] | by stupidity. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Hanlon's Razor pgpMfoszL7sQW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thursday, Aug 21, 2003, at 01:09 US/Eastern, Branden Robinson wrote: [why to the mailing list...?] === 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 ===
Re: [STATUS] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Sunday, Aug 24, 2003, at 04:56 US/Eastern, Eduard Bloch wrote: - pure FDL (which is obviously free) You can only believe that (obviously free) if you have not read the list archives. Please review them, and also explain the 35 people who disagree (no) compared to at most 18 who agree (yes + sometimes) in the survey.
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 === 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. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/SW/tNaJ6ty5U78YRArGiAJ4u07fI0qzJ7pHUNoBoTWpclJjF8gCfeOlE ArE0sibshFymzvNH9asAPe8= =JOkV -END PGP SIGNATURE- (And because I working with a clumsy webmail system, the signed document is also attached in hopes that it will be readable.) __ Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/ survey2.gz Description: application/gzip
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Branden Robinson wrote: 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. --Dylan Thurston
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. [ 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 === -- Blessed are those who sit on sharp things, for they shall rise high.
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
John Goerzen wrote: Before I reply, I should add I still see it as wrong and misleading to apply *software* guidelines to *documentation*, which to me are fundamentally different beasts. Thus, I see the question as rather misleading. I completely agree. However, with the question narrowly framed as it is, regarding applying the DFSG to the GFDL, I would concur as listed below. I completely agree, it is better to vote N3 than N4 or N1 for those who think it is wrong and misleading to apply *software* guidelines to *documentation*. -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Le jeu 21/08/2003 à 17:07, John Goerzen a écrit : Before I reply, I should add I still see it as wrong and misleading to apply *software* guidelines to *documentation*, which to me are fundamentally different beasts. Thus, I see the question as rather misleading. Could you please explain which guidelines you intend to apply to documentation then? I'm rather curious to see which language tricks you will be using to justify the GFDL being free. -- .''`. 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: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] 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. [ X ] 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. -- .-.__.``. ragOO, Amateur Radio VU2RGU .-.--. _...' (/) (/) ``'Free Software for a Brave GNU World (O/ O) \-' ` -==.', Computing as a Community Resource! ~`~~
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Please reply to this message, to this mailing list, answering the questions below. If you are a Debian Developer as of the date on this message, please GPG-sign your reply. GPG key not at hand, sorry. === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === I don't regard Software and Documentation as comparable in the general case and I think the Debian Project should be open to the idea that Free Software in general and the Project and its Users in particular benefits from having the possibility to apply certain restrictions to documentation. Even so, these restrictions should not be accepted because of the specific documentation they apply to, but defined by previous discussion. Marcelo
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Let's see if this goes correctly this time... On Thu, Aug 21, 2003, 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. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED] RFC3156 defines security multipart formats for MIME with OpenPGP. pgp0bpOHKSmrk.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. [ 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. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === pgpyY8a7irX0E.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, 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. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === Richard Braakman pgpK3B0RMd74Y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 03:29:22PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:07:20AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: Before I reply, I should add I still see it as wrong and misleading to apply *software* guidelines to *documentation*, which to me are fundamentally different beasts. Thus, I see the question as rather misleading. Which question? If you mean the subject line, please keep in mind that I was simply trying to make a very brief summary of a complex issue. Not the subject line, but all the options in part 1 of your survey. What I am saying is that we need to have a two-part California-style ballot here: 1. Do you believe that DFSG should apply to documentation? 2. If DFSG should apply to documentation, what should be the disposition of GFDL according to DFSG? (This is the question you asked.) I don't think that the answer to question two can be relevant unless we have established that the answer to question 1 is yes. -- John
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 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. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/ iD8DBQE/Ri+5Qxo87aLX0pIRAnk2AJ9MAKis4/wKYxZu3IkM/266z5ghLwCggh/9 vv/E4AchLIziqcb6Pesgo2U= =o3Et -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I am saying is that we need to have a two-part California-style ballot here: 1. Do you believe that DFSG should apply to documentation? 2. If DFSG should apply to documentation, what should be the disposition of GFDL according to DFSG? (This is the question you asked.) I don't think that the answer to question two can be relevant unless we have established that the answer to question 1 is yes. Unless I've missed something, so far there hasn't been anyone arguing that the DFSG should not apply to documentation. What there has been a lot of is folks arguing that we should argue about whether the DFSG applies to documentation. A lot of statements like there might be a difference in the standards to apply and we should decide whether to apply different standards. A couple of folks have gone so far as to *assert* that different standards should apply, but when pressed their response is essentially: Well, prove me wrong! and I don't know what they are, but the GFDL is ok! Please, if someone actually believes that different standards should be applied to documentation than to other software, state your case. Because for the life of me, and despite all the verbiage on the topic, I have no idea even what standards you *want* to apply. Intuitions on the subject are fine, and a great starting point. But they're just a starting point -- you need to actually do the work of developing them before you can make your case. Until someone goes so far as to actually put forth an argument[1], I see no reason to be asking what people think on the subject. [1] Well, one argument has been made: that without invariant text there's no way to defend against mis-attribution. But that's demonstrably false -- and it's been demonstrated. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:09:54 -0500 Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. pgplO4JHcDyc0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:51:39 -0500 John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2. If DFSG should apply to documentation, what should be the disposition of GFDL according to DFSG? (This is the question you asked.) I don't think that the answer to question two can be relevant unless we have established that the answer to question 1 is yes. While you're here, I wanted to know - you seem to feel that documentation is inherently different than software in the context of Freeness, and that the licensing of each of those should be evaluated under different guidelines. In what way do you find that the GFDL treats the documentation portions of a GFDL'd documentation differently than the GPL treats software? The non-documentation portions are covered by Invariant sections, and are obviously treated differently. But from what I've read, the GFDL treats the documentation itself in a fairly Free manner (barring the obfuscation clauses). How do you see it as being different? pgpsAKdSRiXEz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, 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. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgptAA1BzrGPi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On 2003-08-22 15:51:39 +0100 John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I am saying is that we need to have a two-part California-style ballot here: So, run that survey, or find someone else to run that survey, but don't carp at Branden for trying to gather data that interests him. I suspect not many people want DFSG-free Debian bits, so aren't interested in that survey, so you will need to run it. It would be very interesting to *finally* read consistent rationale in a we want DFSG-free Debian bits statement. Assuming that's actually possible. You could always just run a yes/no survey, but that won't tell us much more than not everyone has the same view which I think we know after a few years of this debate. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 [ 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. [ ] 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. [ ] 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, [ ] 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. -- Henning Makholm ... not one has been remembered from the time when the author studied freshman physics. Quite the contrary: he merely remembers that such and such is true, and to explain it he invents a demonstration at the moment it is needed.
Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Scripsit MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] I suspect not many people want DFSG-free Debian bits, so aren't interested in that survey, so you will need to run it. It would be very interesting to *finally* read consistent rationale in a we want DFSG-free Debian bits statement. Assuming that's actually possible. Hm, I for one do want all of the bit and bytes in Debian to be DFSG-free. I think many people have posted consistent and eloquent rationales for that. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by DFSG-free Debian bits? -- Henning Makholm Ambiguous cases are defined as those for which the compiler being used finds a legitimate interpretation which is different from that which the user had in mind.
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 06:09, Branden Robinson wrote: 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. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. 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: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:06:26PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: Unless I've missed something, so far there hasn't been anyone arguing that the DFSG should not apply to documentation. What there has been I would hold that position. But I caution people reading this to not assume that this means I believe documentation deserves lower standards. There are some properties of documentation that make it a fundamentally different beast from the software we deal with. Some are: 1. Lack of a clear differentiation between source code and compiled form. This is, in my opinion, the largest problem with applying DFSG to software. As an example, I worked on a book in LyX, writing most of the code there, and generating LaTeX code from it to print. Many would say the LyX document is the source and LaTeX is compiled, and that I must then distribute the LyX. But after a point, LyX became not versatile enough, so I generated LaTeX from it, threw out the LyX code, and hacked on the LaTeX from then on. As a second example: Somebody may take a HTML document, import it into Word, and modify it there. Is the Word document the new source? What's the compiled one? 2. Automated or nearly-automated conversion from one format to another. Converting, say, a Python program into a C version is not really possible save by rewriting the entire program. But it's trivial to convert documentation between all sorts of formats -- and formats that some may think are hideous (ie, the HTML output from sgml2html or PostScript) others may see as preferred. One thing that I see as a requirement for free documentation is that it must not place a restriction on formats (save for restricting those formats that prevent free copying or modification). DFSG doesn't have any real rule to apply here. Some might cite derived works, but if you just reformat it, it's not really derived. A license could exploit this loophole. 3. Tool depencies. Is a document free if it requires non-free software to read? Is a document free if non-free software reads it best, but free software is available to do a reasonable job? How far does reasonable go? We have seen this problem with software, for instance with Java-based software. But there we have a clear idea of whether it works with, say, Kaffe or not. It's not so clear here. If, say, mswordview was the only option, but it deleted every table in the documentation, is the documentation still free? Having said all that, I think that DFSG clauses 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 will apply, though should possibly be strengthened as I mentioned above. -- John
Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On 2003-08-22 19:21:22 +0100 Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DFSG-free Debian bits Yes, reading it back a few hours later, I see that was a particularly clumsy phrase. By DFSG-free there, I meant free of DFSG not the other, more common sense free according to DFSG. Please edit my original post accordingly to say things about Debian bits ignoring DFSG or similar. It's not GNU FDL'd. ;-) -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 09:51:39AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: What I am saying is that we need to have a two-part California-style ballot here: 1. Do you believe that DFSG should apply to documentation? That's not a question that the readers of debian-legal can answer for the entire Project. It is fodder for a GR. Familiarity with copyright law and experience reading licenses is not useful for forming one's opinion on this question in the way that it is for the question I actually posed. You don't need to know what the Berne Convention says about copyright notices, or what droit d'auteur means and in which countries it is a legal principle to feel that the GNU Emacs Manual or Netscape Navigator should be part of the Debian distribution. 2. If DFSG should apply to documentation, what should be the disposition of GFDL according to DFSG? (This is the question you asked.) Correct. This is a question that be answered better by people knowledgable[1] about copyright laws, and who have experience thinking about software licenses and how they do and not meet the requirements of the DFSG and our Social Contract. When studying licenses and testing them against the DFSG, it can be useful to know what the Berne Convention says about copyright notices, or what droit d'auteur means and in which countries it is a legal principle. I don't think that the answer to question two can be relevant unless we have established that the answer to question 1 is yes. I think we already have an answer. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software. We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software.[2] If people want debian-legal to reason from a conflicting premise, they should get a GR passed that changes the Social Contract first. [1] most of us aren't lawyers, we don't render legal advice, get your own lawyer if you want a legal opinion per se, etc. [2] http://www.debian.org/social_contract -- G. Branden Robinson| Don't use nuclear weapons to Debian GNU/Linux | troubleshoot faults. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- US Air Force Instruction 91-111 http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgprYZzynpXkd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
While these issues are valid and some are quite problematic, they are not differences between documentation and software. All these things apply equally to software, and would give us just as much trouble if they ever arose for documentation. While the issues themselves are not the subject here, I think this sort of thing should be handled on a casewise basis. Trying to legislate for them would probably not work. Taking them one at a time: On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:36:03PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: There are some properties of documentation that make it a fundamentally different beast from the software we deal with. Some are: 1. Lack of a clear differentiation between source code and compiled form. This is, in my opinion, the largest problem with applying DFSG to software. As an example, I worked on a book in LyX, writing most of the code there, and generating LaTeX code from it to print. Many would say the LyX document is the source and LaTeX is compiled, and that I must then distribute the LyX. But after a point, LyX became not versatile enough, so I generated LaTeX from it, threw out the LyX code, and hacked on the LaTeX from then on. As a second example: Somebody may take a HTML document, import it into Word, and modify it there. Is the Word document the new source? What's the compiled one? I can construct exactly the same thing by taking a program written in Haskell, converting it to C, and then compiling the result. Note that this is supported by ghc and not particularly unusual. Or for something more mainstream, how about cfront, the original C++ implementation which translated the input into C? What is the source code if I then modify the C version and distribute binaries of the result? 2. Automated or nearly-automated conversion from one format to another. Converting, say, a Python program into a C version is not really possible save by rewriting the entire program. But it's trivial to convert documentation between all sorts of formats -- and formats that some may think are hideous (ie, the HTML output from sgml2html or PostScript) others may see as preferred. This is basically wrong; it is not fundamentally harder to convert program source code than it is documentation. The only appreciable difference is that a small number of documentation formats which are in common use were designed with this in mind, while equivalent programming languages are not currently in common use. I don't think this difference is significant, particularly since there are other documentation systems which are _not_ easy to convert in common use. DFSG doesn't have any real rule to apply here. Some might cite derived works, but if you just reformat it, it's not really derived. A license could exploit this loophole. Reformatting is most definitely creating a derived work. The term derived work is from copyright law, you can't change what it means. 3. Tool depencies. Is a document free if it requires non-free software to read? Is a document free if non-free software reads it best, but free software is available to do a reasonable job? How far does reasonable go? We have seen this problem with software, for instance with Java-based software. But there we have a clear idea of whether it works with, say, Kaffe or not. It's not so clear here. Have you ever tried getting java programs to work with Kaffe? It's not so clear there either. They can fail in odd ways at unexpected moments. Or for a nasty one, try getting java programs to work with gcj. That will break in *really* weird ways on occasion. If, say, mswordview was the only option, but it deleted every table in the documentation, is the documentation still free? What if the java program still works, but attempts to write files to disk fail? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpptYwrCkJ0f.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Scripsit John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:06:26PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: Unless I've missed something, so far there hasn't been anyone arguing that the DFSG should not apply to documentation. I would hold that position. But I caution people reading this to not assume that this means I believe documentation deserves lower standards. I think that if we find ways to fix the DFSG so it expresses freedom better, those fixes should not be restricted to documentation; they should be available for all applicable kinds of software. 1. Lack of a clear differentiation between source code and compiled form. This is, in my opinion, the largest problem with applying DFSG to software. Yet we do routinely apply the DFSG to interpreted scripts where there is *no* differentiation between source code and compiled form. As an example, I worked on a book in LyX, writing most of the code there, and generating LaTeX code from it to print. Many would say the LyX document is the source and LaTeX is compiled, and that I must then distribute the LyX. Such a scenario might cause problems with the GPL or even the LGPL - but I fail to see how the current DFSG creates specific problems in this case. DFSG #2 requires source but does not define it. Debian-legal will probably accept any format that the package maintainer can argue is a reasonable and non-obfuscated baseline for creating modified versions. We're not obliged to always use the specific (and in some cases problematic) definition of the GPL - unless the license of the work in question happens to be GPL, of course. 2. Automated or nearly-automated conversion from one format to another. Converting, say, a Python program into a C version is not really possible save by rewriting the entire program. But it's trivial to convert documentation between all sorts of formats -- and formats that some may think are hideous (ie, the HTML output from sgml2html or PostScript) others may see as preferred. One thing that I see as a requirement for free documentation is that it must not place a restriction on formats (save for restricting those formats that prevent free copying or modification). Then, if we are in the business of amending the Social Contract, why not make this requirement apply to all software? Certainly, if by a concentrated research effort I discover a way to turn Python programs into maintainable C code, I would fully expect any software license that calls itself free to allow be to run free Python programs through the process and modifydistribute the result. DFSG doesn't have any real rule to apply here. Some might cite derived works, but if you just reformat it, it's not really derived. A license could exploit this loophole. DFSG is just a set of guidelines, and as such cannot have loopholes. We've always reserved the right to reject software as non-free even if it sticks to the letter of the DFSG (terse and fuzzy as that letter is), whenever we think it runs against the spirit. 3. Tool depencies. Is a document free if it requires non-free software to read? Is this different from programs that depend on non-free software to run? Is a document free if non-free software reads it best, but free software is available to do a reasonable job? Is this different from a program that can run without a certain non-free library, but provides a more or less enhanced functionality when the non-free library is present? Having said all that, I think that DFSG clauses 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 will apply, though should possibly be strengthened as I mentioned above. I see no reason to exempt from #2. Availability of source, or something that serves the role of source (in which case, I'll argue, it *is* source for the purposes of DFSG#2) is important for documentation as well as programs. Remember that the actual contents of DFSG #2 is to reject software which we have to distribute only in a non-modifyable (or not-easily-modifyable) form. This goes for documentation as well. -- Henning Makholm*Dansk Folkeparti*, nazistisk orienteret dansk parti 1941-1945, grundlagt af Svend E. Johansen og Th.M. Andersen
Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:36:03 -0500, John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:06:26PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: Unless I've missed something, so far there hasn't been anyone arguing that the DFSG should not apply to documentation. What there has been I would hold that position. But I caution people reading this to not assume that this means I believe documentation deserves lower standards. There are some properties of documentation that make it a fundamentally different beast from the software we deal with. Some are: 1. Lack of a clear differentiation between source code and compiled form. Hmm. I do not think a definition of freedom needs depend on such a demarcation, but perhaps I could be educated. This is, in my opinion, the largest problem with applying DFSG to software. As an example, I worked on a book in LyX, writing most of the code there, and generating LaTeX code from it to print. Many would say the LyX document is the source and LaTeX is compiled, and that I must then distribute the LyX. But after a point, LyX became not versatile enough, so I generated LaTeX from it, threw out the LyX code, and hacked on the LaTeX from then on. Could you explain to me how this is radically different from internationalization of computer programs? Let me work along with your example, just to make a point. I wrote up a a program with its text strings in English, and it was translated into Polish by my collaborator, Vlad. Now, since the program is distributed under a free license, Vlad continued to make improvements, even though I was busy, and he wrote up the docs in his native tongue, Polish. Since I have little time, the code is hacked on by Ivan, and the primary source of the program strings is now polish. As a second example: Somebody may take a HTML document, import it into Word, and modify it there. Is the Word document the new source? What's the compiled one? Why is the compiled form relevant? Which is the currently preferred form to apply changes to? If it is the word file, then sure, the word file is the preferred form to distribute (and other forms are created by converters that take word docs and write out html, xml, rtf, pdf, etc). Why this need to figure out what the compiled form is? You distribute the file format which is the primary source of creating the content, be it code, data, or documentation -- works for all manner of software, be it programs or documentation. 2. Automated or nearly-automated conversion from one format to another. Converting, say, a Python program into a C version is not really possible save by rewriting the entire program. But it's trivial to convert documentation between all sorts of formats -- and formats that some may think are hideous (ie, the HTML output from sgml2html or PostScript) others may see as preferred. Umm, I suppose one could automate the translation f program strings into another language, (witness the babel fish), though perhaps poorly, so the parallel holds. One thing that I see as a requirement for free documentation is that it must not place a restriction on formats (save for restricting those formats that prevent free copying or modification). Or on program code toput a restriction on the languages it can be translated to. Given UML, and some higher level programming languages peopel are flirting with, it may be feasible to automatically generate large protions of code required to implement complex systems in multiple languages from the abstract description of the models, and contracts, of the program being written. Of course, one still needs to convert manually the guts of the code, but let us not insist that code translation between languages is infeasible (no computer needs more than 640KB memory). But this is a digression. DFSG doesn't have any real rule to apply here. Some might cite derived works, but if you just reformat it, it's not really derived. A license could exploit this loophole. You are given free software, and allowed to modify it as you wish, under the same terms as the original license. Pray tell, how does it not cover format changes? The DFSG does indeed require that this freedom be provided to users of documentation. 3. Tool depencies. Is a document free if it requires non-free software to read? Is a program free if it requires a non free compiler to compile? Or a non free vortual machine to interpret it? Why should documentation be treated differently? Is a document free if non-free software reads it best, but free software is available to do a reasonable job? Is a program free if a non free compiler compiles it besat, but a free compiler is available that does a reasonable job? How far does reasonable
Re: [DISCUSSION] SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 08:47:17PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: On 2003-08-22 19:21:22 +0100 Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DFSG-free Debian bits Yes, reading it back a few hours later, I see that was a particularly clumsy phrase. By DFSG-free there, I meant free of DFSG not the other, more common sense free according to DFSG. Please edit my original post accordingly to say things about Debian bits ignoring DFSG or similar. It's not GNU FDL'd. ;-) The following is not a rhetorical question: Are you saying that you would be amendable to the idea of a DFSG that is slightly modified to make it more applicable to documentation as well? (Considering the differences between software and documentation I pointed out in a previous post) I would have no qualms about Debian Free Guidelines or even a DFSG that was not tied to a source code view of the world (and spelled out that it was not just for software). -- John
SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
I am circulating this survey to gauge the level of consensus on this subject. The purpose of this survey is so that the participants in this mailing list can make an informed recommendation to the rest of the Debian Project. Please reply to this message, to this mailing list, answering the questions below. If you are a Debian Developer as of the date on this message, please GPG-sign your reply. === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] 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 === -- G. Branden Robinson|America is at that awkward stage. Debian GNU/Linux |It's too late to work within the [EMAIL PROTECTED] |system, but too early to shoot the http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |bastards. -- Claire Wolfe pgpiYQh5BXBzx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === [ X ] I'm on the SPI Board, and do have a significant interest in free software law. I've never cared for some of the provisions of the FDL. I've been quiet up to now on this list, but I don't think that anything I say right now will add to what has already been discussed. -drew -- M. Drew Streib [EMAIL PROTECTED] Independent Rambler, Software/Standards/Freedom/Law -- http://dtype.org/ pgpDXuaSazuWr.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. [ 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. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === pgpnYwvmCPJnN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === pgp1gCTYMghF7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 00:09, 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. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
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. [ 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 ===
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Branden Robinson wrote: Please reply to this message, to this mailing list, answering the questions below. If you are a Debian Developer as of the date on this message, please GPG-sign your reply. === CUT HERE === Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE ===
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Part 1. DFSG-freeness of the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 Please mark with an X the item that most closely approximates your opinion. Mark only one. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is not a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Works under this license would require significant additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, is a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. In general, works under this license would require no additional permission statements from the copyright holder(s) for a work under this license to be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ X ] The GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, can be a license compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but only if certain restrictions stated in the license are not exercised by the copyright holder with respect to a given work. Works under this license will have to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis for us to determine whether the work can be be considered Free Software and thus eligible for inclusion in the Debian OS. [ ] None of the above statements approximates my opinion. Part 2. Status of Respondent Please mark with an X the following item only if it is true. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. -- Kind regards, ++ | Bas Zoetekouw | GPG key: 0644fab7 | || Fingerprint: c1f5 f24c d514 3fec 8bf6 | | [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] | a2b1 2bae e41f 0644 fab7 | ++ pgpktAuoopjWF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Op do 21-08-2003, om 07:09 schreef Branden Robinson: I am circulating this survey to gauge the level of consensus on this subject. The purpose of this survey is so that the participants in this mailing list can make an informed recommendation to the rest of the Debian Project. Please reply to this message, to this mailing list, answering the questions below. If you are a Debian Developer as of the date on this message, please GPG-sign your reply. === 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. [ X ] I am a Debian Developer as described in the Debian Constitution as of the date on this survey. === CUT HERE === -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a full one, but there are plenty of dead experts. -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts. signature.asc Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: === 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 === [ X ] I am in the Debian New Maintainer queue, having copleted the Philosophy Procedures phase, at the date of this survey. -- ilmari pgppYbGR6IOUa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
* Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: 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. iain -- wh33, y1p33 3tc. If sharing a thing in no way diminishes it, it is not rightly owned if it is not shared. -St. Augustine
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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 ===
Re: SURVEY: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
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. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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. [ 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 === -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
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. [ 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 ===
