Re: motion to take action on the unhappy GNU FDL issue
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If you feel your trust has been betrayed, I think you should say so. Insisting that your text be removed from the CPP manual is not the only tactic at your disposal. Certainly. If Zack were to ask for his own work (whose copyright is assigned to the FSF) to be released under the GPL (in addition obviously to being included in a GFDL-licensed work) and the FSF were to refuse that request, then I think a lot of people would agree that it would look very very bad. If GPL-versions of most of the content can be obtained, then there is the possibility of a GPL fork. There probably isn't a volunteer immediately ready to do the work of putting together a GPL release, and one still hopes it won't be necessary, but, just in case, it would be good to obtain the raw material now, rather than later, when it might be harder to do because of source tarballs not being on-line any more, e-mail addresses not working any more, etc. Edmund
Re: motion to take action on the unhappy GNU FDL issue
Hi Zack,
On Sonntag 20 April 2003 03:19, Zack Weinberg wrote:
I am not a Debian developer, but I am one of the upstream
developers of a piece of software (GCC) that would be affected
by this proposal, and so I would like to say that I
wholeheartedly support it. I wrote a lot of the text in the
cpp manual, at a time when its license was the old vague FSF-
documentation license; I'm not at all happy with its
relicensing under terms I don't consider to be free.
Has there been a version under the old license that already
included your changes? Has the old license been DFSG-approved,
or was it even GPL-compatible? If so, you could start
* a free (maybe even GPLed) fork from the old free version, and
* maybe also a fork of the non-free version that will function
more as a supplement to the free version than a full text,
and therefore has all of the unnecessary free stuff removed.
(Would the GFDL allow this?)
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
--
http://mirror1.superhits.ch/~sloyment/
Re: motion to take action on the unhappy GNU FDL issue
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 11:36:28PM -0400, Zack Weinberg wrote: I pulled it out of my files and reread it; the FSF's side of the agreement is a lot weaker than I remembered. The actual text is [...] Not one word about redistribution of modifications. I don't think I have a leg to stand on with regard to the manual I already wrote. You can be sure I won't be assigning any future copyright interests of mine to the FSF on those terms, though. On a more pragmatic note, if I really made a stink about this, what would happen is cpp.texi would get rolled back to its state before I revised it, and would continue to be distributed under the GFDL with invariant sections etc intact; thus it would not get any Freer, and would be much less useful to its intended readership. If you feel your trust has been betrayed, I think you should say so. Insisting that your text be removed from the CPP manual is not the only tactic at your disposal. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Extra territorium jus dicenti [EMAIL PROTECTED] | impune non paretur. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp2UMZSBOKRX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: motion to take action on the unhappy GNU FDL issue
Zack Weinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (I suppose I could sue the FSF for violating its end of the copyright assignment contract, but that would be totally counterproductive). I think it might well be productive to point to the assignment contract, and insist that your content be removed.
Re: motion to take action on the unhappy GNU FDL issue
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes: I think it might well be productive to point to the assignment contract, and insist that your content be removed. I pulled it out of my files and reread it; the FSF's side of the agreement is a lot weaker than I remembered. The actual text is FSF agrees that all distribution of the Works, or of any work based on the Works, or the program as enhanced by the Works, that takes place under the control of FSF or its agents or successors, shall be on terms that explicitly and perpetually permit anyone possessing a copy of the work to which the terms apply, and possessing accurate notice of these terms, to redistribute copies of the work to anyone on the same terms. These terms shall not restrict which members of the public copies may be distributed to. These terms shall not require a member of the public to pay any royalty to FSF or to anyone else for any permitted use of the work they apply to, or to communicate with FSF or its agents or assignees in any way either when redistribution is performed or on any other occasion. (That's clause 4 of the document normally referred to as assign.future.) Not one word about redistribution of modifications. I don't think I have a leg to stand on with regard to the manual I already wrote. You can be sure I won't be assigning any future copyright interests of mine to the FSF on those terms, though. On a more pragmatic note, if I really made a stink about this, what would happen is cpp.texi would get rolled back to its state before I revised it, and would continue to be distributed under the GFDL with invariant sections etc intact; thus it would not get any Freer, and would be much less useful to its intended readership. zw
Re: motion to take action on the unhappy GNU FDL issue
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 01:27:05PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote: On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: I am seeking seconds for this proposal. I think this proposal is the right thing to do, especially the hard work of creating the documents before filing bugs. Unfortunately, I am unwilling to take on the task myself, though I'm happy to provide feedback and sections of text where I can. Between this and the fact that IANADD, I don't think I have standing to provide a second. I also support this proposal. I don't have too much time, but I'm willing to help where I can. I'm also not a DD, so I'm not going to attempt a second. -- Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7 Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all. --Douglas Adams pgpMqE02KJJ1p.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: motion to take action on the unhappy GNU FDL issue
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 03:09:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: I propose that we: * draft a comprehensive critique of the GNU FDL 1.2, detailing section-by-section our problems with the license * draft a FAQ regarding why we differ with FSF orthodoxy on this issue * draft a document advising users of the GNU FDL how to add riders to their license terms such that works so licensed are DFSG-free, and pointing out alternative documentation licenses that are also DFSG-free Then: * exhaustively identify works in main and contrib using the GNU FDL[1] * contact[2] the package maintainers and upstream authors of each affected source package, and include pointers to the above documents * post a list of affected packages to debian-devel-announce and/or debian-announce, so that no one is surprised by whatever later actions occur * give people some time to consider and act upon the above contact (some may relicense, some will tell us to go pound sand, others won't reply at all) * remove packages from main and contrib whose licenses have not been brought into compliance with the DFSG I am seeking seconds for this proposal. [1] I don't restrict this to GNU FDL-licensed documents that have Cover Texts or Invariant Sections because previous discussions have indicated that there may be still other problems with the GNU FDL 1.2. I seem to recall someone raising a fairly persuasive critique of section 4K, for instance. Thus, if we're going to nail some theses to the church door, we might as well make sure that they're comprehensive. [2] possibly through a mass bug-filing, but I leave this detail to future determination I strongly support this proposal. Cheers, Nick -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stay away from hurricanes for a while.
Re: motion to take action on the unhappy GNU FDL issue
Branden Robinson wrote: Well, I've been too cowardly to raise this issue of late, but given that the temperature of debian-legal has been taken a few times over the past several months, and there seems to be a steady or growing feeling that Invariant Sections are not something we can live with, shall we resolve to move forward on this issue? I propose that we: * draft a comprehensive critique of the GNU FDL 1.2, detailing section-by-section our problems with the license * draft a FAQ regarding why we differ with FSF orthodoxy on this issue * draft a document advising users of the GNU FDL how to add riders to their license terms such that works so licensed are DFSG-free, and pointing out alternative documentation licenses that are also DFSG-free Then: * exhaustively identify works in main and contrib using the GNU FDL[1] * contact[2] the package maintainers and upstream authors of each affected source package, and include pointers to the above documents * post a list of affected packages to debian-devel-announce and/or debian-announce, so that no one is surprised by whatever later actions occur * give people some time to consider and act upon the above contact (some may relicense, some will tell us to go pound sand, others won't reply at all) * remove packages from main and contrib whose licenses have not been brought into compliance with the DFSG ... I am seeking seconds for this proposal. I am not a Debian developer, but I am one of the upstream developers of a piece of software (GCC) that would be affected by this proposal, and so I would like to say that I wholeheartedly support it. I wrote a lot of the text in the cpp manual, at a time when its license was the old vague FSF- documentation license; I'm not at all happy with its relicensing under terms I don't consider to be free. I attempted earlier this year to convince RMS to remove the invariant sections from the GCC manuals, which he would not do; unfortunately, there isn't any further recourse available to me (I suppose I could sue the FSF for violating its end of the copyright assignment contract, but that would be totally counterproductive). So I would very much like to see Debian take action as outlined above, because you collectively might have enough clout to get the FSF to change its position. zw The above is my personal opinion, not the opinion of the GCC maintainers collectively, nor is it necessarily endorsed by my employer. Please do NOT cc: me on replies to this message.
Re: motion to take action on the unhappy GNU FDL issue
On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 15:09, Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 08:12:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Anyway, to answer your original question, GFDL = non-free is not an official Debian position simply because we haven't written up a proper explanation of why, and haven't gone through the GFDL documents in main to see which ones need removing. Insert proposed course of action re. GFDL here I am seeking seconds for this proposal. Second. I'm not going to have access to my email for the next 2 days, but when I get back I'd be willing to help with all of these. After reading all the GFDL debates I think I've got a pretty good handle on the issues involved. -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: motion to take action on the unhappy GNU FDL issue
Well, listening to Georg Greve it sounded like the FSF wanted an official statement from Debian regarding the problems with non-removability of invariant sections. In my very humble opinion, Debian should try giving them that before taking (what would appear to be) the more hostile actions suggested by you. Sunnan
Re: motion to take action on the unhappy GNU FDL issue
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 12:44:32PM +0200, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote: Well, listening to Georg Greve it sounded like the FSF wanted an official statement from Debian regarding the problems with non-removability of invariant sections. In my very humble opinion, Debian should try giving them that before taking (what would appear to be) the more hostile actions suggested by you. I'm sorry you perceive hostility; that's not my intent. However, it seems like what you're asking us to try giving them is exactly what I recommended as the first course of action. You did not quote my message, so here's the part in question: I propose that we: * draft a comprehensive critique of the GNU FDL 1.2, detailing section-by-section our problems with the license -- G. Branden Robinson| A fundamentalist is someone who Debian GNU/Linux | hates sin more than he loves [EMAIL PROTECTED] | virtue. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- John H. Schaar pgpSuMPsggRIk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: motion to take action on the unhappy GNU FDL issue
Scripsit Sunnanvind Fenderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, listening to Georg Greve it sounded like the FSF wanted an official statement from Debian regarding the problems with non-removability of invariant sections. I don't think the FSF is prepared to change their licensing practise no matter how eloquent statements we can draft here. IIRC, a couple of iterations back we had a subthread on d-l where Stallman himself participated. He did not seem to attach any particular weight by our objections. In my very humble opinion, Debian should try giving them that before taking (what would appear to be) the more hostile actions suggested by you. The three initial of Branden's proposed actions do not seem to be hostile. They say that we make up our mind and draft a self-contained descriptions of why we think the invariant-section stuff (etc.) is evil. Surely that is a prerequisite for doing *anything* else than bitch about the problem internally on debian-legal. -- Henning Makholm So? We're adaptable. We'll *switch missions*!
Re: motion to take action on the unhappy GNU FDL issue
On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: This is the stuff of which nasty flamewars and misspelled Slashdot headlines are made, hence my unwillingness to do it, but it is clear to me that letting this issue languish in ambiguity isn't good for us or our users. I agree both with your reluctance and your assessment of the harm caused by inaction. I am seeking seconds for this proposal. I think this proposal is the right thing to do, especially the hard work of creating the documents before filing bugs. Unfortunately, I am unwilling to take on the task myself, though I'm happy to provide feedback and sections of text where I can. Between this and the fact that IANADD, I don't think I have standing to provide a second. -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Re: motion to take action on the unhappy GNU FDL issue
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 03:09:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: I propose that we: * draft a comprehensive critique of the GNU FDL 1.2, detailing section-by-section our problems with the license (Branden, didn't you construct such a critique a while ago? I remember reading one.) * draft a FAQ regarding why we differ with FSF orthodoxy on this issue * draft a document advising users of the GNU FDL how to add riders to their license terms such that works so licensed are DFSG-free, and pointing out alternative documentation licenses that are also DFSG-free Then: * exhaustively identify works in main and contrib using the GNU FDL[1] * contact[2] the package maintainers and upstream authors of each affected source package, and include pointers to the above documents * post a list of affected packages to debian-devel-announce and/or debian-announce, so that no one is surprised by whatever later actions occur * give people some time to consider and act upon the above contact (some may relicense, some will tell us to go pound sand, others won't reply at all) * remove packages from main and contrib whose licenses have not been brought into compliance with the DFSG I second this proposal, with the addition that I wouldn't be opposed to passing a General Resolution at some point before any removals. This is the stuff of which nasty flamewars and misspelled Slashdot headlines are made, hence my unwillingness to do it, but it is clear to me that letting this issue languish in ambiguity isn't good for us or our users. Indeed. In fact, I now have the impression that the FSF was waiting for us to come up with an official statement, while we were waiting for a response from the FSF. The first three steps of your proposal seem to be a good way to resolve that. I think it's also time to get the rest of the project involved. I expect that a lot of people who don't ordinarily care about license details will suddenly become interested when packages like glibc-doc are affected. This probably means all of the issues will be rehashed on debian-devel, so it will be good to have such a FAQ available. (I'm not advocating this rehashing, I'm just speaking from past experience :) Richard Braakman
Re: motion to take action on the unhappy GNU FDL issue
Scripsit Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think this proposal is the right thing to do, especially the hard work of creating the documents before filing bugs. Unfortunately, I am unwilling to take on the task myself, though I'm happy to provide feedback and sections of text where I can. Between this and the fact that IANADD, I don't think I have standing to provide a second. What he said. -- Henning Makholm Det er du nok fandens ene om at mene. For det ligger i Australien!
motion to take action on the unhappy GNU FDL issue
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 08:12:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Anyway, to answer your original question, GFDL = non-free is not an official Debian position simply because we haven't written up a proper explanation of why, and haven't gone through the GFDL documents in main to see which ones need removing. Well, I've been too cowardly to raise this issue of late, but given that the temperature of debian-legal has been taken a few times over the past several months, and there seems to be a steady or growing feeling that Invariant Sections are not something we can live with, shall we resolve to move forward on this issue? I propose that we: * draft a comprehensive critique of the GNU FDL 1.2, detailing section-by-section our problems with the license * draft a FAQ regarding why we differ with FSF orthodoxy on this issue * draft a document advising users of the GNU FDL how to add riders to their license terms such that works so licensed are DFSG-free, and pointing out alternative documentation licenses that are also DFSG-free Then: * exhaustively identify works in main and contrib using the GNU FDL[1] * contact[2] the package maintainers and upstream authors of each affected source package, and include pointers to the above documents * post a list of affected packages to debian-devel-announce and/or debian-announce, so that no one is surprised by whatever later actions occur * give people some time to consider and act upon the above contact (some may relicense, some will tell us to go pound sand, others won't reply at all) * remove packages from main and contrib whose licenses have not been brought into compliance with the DFSG This is the stuff of which nasty flamewars and misspelled Slashdot headlines are made, hence my unwillingness to do it, but it is clear to me that letting this issue languish in ambiguity isn't good for us or our users. Either that we feel the GNU FDL is being used in main and contrib in ways that are not DFSG-free, or we don't, and either way we need to get ourselves squarely on the record. I am seeking seconds for this proposal. [1] I don't restrict this to GNU FDL-licensed documents that have Cover Texts or Invariant Sections because previous discussions have indicated that there may be still other problems with the GNU FDL 1.2. I seem to recall someone raising a fairly persuasive critique of section 4K, for instance. Thus, if we're going to nail some theses to the church door, we might as well make sure that they're comprehensive. [2] possibly through a mass bug-filing, but I leave this detail to future determination -- G. Branden Robinson| To be is to do -- Plato Debian GNU/Linux | To do is to be -- Aristotle [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Do be do be do -- Sinatra http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpXnRGXVi3Pz.pgp Description: PGP signature
