Re: A possible GFDL compromise
As for GPL 3, do you intend to use clauses similar to invariant sections or to the technical measures stuff in GFDL section 2? This is a matter of concern on this list. That surprises me, since I believe I sent a message to this list answering that precise question, two or three months ago. I cannot find that message easily--the only way I can search my large volume of mail is with grep. If a substantial number of people are concerned, can one of them look up my previous message and repost it?
Re: [was A possible GFDL compromise] documentation eq software ?
On 2003-08-29 13:03:28 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On 2003-08-29 12:04:18 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Readers of this list (not only developers) have stated their strong belief that the GFDL does not follow the DFSG. I'm a reader of this list and I'm pretty sure I never stated such belief. Am I the only one? I'm a reader of this list and I'm pretty sure I did. Add me to the OP (whose name you trimmed) and you have plural, so the statement is accurate. What is the use of such hair-splitting? We does not express only the plural but the consensus. 1/ The statement that you were objecting to here does not use we at all, so defining we is irrelevant. 2/ The definition you quoted for we does not support your misinterpretation. 3/ Do not CC me if I do not ask for it! Please, can you point out a message sent by myself where I try to impose my view on the majority? Please, can you point out a message sent by me where I said that you did? I only advised you against persuing that line. My mail is an answer to someone that said that everybody thinks the GFDL as non-free. Which is not accurate. Nothing else. The section of email you quoted in email timestamped 13:04:18 +0200 today did not say that. You seemed to have misunderstood it. [...] I'm even not sure whether it's a problem to have an invariant part in documentation. [...] In Debian, it is. But we hit back the debate is a software a book or not. That's the wrong way round, and your edit to the subject line is misleading. The question is is a book [in Debian] software or not? and the answer is Yes, it is. Those claiming otherwise have not yet given good reason for another answer. No-one is claiming that documentation is a synonym for software, which I think is the normal translation for eq... maybe we should ask if you disagree that (member documentation software) is true if (member documentation things-in-debian)? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MBSOPPRAPP02 found VIRUS= I-Worm.Sobig.f.txt (Kaspersky) virus
This was mailed to me are you saying I have this virus? My virus protection say I do not. I am just concerned, I am getting returned mail of addresses I don't have in my book. Could you help me please? Maxi Stubbs. Antigen for Exchange found Body of Message infected with VIRUS=I-Worm.Sobig.f.txt (Kaspersky) worm.The message is currently Purged. The message, "Your details", wassent from [EMAIL PROTECTED] and was discovered in IMC Queues\Inboundlocated at Reunion.com/REUNION/OPTIMUS.This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Re: documentation eq software ?
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté : Please point out which parts of Emacs documentation are invariant. If I'm not mistaking, these parts express some personal feelings. Personals feelings are not something that can be enhanced by someone else. First, in English, variant and non-invariant are not synonyms: Ok. There is a difference between variance and derivation. Nobody can change the GPL -- not even the FSF. They could publish something new called the GPL, which might derive from the older GPL. I might even publish a work called GNU GPL, though I would violate trademark law to do so. Invariant sections are not merely invariant, but cannot be used as the foundation for derived works. Arguments like those you present here, which assert that I could somehow mystically change another's opinion by editing text he produced, are not useful or interesting. If you edit the GNU Manifesto and redistribute under the same name, without telling clearly you modified it and what you modified, you distribute a text which may be taken as someone's opinion while it's no longer the case. And this may violate fraud, libel, or trademark laws. It has nothing to do with copyright. Nice as it would be if the law were conformant with universal common sense and gut feelings, it is not. You have not read enough to comment usefully on copyright law and the freeness of various works: in particular, you are raising common, easily countered arguments which have been raised here many times before and are well-known to be false. The right question is not Should I be able to change this document, which carries an imprimatur from a trademark? but Should I be able to derive works from this work? or Should I be able to use this neat thing in making my own thing? I think that when you read the GNU Manifesto and follow it's spirit, you're already using this neat thing (an idea) making your own thing (a software). But it restricts the sort of software I may write: I may not write works which are derivative works of the GNU Manifesto. If a text express a personal feelings, typo are not about to be fixed to enhance the text: it would change the nature of the text. Would you like to enhance Cicero, for instance? Certainly, I am glad Cicero's work is now Free: I've used several of his techniques to enhance my own writing, I was speaking about enhancing Cicero itself. What does that mean? I have written derivative works of Cicero's works. Were he alive, his copyright would apply. in some cases deriving from his text. I've also published translations and annotated editions of his work. I cannot do this with a GFDL Invariant Section. Annotation are not modifications to the text itself. I believe you are making a mistake: You can annotate and translate a Cicero's text, even if the whole original text is a GFDL Invariant Section: you just have to include this original invariant text. The GFDL does not forbid you to add your own annotations and your own translation along with the original text. Certainly it does: at that point, the invariant text is no longer Secondary. -Brian The whole idea of Secondary Sections seems increasingly ridiculous. They lock in a particular purpose for a work. -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
There are just two points in this flow, where intentional (not as side effect of other considerations) efforts (not including no-doing) to remove inapropriate texts can be qualified otherwise: begin (author), and end (reader, user). All other should be considered censorship. So if you get a website, you'll happily put up all the racist screeds that are sent to you? I, as user of Debian, do not want to audit each and every package to be aware if package mantainer delete some essential document he finds inappropriate for his beliefs. If you're paranoid like that, then you're out of luck. Debian's maintainers are under no obligation to include any document in their package, no matter what the outcome of this debate. util-linux's maintainer removed the program and documentation for generating sacred dates for the Discordian religion in one release. It was his choice, and even knowing about it, there is little anyone else can do about it besides appealing to the maintainer. If manual author is a honoured chairman of KKK - I want to know about this. If author is activist of legalize marijuana movement - I also want to know about this Again, what does that have to do with invariant sections? The author is under no obligation to add that to his manual. More importantly, just because it's part of the manual, doesn't mean anything -- it could have been part of the GNU Awk manual, and one section on regexes was taken to use in the Fortran 2052 manual written by totally different people. (Not that that would happen, because nobody is going to carry the invariant sections for that, but that's part of the problem of the GFDL.) __ Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/
Re: Can I modify the DFSG (and not derive from)?
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 10:01:40PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: The DFSG is free enough to be useful -- you still cannot just simply modify it and redistribute it under the same name, do you? Or is that exactly what mean build on? Am I able to publish a DFSG named DFSG (if it's just because Debian may be (is?) a trademark, it's not related to the license)? May I for instance take a copy of Debian and redistribute it by _only_ changing the DFSG text, adding a line saying that the GFDL qualified documentation as free documentation? Yes. As long as you follow the modification rules of the OPL: 1. The modified version must be labeled as such. 2. The person making the modifications must be identified and the modifications dated. 3. Acknowledgement of the original author and publisher if applicable must be retained according to normal academic citation practices. 4. The location of the original unmodified document must be identified. 5. The original author's (or authors') name(s) may not be used to assert or imply endorsement of the resulting document without the original author's (or authors') permission. As Debian/SPI are the authors of the document, I think you would have to label the modified version very clearly that it is not the opinion of Debian or SPI in order to comply with the license. IMO, I think you would have a very difficult time convincing anyone that you are complying with the license without changing the title of the document. Go away, troll. dave...
Re: Bug#181493: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 12:35 US/Eastern, Steve Langasek wrote: Are you saying that the Sun code should be regarded as infringing solely because SCO is a company controlled by litigious, opportunistic bastards who have no qualms about filing suits with no legal basis for no other reason than to jack up their stock price and give themselves an out from a company with no marketable assets? No, I'm saying that companies change. SCO didn't use to be like that. SCO used to be Caldera, which had bought the original SCO. The original SCO used, AFAIK, reputable tactics to sell its version of Unix. Companies will do what best suites their share holders. We shouldn't rely on corporate goodwill to protect us; instead, we should rely on legal documents like licenses.
Re: [was A possible GFDL compromise] documentation eq software ?
Steve Langasek said: On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:53:09PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: Including the GPL and the DFSG? Because the DFSG is not DFSG compliant. Other organizations may derive from and build on this document. Please give credit to the Debian project if you do. http://www.debian.org/social_contract Is that license Debian-specific? There's permission there only for non-Debian organizations to derive works. --Joe
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 08:40:15PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: Sort of the tentacles of evil thought exercise. This is what I was always worried about when seeing that phrase. Sort of seems like a back door being reserved. Could this even happen? As long as RMS live, it can't. I can't find any information on FSF's organization or bylaws, but I understand the IRS requires non-profit 501(c)(3) corporations to have approved articles of organization. I don't expect that the FSF's says anything like As long as Richard Stallman is alive, he must always be in complete control of this organization. Although, knowing RMS, I could be wrong. Anyway, he won't live forever, will he? I think RMS has done a great deal of good, but he's not all-powerful. I hope that it can be demonstrated that no hostile persons could ever take control of the Foundation or its assets, but I don't know enough about relevant law to understand how that could be ensured. Since you seem to know, would you care to elaborate? But the GNU licenses are anyway designated to reach a specific goal very correctly documented on gnu.org. If some people were about to change the licenses in the way you describe, they would be discontinuing the GNU project and not be entitled to change the GNU licenses. I bet small changes could be made to those stated goals while still having them remain under the stated purposes filed with the IRS. Alternately, that stated purpose could be changed, if the new one was still allowed for a 501(c)(3). (How about, We give away lots of software for free with no strings attached?) The advantages of the or any later version is bigger than the possibility of such a GPLv4, IMHO. What are those advantages? -- .. | paul cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | FFAL (far from a lawyer)http://people.debian.org/~pik/ |
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: Saying something useless does not poof something useful. s/poof/prove/ -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov
Can the FSF be corrupted
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté : You argue that RMS is incorruptible? I do. I present as a counterargument the GFDL. The GFDL did not reached a consensus as the GPL is in the free software world, sure. But I wonder which part of the ideas expressed by Richard on www.gnu.org are contradicted by the GFDL. Richard always focused on software and not on book and even if he ackownledged that software documentation must be free. The fact that Richard do not see freedom for documentation like proeminent people of Debian do not mean that Richard is corrupted. How he understand the freedom for documentation nowadays is not different as before. We cannot speak of corruption -- there no changes, no sign of corruption. At the contrary, nowadays Richard's position about freedom for software is coherent with the stand he made before. But the GNU licenses are anyway designated to reach a specific goal very correctly documented on gnu.org. The GFDL does not meet the FSF's four freedoms. But oh, look what I found on www.gnu.org: The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software: the GNU system. So the FSF says all these manuals are either not part of the GNU system, or are software. The manuals are not software. The goal of the GNU project is not to write a complete set of documentation but to develop a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software. And that system needs documentation, which is free documentation according to the FSF definition of free documentation. Still think it's OK for them to not meet the four freedoms or the DFSG? I think as I said before that a documentation is not a software -- different enough to be ruled differently. Because what matters are not the freedom in the end, but what you can do with, what freedom brings to you. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote: On 2003-08-27 05:52:57 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But this is irrelevant. It is enough that _law_ (majority of existed copyright laws) makes this difference. [...] Just a small reminder that you've not presented such a law yet (at all, I think, and definitely not that we've had independently verified). Some treat computer programs differently, but not software in general. It is unusual to base your whole reasoning on something not yet seen. For the majority of people outside of this list software is the synonym of computer programs. I do not see any need to change it.
Re: OT: Documentation as a Program [Re: Inconsistencies in our approach]
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: The KJV is not a program. But it is software. Software has a different extension than programs. An argument could even be made that the KJV is a program, only with a set of ruless governing people, rather than a set of rules governing a computer. Yes, but this would be a rather weird view of Scripture. Probably not as weird as some of the other views of scripture that I have floating about in my head. Being a trained molecular biologist who was raised conservative episcopalian must have tweaked something in my view of religious texts. The notion of the Bible as nothing but rules for behavior is a radical impoverishing of religion and really a subversion of Christianity. Yerp. *flexes knuckles*. Leave it to me to subvert Scripture. First I'm subverting myself, now I'm subverting inanimate objects. Now if I could just subvert that girl over there... Don Armstrong -- Three little words. (In decending order of importance.) I love you -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/graphics/batch35.php http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgppF92GK8TWF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: swirl infringement by electrostore.se
* Sunnanvind Fenderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-08-28 20:03]: I haven't been seeing my mail on debian-legal lately, maybe I have some email troubles.. hopefully the CC will get through, though. I received it at least. (Gerfried, if my email to debian-legal doesn't get there, would you kindly forward it there?) I bounced it. No news on this issue since then, and Elektrostore still uses the logo. Have you talked to Raul about the issue? Not yet, no. I wonder if someone else has contacted him? I can't really believe that noone should have done so yet... I hope to see the issue resolved and, now that you remind me, I think it's weird that Elektrostore *still* haven't changed their logo. I guess they won't change it because they seem to be on the safe side (might it be that they really believe that it's from some clipart collection, or that they don't think that Debian might be able to force them to change it). The longer the issue stands the harder it is though to get them to change it because they can then argue with common law (I hope that's the correct translation), I guess. So long, Alfie -- It's simply unbelievable how much energy and creativity people have invested into creating contradictory, bogus and stupid licenses... --- Sven Rudolph about licences in debian/non-free. pgp8Hn0J5TsKP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
paul cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : As long as RMS live, it can't. I can't find any information on FSF's organization or bylaws, but I understand the IRS requires non-profit 501(c)(3) corporations to have approved articles of organization. I don't expect that the FSF's says anything like As long as Richard Stallman is alive, he must always be in complete control of this organization. Although, knowing RMS, I could be wrong. Anyway, he won't live forever, will he? Statistically, he may disappear someday. I think RMS has done a great deal of good, but he's not all-powerful. I hope that it can be demonstrated that no hostile persons could ever take control of the Foundation or its assets, but I don't know enough about relevant law to understand how that could be ensured. Since you seem to know, would you care to elaborate? As the FSF seems to be working now, I wonder how hostile persons could take control of Foundation as RMS's position seems unbreakable. Without him, things are more unsettled. To be honest, I have no strict guarantees that the FSF cannot change but I hope that if someday the FSF disregard the GNU project and the Free Software definition promoted by RMS, people will change their distribution policy (software distributed under the GPL v2 and later version until the GPL vCorrupted) and will claim the GPL vCorrupted not to be a valid GPL in the spirit of the previous versions, not applicable to their software. If this hypothetical new GPL vCorrupted is more restrictive than the GPL v2, there's no reason to care about. A contrario, if this hypothetical new license is less restrictive, forgetting to protect authors as the GPL those authors picked, I think they should be able to sue people that would be trying to use/distribute the software under the terms of this corrupted new license. I'm not a lawyer, it would be interesting to get an answer about it from [EMAIL PROTECTED] The advantages of the or any later version is bigger than the possibility of such a GPLv4, IMHO. What are those advantages? If you write a GPL v2 only software, you'll have to edit every headers of your software's files once the GPL v3 will be published. Worse, if you stop maintaining your software or if you die, your code may become incompatible with the latest GPL version, people will not be able to distribute a software with some part of your work under the GPL v3 only. And, if we forget the horrid scenario at the beginning of this message, there's no problem with it. Regards, -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: [was A possible GFDL compromise] documentation eq software ?
On 2003-08-29 22:54:27 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Talking of licenses when thinking about how manuals and software can be different or not complicates the debate more than I thought. [...] No-one disagrees that they can be different, but you disagree that they can be the same. A manual can be software. Anyway, better luck with researching your next point.
Re: Bug#156287: Advice on Drip (ITP #156287)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes: The speech-nature of computer programs may be protected; the functional nature of computer programs is likely to not be. The courts appear to be favoring, at best, a portmanteau approach to the question Is Code Speech? Actually, the courts have basically adopted the Code is Speech rule, and that means that restrictions must be justified as restrictions on speech. Such things are sometimes restrictable, indeed, but not much. I think that neither you nor I are lawyers, and Debian should keep its nose painfully clean until it has reliable legal advice on this subject. And probably let somebody else be the test case. This is a very different meta-question. Sometimes it's the right thing, but it's not really an answer to the actual debate to say nobody really knows, punt to a lawyer for an answer. That's either just advice about what Debian should do (and as such, the person who introduces it should start taking the necessary steps, as Sam Hartman and others did in the encryption case), or else it's an unfair attempt to use FUD. Thomas
Re: documentation eq software ?
On 2003-08-29 19:05:58 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please point out which parts of Emacs documentation are invariant. If I'm not mistaking, these parts express some personal feelings. Personals feelings are not something that can be enhanced by someone else. I'm not convinced. Expressions of personal feelings are often cast in cultural terms local to the author and may be enhanced for another area by using another wording. Of course, it could not be expressed as their feelings any more, but it could be used to invoke similar emotions in a different audience. This is an underexplored field, I think. I do not think these personal feeling are hurting people. If an expression of personal feeling cannot hurt people if it wants to, it's poor writing and a good candidate for enhancement. Oh, wait ;-) As I already said, would you like the GPL or the DFSG to be variant? Yes, but the expression of DFSG already seems to be, although the idea is not. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Re: Freedom to modify other literary work, was: [...GFDL...] documentation eq software ?
On 2003-08-29 19:36:24 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and so you can regive his speech (you can use the exact same wording if you want). I am pretty sure that you are wrong on this, too. Sorry.
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 05:44:58PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote: For the majority of people outside of this list software is the synonym of computer programs. I do not see any need to change it. If you show such a person a CD with the game Terminus on it, and ask them to describe what's on it, what will they say? First they'll say Terminus, of course, but if you then ask and more generally? I suspect most will say software. I suspect they will NOT say software, manuals, graphics, sound effects, and digitized speech. They'll include all that in software. Richard Braakman
Re: [pretending to be Re: A possible GFDL compromise] OFF-TOPIC
On 2003-08-29 20:52:27 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To make this message more clear to the people on that list: Josselin usually criticize every messages I post he seen on the website I think some of this list would like to say: LEAVE YOUR HANDBAGS AT THE DOOR. This list is quite busy enough without too many meta-discussions. What next, reply-to munging?
Re: OT: Documentation as a Program [Re: Inconsistencies in our approach]
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: The KJV is not a program. But it is software. Software has a different extension than programs. An argument could even be made that the KJV is a program, only with a set of ruless governing people, rather than a set of rules governing a computer. Yes, but this would be a rather weird view of Scripture. The notion of the Bible as nothing but rules for behavior is a radical impoverishing of religion and really a subversion of Christianity.
Re: relicensing dual-licensed works to single license.
Quoting Mark Rafn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Here's a thought: Dual-licensed works can generally be forked to be under either license. Doesn't this mean that the maintainer (or any distributor) of a GPLv2 or any later version work could unilaterally re-release it under pure GPLv2 without consulting any contributors? I think so: He could then use that as the basis (if I understand correctly) for a pure GPLv2 fork. Other people, encountering that but preferring a code instance under GPLv2 or any later version would need to seek out an upstream version and eschew his additions. -- BLINKResize your browser so the following line touches both margins!/BLINK HR WIDTH=75% Best Regards, Rick Moen, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GFDL (Was Re: documentation eq software ?)
The very text of the GFDL which you quote gives permission for translations as the *only* kind of derivative work possible for Invariant Sections: in particular, annotations are not permitted. Either way, we've gotten way off on a tangent. The GFDL does not meet the DFSG. I present two pieces of evidence: 1. Invariant Sections fail DFSG points: 1. Multiple DFSG works on different subjects, all with the Invariant Section Why Free Software Needs Free Documentation may not be combined into a book Free Documentation For Free Software, as the Invariant section would no longer be Secondary. 2. The transparency requirement allows distribution in some compiled forms (e.g. plain text) but not in some source forms (e.g. MS Word) 3. The license does not allow arbitrary derived works: indeed, it prohibits any derived work but translation for some sections, and it universally forbids excerpts 4. There is no explicit provision for patch files to modify Invariants. 6. Those fields of endeavor which suffer from tight restrictions on space or bandwidth are discriminated against by Invariant Sections. 2. The clause regarding technical measures to prevent further copying violates DFSG points: 6. The license discriminates against use for Digital Rights Management technology. 5. The license discriminates against the manufacturers of DRM-enabled storage devices. 1. A copy may not be made into a protected environment: this means the document may not be freely distributed. Do you have any refutation for this? Not The DFSG doesn't apply to documentation -- I've just packaged up SniffMacs, my set of TECO macros for nasal manipulation, and wish to distribute it under the GFDL. Can Debian distribute it? Even if it has Invariant Sections? -Brian
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Quoting paul cannon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): How about this scenario: 1- A hostile group gets control of the FSF (treachery, trickery, bribery, lawsuits, ...?) 2- They release a new version of the GPLv4, which states that this software should be treated as released into the public domain Yes, this (less restriction) is the only GPLv3 scenario that could arguably injure the interest of coders specifying GPLv2 or any later version permission grants: Such covered code then becomes free / open-source but non-copyleft, against its owners' intent. Most would call that outcome (1) astronomically unlikely and (2) not very harmful, anyway. People worried about that, or just wanting to handle licence evolution manually through new releases with changed terms (caveat: necessitating agreement among all copyright holders affected) will eschew the or any later version clause. Those wanting FSF to be able to fix licence problems (e.g., resulting from court decisions) without needing a unanimous accord among copyright holder will include it. -- Cheers,Send a policeman, and have it arrested. Rick Moen -- Otto von Bismarck, when asked what he [EMAIL PROTECTED] would do if the British Army landed.
Re: Freaky copyright laws [was: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free]
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There have been efforts in the U.S. to undo the effects of _Feist_ through legislation. One example is the Collections of Information Antipiracy Act[1]. (I don't think that bill passed.) However, such a law is also probably not Constitutional. The argument in Feist is that there is no author at all of such a raw collection of informtion. The Constitution only permits copyright to extend to *authors*. The Commerce Clause might also be used, of course, but there a whole new First Amendment issue would arise, and quite possibly nix the law for that reason. Thomas
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
If they can't modify it freely, and can't put it on their encrypted filesystem, we feel it is not suitable for them. Not to mention the fact that many contributors to Debian (translators for instance) are not considered officially as Debian developers, which makes Debian voting system awkward, especially about documentation. There hasn't been any general vote for that, there is probably no need for it. Sure, you claim to be we including all Debian developers. Readers of this list (not only developers) have stated their strong belief that the GFDL does not follow the DFSG. I'm a reader of this list and I'm pretty sure I never stated such belief. Am I the only one? So even a Debian developers's vote is probably not enough to make that decision. Sure, normally Debian developers *should* understand what is the best for Debian users but from what I rode on that list, it's not sure at all for several of them. I believe the FSF is not in a situation where they can talk about the best for our users, Does someone spoke for the FSF here? I do not think so. This sentence is completely off-topic, we are not speaking about what the FSF may think. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: documentation eq software ?
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 08:05:58PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: Please point out which parts of Emacs documentation are invariant. If I'm not mistaking, these parts express some personal feelings. Personals feelings are not something that can be enhanced by someone else. Did you bother to check? The invariant sections are: The GNU Manifesto Distribution GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE All of these express things other than personal feelings, in many cases things which very obviously may need future changes. For example, both the Distribution section and the GPL contain addresses which have changed before and will probably change again. The Distribution section is completely factual. The GPLv2 is well-known, but will apparently have to be included in the emacs manual forever and ever, even long after emacs itself has moved on to GPLv10. The Manifesto has collected some footnotes over time. Do you still see no potential for enhancement? The FSF is in the privileged position of being able to change these sections when they need to be changed, and they're claiming that no-one else will ever need to. Richard Braakman
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 10:29:55AM -0600, paul cannon wrote: Sort of the tentacles of evil thought exercise. This is what I was always worried about when seeing that phrase. Sort of seems like a back door being reserved. Could this even happen? I doubt it. If someone tried it, it could be challenged under GPL lause 9: 9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. Since the GPL spends a fair amount of text on explaining the copyleft concept, it's clear that effective-public-domain is not similar in spirit. This would disqualify the GPLv4 from being a revised version under clause 9, and it should be obvious that a license statement that says GPL v2 or any later version means later versions as defined in GPL v2. Richard Braakman
Re: MBSOPPRAPP02 found VIRUS= I-Worm.Sobig.f.txt (Kaspersky) virus
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 03:52:09PM -0700, Maxi Stubbs wrote: This was mailed to me are you saying I have this virus? My virus protection say I do not. I am just concerned, I am getting returned mail of addresses I don't have in my book. Could you help me please? If you're getting such a notice, it generally means this: 1. Someone who has your address in his address book has this virus, known as Sobig.F. 2. This virus spread to the person who sent you the notice. This particular virus spreads via email and always fakes the email headers, and in this case it used your address as the faked sender. 3. The person who sent you the notice is using a broken virus scanner, which sends a scary warning notice to the wrong person, in this case you. (I call the scanner broken, because it managed to recognize the virus as Sobig.F, which is KNOWN to use a fake sender, so it should have known better than to mail you about it.) Note that you're not even involved until step 3, so there's nothing you can do about it except complain to the person in step 2. I get dozens of such notices a day, and I've given up on complaining about them. Your mileage may vary. You're asking debian-legal@lists.debian.org for help, but I doubt this notice was mailed to you from debian-legal. We don't use broken virus scanners. From the mail you quoted: The message is currently Purged. The message, Your details, was sent from [EMAIL PROTECTED] and was discovered in IMC Queues\Inbound located at Reunion.com/REUNION/OPTIMUS. Do you have any idea what IMC Queues or Reunion.com is? They're probably the ones who bothered you. You can examine the headers of the notice you got to see where it came from. (Fortunately, those are generally not faked.) The returned mail you're getting is for the same reason: the virus spreads (from someone else's machine) with your address in its headers, and confused mail servers try to bounce it back to you. Richard Braakman
Re: documentation eq software ?
Mathieu Roy wrote: If you edit the GNU Manifesto and redistribute under the same name, without telling clearly you modified it and what you modified, you distribute a text which may be taken as someone's opinion while it's no longer the case. The. Same. Is. True. Of. Software. My GPLed code can be taken by you and racist error messages inserted. If you continue to print my name as author in the help text, this plainly misrepresents my opinions. Do you believe that the GPL should do something to protect against this? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: documentation eq software ?
On 2003-08-29 22:49:57 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are not about to list which laws you can broke by doing that but whether the freedom the GFDL brings are enough or not. Enough for what? We've concluded that it's not enough to be included in Debian under the current terms. Some of us don't think it's enough full stop. [...] And you can even provide a modified version of the Manifesto, which includes annotation and translation, as long as you do not modify the original text itself, including it verbatim. For a copy under the old copy-only licence this may be true. Mere supply of the original along with commentary could be done in ways (eg parallel texts) that did not breach its licence. I'm not sure that it's true if you obtained a copy as an invariant section under the FDL, because using that to produce a commentary and translation would mean it didn't qualify as a secondary section any more. Is that correct? [...] It means enhancing Cicero own text by modifying Cicero's _own words_, as suggested before. Is that interesting? Probably, to some marketers. Updating Cicero to see if some language could pull better etc. [...] You have the right to make a copy of the GNU Manifesto, to annotate it and to translate it, don't you? You only _must_ provide a complete, unmodified, version of the GNU Manifesto, which is not a practical problem, neither a moral problem ; is it? It depends on your morals, I guess. It is very hard to argue about beliefs. Maybe I believe that information should be free... [...] In the Manifesto, Richard Stallman speak with the first person. Who, apart from him, can ever take advantage of modifying such text? ...and that what future generations do with it is not your call. Do you think that the GNU manifesto should be under perpetual copyright? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
GPL licenses and the any later version phrase (was: Re: A possible GFDL compromise)
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 12:15:50AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: Without him, things are more unsettled. To be honest, I have no strict guarantees that the FSF cannot change but I hope that if someday the FSF disregard the GNU project and the Free Software definition promoted by RMS, people will change their distribution policy (software distributed under the GPL v2 and later version until the GPL vCorrupted) and will claim the GPL vCorrupted not to be a valid GPL in the spirit of the previous versions, not applicable to their software. If you've already specifically allowed your software to be released under it, i.e., by stating that the user may elect to redistribute under the terms of any later version, how can you retroactively remove that permission? Once software is licensed with that clause, it's already too late. When the unthinkable happens and the FSF publishes GPLvX, which treats software under it as if in the public domain, any software already released with the any later version phrase can be used under the new terms. You can't do anything about it. If this hypothetical new GPL vCorrupted is more restrictive than the GPL v2, there's no reason to care about. A contrario, if this hypothetical new license is less restrictive, forgetting to protect authors as the GPL those authors picked, I think they should be able to sue people that would be trying to use/distribute the software under the terms of this corrupted new license. How could they do that? They explicitly allowed users to distribute that software under any later version. They'd be suing for doing what they explicitly allowed in the license. That's the whole point of the any later version phrase- to add new allowable terms under which your work may be used/redistributed/etc. I'm not a lawyer, it would be interesting to get an answer about it from [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..Although it's rather in their interests to encourage further use of the phrase. The advantages of the or any later version is bigger than the possibility of such a GPLv4, IMHO. What are those advantages? If you write a GPL v2 only software, you'll have to edit every headers of your software's files once the GPL v3 will be published. /Only/ if I choose to re-license that software under a different license (GPLv3). As it now seems that the GPLv3 will in fact be less free, I will probably not /want/ to do so. Worse, if you stop maintaining your software or if you die, your code may become incompatible with the latest GPL version, people will not be able to distribute a software with some part of your work under the GPL v3 only. The copyright to a work does not simply disappear into nowhere when the holder dies, any more than his other possessions. And, if we forget the horrid scenario at the beginning of this message, there's no problem with it. So you would suggest that I simply rely on the goodwill of other people and other organizations to ensure that things stay free? Considering the battles raging even today to take away or undermine free software, I don't consider that a wise plan. -- .. | paul cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | http://people.debian.org/~pik/ |
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: May be user will decide not to use Emacs at all, if he will know, that Emacs and Manifesto written by the same man. While the core of Emacs was written by RMS, the vast number of add-ons were not. I doubt that they are _all_ in agreement with the FSF adding an invariant section, but they have signed over copyright so have no control anyway.
Re: Can the FSF be corrupted
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté : You argue that RMS is incorruptible? I do. I present as a counterargument the GFDL. The GFDL did not reached a consensus as the GPL is in the free software world, sure. But I wonder which part of the ideas expressed by Richard on www.gnu.org are contradicted by the GFDL. Richard always focused on software and not on book and even if he ackownledged that software documentation must be free. http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-doc.html : The criterion for a free manual is pretty much the same as for free : software: it is a matter of giving all users certain : freedoms. Redistribution (including commercial redistribution) must be : permitted, so that the manual can accompany every copy of the program, : on-line or on paper. Permission for modification is crucial too. : : [cut a bit about different needs for non-manual books] : : But there is a particular reason why the freedom to modify is crucial : for documentation for free software. When people exercise their right : to modify the software, and add or change its features, if they are : conscientious they will change the manual too--so they can provide : accurate and usable documentation with the modified program. A manual : which forbids programmers to be conscientious and finish the job, or : more precisely requires them to write a new manual from scratch if they : change the program, does not fill our community's needs.
Re: documentation eq software ?
On Friday, Aug 29, 2003, at 12:19 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote: Do you think we already have the right to modify invariant text in the GFDL? Yes I do. I can rewrite any idea expressed in any text, invariant or not. You can do the same for the whole manual. (I cannot rewrite any idea behind a software until I get access to the sources. If I don't, it's only mimetism.) Sure you can. But let's assume you can't. So, assuming you get the source to a program --- under the copyright terms all rights reserved --- would that be free? After all, you can rewrite any idea expressed in the software, and copyright law does not stop you.
Re: documentation eq software ?
On Friday, Aug 29, 2003, at 16:14 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote: If you edit the GNU Manifesto and redistribute under the same name, without telling clearly you modified it and what you modified, you distribute a text which may be taken as someone's opinion while it's no longer the case. I don't think anyone here says that misrepresentation is OK. In fact, its illegal. I don't ask to be able to modify the GNU Manifesto and still call it the GNU Manifesto. I ask to be able to modify the GNU Manifesto and call it the Anthony DeRobertis Manifesto or somesuch. The right question is not Should I be able to change this document, which carries an imprimatur from a trademark? but Should I be able to derive works from this work? or Should I be able to use this neat thing in making my own thing? I think that when you read the GNU Manifesto and follow it's spirit, you're already using this neat thing (an idea) making your own thing (a software). ... and? Don't dodge the question. I was speaking about enhancing Cicero itself. I can't do that. He's dead. And, himself.
Re: Is the GNU FDL a DFSG-free license?
Le ven 29/08/2003 à 10:42, Fedor Zuev a écrit : Of course. You did not know? It is a completely your problem. You probably wanted to say something, but the following explains all: You are not aware? Hey, I know you! You are Jean-Claude Van Damme, aren't you? Nobody can be as purely aware as you. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: While the core of Emacs was written by RMS, the vast number of add-ons were not. I doubt that they are _all_ in agreement with the FSF adding an invariant section, but they have signed over copyright so have no control anyway. All of the authors of sections of manuals continue to have complete control over their original contributions. They can't keep the FSF from relicensing their contributions, but they can also re-release them under a different license. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Re: Can I modify the DFSG (and not derive from)?
On 2003-08-29 21:01:40 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: May I for instance take a copy of Debian and redistribute it by _only_ changing the DFSG text, adding a line saying that the GFDL qualified documentation as free documentation? Probably (modulo any trademark guff), but if you attempt to pass off your bastard version as ours, or our work as yours, then we will come after you for sure for defamation, misrepresentation, whatever. Also, don't expect us to follow you or wish you well if you do that.
relicensing dual-licensed works to single license.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, paul cannon wrote: On Thu, 28 Aug, 2003 at 06:43:48PM -0500, Rick Moen wrote: ...or (at your [the recipient's] option) any later version. The fact that your refers to the _recipient_ means that Scott's worst-case scenario of FSF issuing a screwball GPLv3 is not a serious concern _even_ for work whose licence grants include the quoted phrase. s/_even_/_only_/. There's no way I'd ever recommend anyone allow an outside group to add or remove license restrictions, even one as well-respected as the FSF. How about this scenario: 1- A hostile group gets control of the FSF (treachery, trickery, bribery, lawsuits, ...?) 2- They release a new version of the GPLv4, which states that this software should be treated as released into the public domain 3- All copyleft protection of items licensed with the (at your option) any later version phrase disappears. Hey, this would at least still be free software. GPLv3 may well include limitations that render it completely non-free. Could this even happen? It's very likely, IMO, though for smaller erosions of freedom. Here's a thought: Dual-licensed works can generally be forked to be under either license. Doesn't this mean that the maintainer (or any distributor) of a GPLv2 or any later version work could unilaterally re-release it under pure GPLv2 without consulting any contributors? I'd expect so, as the right to do so for GPLv3 was the driving reason to dual-license it in the first place. -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Re: documentation eq software ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) a tapoté : If you edit the GNU Manifesto and redistribute under the same name, without telling clearly you modified it and what you modified, you distribute a text which may be taken as someone's opinion while it's no longer the case. And this may violate fraud, libel, or trademark laws. But that's not what we are talking about. We are not about to list which laws you can broke by doing that but whether the freedom the GFDL brings are enough or not. The right question is not Should I be able to change this document, which carries an imprimatur from a trademark? but Should I be able to derive works from this work? or Should I be able to use this neat thing in making my own thing? I think that when you read the GNU Manifesto and follow it's spirit, you're already using this neat thing (an idea) making your own thing (a software). But it restricts the sort of software I may write: I may not write works which are derivative works of the GNU Manifesto. And as I said previously, what matters in the GNU Manifesto is the idea behind, not the rhetorical form. If you absolutely want to use some phrases of the text, you can quote it... And you can even provide a modified version of the Manifesto, which includes annotation and translation, as long as you do not modify the original text itself, including it verbatim. If a text express a personal feelings, typo are not about to be fixed to enhance the text: it would change the nature of the text. Would you like to enhance Cicero, for instance? Certainly, I am glad Cicero's work is now Free: I've used several of his techniques to enhance my own writing, I was speaking about enhancing Cicero itself. What does that mean? It means enhancing Cicero own text by modifying Cicero's _own words_, as suggested before. Is that interesting? You made annotation which is not modifying Cicero's own words but adding words along which Cicero's ones. I have written derivative works of Cicero's works. I would say a Modified Version, according to the GFDL definition of it (a work containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into another language.) Were he alive, his copyright would apply. And if I picked the GFDL, you work would have been perfectly legal, if we forget the Secondary part distinction (completely off-topic when dealing with something different than a manual). in some cases deriving from his text. I've also published translations and annotated editions of his work. I cannot do this with a GFDL Invariant Section. Annotation are not modifications to the text itself. I believe you are making a mistake: You can annotate and translate a Cicero's text, even if the whole original text is a GFDL Invariant Section: you just have to include this original invariant text. The GFDL does not forbid you to add your own annotations and your own translation along with the original text. Certainly it does: at that point, the invariant text is no longer Secondary. (Let's forget the Secondary distinction for now: Cicero's most famous texts would completely be under the scope of the Secondary part according to the definition of a Secondary part of the GFDL license, so it's not a problem.) You have the right to make a copy of the GNU Manifesto, to annotate it and to translate it, don't you? You only _must_ provide a complete, unmodified, version of the GNU Manifesto, which is not a practical problem, neither a moral problem ; is it? At http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html , we can read Copyright (C) 1985, 1993 Free Software Foundation, Inc. Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim copies of this document, in any medium, provided that the copyright notice and permission notice are preserved, and that the distributor grants the recipient permission for further redistribution as permitted by this notice. Modified versions may not be made. By reading this, I only understand that I can distribute it. Not that I cannot provide along with it notes and translations. As a matter of fact, I can, see the GFDL text: Translation is considered a kind of modification, so you may distribute translations of the Document under the terms of section 4. Replacing Invariant Sections with translations requires special permission from their copyright holders, but you may include translations of some or all Invariant Sections in addition to the original versions of these Invariant Sections. You may include a translation of this License, and all the license notices in the Document, and any Warranty Disclaimers, provided that you also include the original English version of this License and the original versions of those notices and disclaimers.
Re: Can the FSF be corrupted
On 2003-08-29 21:37:12 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The fact that Richard do not see freedom for documentation like proeminent people of Debian do not mean that Richard is corrupted. I have to agree with you here. I'm don't think that the fundamentals of Richard's position on this has changed in the *mumble* years I've been online and I don't see much reason to believe that it has from before that. I think it's just that the FDL makes it more obvious to those who hadn't remarked on the verbatim reproduction only notices on http://www.gnu.org/ etc. I'm not 100% sure that there aren't some bugs in the current FDL too, though. It would be nice to see more published (and not just on mailing lists) about it, to address things like concerns about encryption for privacy, etc. What it appears to say seems rather odd. [...] The manuals are not software. The manuals are not available on computer? [...] And that system needs documentation, which is free documentation according to the FSF definition of free documentation. Can you point me to the FSF definition of free documentation? I think as I said before that a documentation is not a software -- different enough to be ruled differently. If some piece of documentation is not software, it is not possible for it to be in debian, sorry. Because what matters are not the freedom in the end, but what you can do with, what freedom brings to you. Exactly. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Re: documentation eq software ?
On Friday, Aug 29, 2003, at 14:05 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote: Please point out which parts of Emacs documentation are invariant. If I'm not mistaking, these parts express some personal feelings. Personals feelings are not something that can be enhanced by someone else. Assuming your characterization of the invariant sections is correct for the moment. _Expressions_ of personal feelings can certainly be enhanced by someone else. As a (trivial) example, let's say I state as my personal feeling: The GNU GFDL with outr withour invarient sections is not a free lisence. You can certainly improve that by changing lisence into license; outr to out; invarient to invariant; and inserting a comma after both with and invariant. Less trivially, you could (were it legal) take RMS essays on free software and modify them to change them in to _your_ feelings on free software. Or you could change the DFSG into the Debian Free Documentation Guidelines. Or, hey, for a real example, go look at John Locke's work. Notice how it is an edited copy of another philosopher's work. Personal feelings themselves can be, too. That is, after all, what we're (hopefully) doing on this list. I do not think these personal feeling are hurting people. I do. That's nice, eh? Really helps to present reasoned arguments in addition to assertions, doesn't it? If a text express a personal feelings, typo are not about to be fixed to enhance the text: it would change the nature of the text. And so what if it did? There is a difference between you may not create derivative works (e.g., 'change') this text and you may not create works and claim they represent my personal opinions when they do not. Would you like to enhance Cicero, for instance? Cicero is rather dead, so it'd be a hard problem to enhance him. Enhancing his works, on the other hand, is something that I should be (and am, since those works are public domain) free to do. The invariant text are not (should not be) manuals part but litteracy part in a manual, it's something to be kept in mind. Huh? I can't understand this. As I already said, would you like the GPL or the DFSG to be variant? Yes, and they already are (except for the FSF's GPL intro, which is mostly an endorsement). But if you change them, they are no longer the GPL or DFSG.
Re: [was A possible GFDL compromise] documentation eq software ?
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On 2003-08-29 15:53:09 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because the DFSG is not DFSG compliant. AFAICT, the DFSG is under the OPL with no options enabled and that licence is considered DFSG-free. Am I missing something? You're not, I tried to demonstrate something with a boring example. Talking of licenses when thinking about how manuals and software can be different or not complicates the debate more than I thought. Let's forget it. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: documentation eq software ?
On Friday, Aug 29, 2003, at 10:25 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote: The same goes from the Ancient tragedies. But it's already perfectly possible to make a remake of any book, story or movie. Only with permission of the copyright holder, or for public-domain works. Just go a try and remake a Mickey Mouse flick and watch how fast Disney hauls you into court.
Re: [was A possible GFDL compromise] documentation eq software ?
On Friday, Aug 29, 2003, at 15:17 US/Eastern, Joe Moore wrote: Is that license Debian-specific? Obviously not. There's permission there only for non-Debian organizations to derive works. Because Debian doesn't need permission to derive from or build on its own documents.
