Re: For those who care about the GR
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Q1.1) Are GFDL licensed works without invariant texts non-free? Well, according to the RM team, and some developers (full disclosure: myself included), yes, they are, even if there is no explicit infraction of specific portions of our guidelines. The release team, a delegated body, has unequivocally stated that the GFDL licensed works are non-free, with no codicils and riders about absence of invariant clauses. Absent any other action, I am, by my own analysis, and the actions of the RM team, going to treat these works as non-free -- and this impacts issue 2. So, can the developers dispute this? Obviously, the developer body can dispute any delegated action. And the consititution does not specifiy a supermajority requirement for this case, while it specifically does so if the TC is overruled. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 10:28:18AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: That, I can agree with. So let's do that: let's see at what restrictions are imposed, and whether they would allow me to modify the document so that it would allow me to do anything I, as a Debian maintainer, would want to do with it in the name of improving the situation for our users. Fine. :-) When we go ahead and do so, we find that it does not. If I would want to synthesize a GNU info document into a manual page, I would be forced to retain any and all invariant sections that this info document contains. In itself, that would not be a problem; however, it may be the case that after my modifications, the invariant sections end up being the majority of the text. At that point, they will fail the definition of 'secondary section' as defined by the GFDL itself, so I would not be allowed to distribute this manual page anymore. They will not fail the definition of secondary section, but that is not relevant here, because you don't have to include all invariant sections in every single man-page. Do you agree that the ability to take an info document and to extract the relevant bits for a manpage is a freedom that we should have for documentation? If you do, you should oppose invariant sections. Yes, I agree. However as I wrote in my previous email, you can structure the man-pages in a way that makes every single man-page to be only a part from a bigger document. In order to fulfil the requirements of the license you only need to include the invariant sections in only one of your man-pages. (You will also have to distribute the man-pages as a whole.) When the document is distributed in HTML-format, we do exactly this - each chapter can have its own short sized html-page and the invariant sections are separated in their own html-pages. We do not include the invariant sections in all chapters of the document. There is a fundamental difference between copyright notices and invariant sections. One is required by law; the other is not. These notices can be very long as we see from /usr/share/doc/x11-common/copyright. These notices can also contain personal statements as we see from the preamble of GPL. What if someone includes the GNU Manifesto in the preamble of a free documentation license - we would not say that this license is non-free, would't we? The problem is not about large opinionated sections in copyright statements; the problem is about immutable and non-removable sections in documentation. The point is there is no practical difference whether the GNU Manifesto is placed in the preamble of the license or it is placed in an invariant section. If the man-page is structured as a chapter from a bigger document, then it would be unnecessary to include the invariant sections in it. No, that is not how the GFDL is written. I already wrote about the man-pages. GFDL does not specify what constitutes the whole document. The copyright message of the document should specify this when it is unclear. Nevertheless, the Advertising clauses can apply to components that Debian distributes and considers 100% free. I did not contest that. The requirements in the GFDL are limited only to some special sections from the manual. That is completely besides the point. The requirements may be limited to some special sections, but they have an effect on the manual as a whole. The requirements of the Advertising clauses also can have effect on the manual as a whole. Infact, the requirements of the Advertising clause are much more severe because they have effect not only to one particular manual but to any advertising material mentioning features or use of the covered software whatsoever. Potentially this can have effect on any manual or program that mentions features or use of the covered sofwere. Ofcourse it does not mean that. The point is that me can not impose on the free software community alternative meaning of free software. There are as many different definitions of 'Free Software' as there are Free Software activists. Strictly speaking, you may be right. Anyway, the GNU project, GNOME, KDE and many other free software developers consider and use GFDL as a free license. Even if there are different definitions of Free Software (and Free Documentation) most of them seem to acknowledge GFDL as free. However, the requirements regarding transparent copies become onerous if you are offering printed (i.e., on paper) versions of the manual. Not, at all. (thus, if you print a book, you must include a CD-ROM), or maintain a website (or something similar) for no less than one year after distributing the opaque copy. Sadly - many Debian developers consider this an argument against GFDL even though the restrictions of GPL are way more severe. For printed books GPL would require from you to include either CD-ROM or written offer to distribute the
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The point is there is no practical difference whether the GNU Manifesto is placed in the preamble of the license or it is placed in an invariant section. Actually, there is. I think that the consensus of debian-legal has been that we must accept the fact that modifications to the license terms are forbidden by the law. This does not mean that we should accept unmodifiable sections elsewhere in the works. -- * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) * * PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote: Hereby I am proposing an amendment to the GR about GFDL opened by Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000] GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom, it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines I second Anton Zinoviev's amendement. I am not still sure about this issue, but the GFDL problem is definitely something we have to handle, as it could hurt our users (ie. removing all GFDLed documentation is not a realistic solution) Xavier pgpXv9O4zprao.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Monday 23 January 2006 14:37, Xavier Roche wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote: Hereby I am proposing an amendment to the GR about GFDL opened by Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000] GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom, it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines I second Anton Zinoviev's amendement. AFAIK you must completely quote the amendment to second it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about the GR
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 04:19:49PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: [Bill Allombert] Fact 1: The GFDL include this: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. Fact 2: The DFSG include this: 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. Yes Fact 3: There exist fields of endeavours that require mandatory encryption. For example, if you work in security-sensitive field, you can be required to use a hard-drive with built-in encryption. This technology certainly control who can read the disk. In that case, you cannot copy a GFDL licensed document to your computer for reading it. That's not at all what DFSG 6 means. That's equivalent to interpreting DFSG 6 to ban the GPL on the grounds that it discriminates against proprietary software companies. No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from using the software. DFSG 6 does not say anything a company might plausibly want to do, our software must allow them to do. It merely says that every field of endeavor must be given the same rights. Never mind whether that set of rights is enough to satisfy any given party. No it does not either. It says The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. No mention of giving the same right. Cheers, Bill. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about the GR
Fact 3: There exist fields of endeavours that require mandatory encryption. For example, if you work in security-sensitive field, you can be required to use a hard-drive with built-in encryption. This technology certainly control who can read the disk. In that case, you cannot copy a GFDL licensed document to your computer for reading it. That's not at all what DFSG 6 means. That's equivalent to interpreting DFSG 6 to ban the GPL on the grounds that it discriminates against proprietary software companies. No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from using the software. Not *yet*. GPLv3 does (with the Patent related clauses) ;p does it makes GPLv3 non free ? -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpinnEfNDckA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:59:54PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 10:28:18AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: That, I can agree with. So let's do that: let's see at what restrictions are imposed, and whether they would allow me to modify the document so that it would allow me to do anything I, as a Debian maintainer, would want to do with it in the name of improving the situation for our users. Fine. :-) When we go ahead and do so, we find that it does not. If I would want to synthesize a GNU info document into a manual page, I would be forced to retain any and all invariant sections that this info document contains. In itself, that would not be a problem; however, it may be the case that after my modifications, the invariant sections end up being the majority of the text. At that point, they will fail the definition of 'secondary section' as defined by the GFDL itself, so I would not be allowed to distribute this manual page anymore. They will not fail the definition of secondary section, Yes, they will. The definition of secondary section in the FDL reads as follows: A Secondary Section is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject. (Thus, if the Document is in part a textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any mathematics.) If you write a document that talks for 99% about using a program, and for 1% about software freedom, then that 1% is a secondary section according to this definition. If you then remove most of the content from that document so that only the relevant bits for a manual page and those secondary sections are left behind, then it could very well be that 10% of the resulting text is your technical documentation while 90% of your text is that section about software freedom. At this point, you can no longer reasonably say that the Document's overall subject is the technical documentation; rather, at that point the Document's overall subject will be software freedom. It will then fail the definition of Secondary Section as explained in the FDL. QED. but that is not relevant here, because you don't have to include all invariant sections in every single man-page. Does not follow. You have to include them all; whether or not you have to include them on every manpage in a given package is not relevant. [...] These notices can be very long as we see from /usr/share/doc/x11-common/copyright. These notices can also contain personal statements as we see from the preamble of GPL. What if someone includes the GNU Manifesto in the preamble of a free documentation license - we would not say that this license is non-free, would't we? The problem is not about large opinionated sections in copyright statements; the problem is about immutable and non-removable sections in documentation. The point is there is no practical difference whether the GNU Manifesto is placed in the preamble of the license or it is placed in an invariant section. There is; see also Kalle's reply. Moreover, I personally would not accept a license that contains a preamble which is three times as long as the actual license text and which claims that Free Software is a virus (or something similar) as a Free License. [...] The requirements in the GFDL are limited only to some special sections from the manual. That is completely besides the point. The requirements may be limited to some special sections, but they have an effect on the manual as a whole. The requirements of the Advertising clauses also can have effect on the manual as a whole. Infact, the requirements of the Advertising clause are much more severe because they have effect not only to one particular manual but to any advertising material mentioning features or use of the covered software whatsoever. Potentially this can have effect on any manual or program that mentions features or use of the covered sofwere. Ofcourse it does not mean that. The point is that me can not impose on the free software community alternative meaning of free software. There are as many different definitions of 'Free Software' as there are Free Software activists. Strictly speaking, you may be right. Of course; and the point of this whole excercise is to find out what exactly the common stance of the Debian project on this question is. We would not impose anything on anyone by defining for ourselves what free software is; rather, we would put forward our position; other people would be allowed to either agree or disagree. Sure, there will be practical effects to that. Anyway, the GNU project, GNOME, KDE and many other free software developers consider and use GFDL as
Re: For those who care about the GR
* Pierre Habouzit [Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 04:23:46PM +0100]: No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from using the software. Not *yet*. GPLv3 does (with the Patent related clauses) ;p I really don't think the current draft ban proprietary software companies from using the software. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
* Russ Allbery [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:17:14 -0800]: If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead and put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs can later claim that their opinion wasn't represented by the choices. Latelly, I'm thinking that this (in a similar fashion to Manoj's mail) is the best option. The only problem I see is that Manoj's mail seems to want to attach a position statement to each option, and that can be divisive. I'm starting to see the benefits of a prior vote... -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Proper treatment will cure a cold in seven days, but left to itself, a cold will hang on for a week. -- Darrell Huff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Russ Allbery wrote: In that case, could someone please propose an amendment which captures the *other* regularly voiced opinion, namely that GFDL without invarient sections is DFSG-free but with invarient sections is not, and phrase that in an appropriate form as an override of the decision of a delegate so that we can be done with this and have all the options represented? Lots of technical problems have shown up with the current amendment that tried to do that and it clearly needs a revision in light of the discussion. If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead and put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs can later claim that their opinion wasn't represented by the choices. FWIW, I agree with you, however I'll only second them as I do not have enough time to draft them. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Russ Allbery [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:17:14 -0800]: If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead and put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs can later claim that their opinion wasn't represented by the choices. Latelly, I'm thinking that this (in a similar fashion to Manoj's mail) is the best option. The only problem I see is that Manoj's mail seems to want to attach a position statement to each option, and that can be divisive. I'm starting to see the benefits of a prior vote... Me too. The question raised by the original proposal here seems to be more one of whether we want to make a public policy statement about an issue already decided by delegates. After reading Manoj's messages, I think it's clear that, if people want to vote on whether to override the delegate decision, we should do that *first*. Then, once that's settled, we can look at what public position statements may or may not be appropriate. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Re: For those who care about the GR
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 03:42:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: And what? If someone tries to bring through a GR stating that MS office warez can be distributed in main since it meets the DFSG, one might rule that as frivolous and a waste of time. I'm not convinced the constitution gives the secretary the power to make such a ruling. There are no provisions in the constitution for the Project Secretary to dismiss a GR -- *even* a GR stating that the Debian Project holds the value of pi to be 3 -- so long as the GR has the requisite number of seconds. I suspect the Secretary could effectively do so by declining to take the vote under Section 2.1.1 ([n]othing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to do work for the Project.) It seems then that the secretary has no obligation to actually perform 4.2.3 or 7.1.1. In the present case, I understand that the proposed ballot option is ambiguous wrt whether it constitutes an implicit amendment to the foundation docs, and that in the absence of clarification (in the form of a re-worded proposal) on the part of the proposer, it is the project secretary's prerogative to specify a supermajority requirement. I think that under 7.1.3, it'd be the Secretary's job/power to determine supermajority requirement regardless of what the proposed ballot option says. If 6 developers (K=5 currently, I think) can decide that the supermajority requirements to not apply to a ballot option, then the supermajority requirements are rather worthless. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
Em Seg, 2006-01-23 às 10:28 +0100, Wouter Verhelst escreveu: On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 10:41:25AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote: If you do not have any access to my encrypted or chmod -r copy, then I am not controllyng your reading or further copying Really. If you maintain a copy of a GFDL'ed work on one of your debian.org home directories without the world-writable read bit set, you are in violation of the license, as written. Hmmm... This made me think twice... The license is an agreement that regulates one action: the distribution, right? Is this clause enforcable to your private copies (considering it as a bug)? or just to the copies you distribute... I mean, I know the license says the copies you make or distribute, but, by definition, wouldn't it apply only to the act of distribution? daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 03:23:02PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote: I mean, I know the license says the copies you make or distribute, but, by definition, wouldn't it apply only to the act of distribution? No. By default, copyright does not grant you a license to copy a work; if the license allows you to copy a work anyway under certain conditions, then you are giving more rights to your users than what the law allows, so you can do that. You are allowed to say 'you may not copy it in such a way that nobody can read it'. There are some exceptions--you are allowed to copy a computer program from the installation medium to the hard disk of your computer, and from the hard disk of your computer to its RAM, provided you are not otherwise in breach of the license--but they are exceptions, and most copying is not allowed. -- .../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/ ../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/ -.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ / ../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../ ---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPLv3 Patent Clauses [Was: Re: For those who care about the GR]
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Pierre Habouzit wrote: No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from using the software. Not *yet*. GPLv3 does (with the Patent related clauses) ;p does it makes GPLv3 non free ? No, it imposes duties on entites who control patents (or have patents licenced to them) and distribute software as well as restricting certain actions which are outside of the scope of running software. Now, if you feel the above is non-free, please, please make a comment on gplv3.fsf.org cogently and precisely laying out your theory for why it isn't free so it can actually be addressed. (The same goes for anyone else who has a problem, suggest, or anything else for part of the GPLv3.) Don Armstrong -- There's no problem so large it can't be solved by killing the user off, deleting their files, closing their account and reporting their REAL earnings to the IRS. -- The B.O.F.H.. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: For those who care about the GR
[Bill Allombert] There exist fields of endeavours that require mandatory encryption. For example, if you work in security-sensitive field, you can be required to use a hard-drive with built-in encryption. This technology certainly control who can read the disk. In that case, you cannot copy a GFDL licensed document to your computer for reading it. That's not at all what DFSG 6 means. That's equivalent to interpreting DFSG 6 to ban the GPL on the grounds that it discriminates against proprietary software companies. No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from using the software. Exactly. And neither does the GFDL ban people from using the documentation if they work in a security field. It's an equivalent case. The DFSG does not say that any particular requirements related to a field of endeavor must be honored. This is true whether that requirement is in order to use this software, we really need to be able to make proprietary derivatives or in order to use this documentation, we really need to store it on encrypted media. DFSG 6 does not say anything a company might plausibly want to do, our software must allow them to do. It merely says that every field of endeavor must be given the same rights. Never mind whether that set of rights is enough to satisfy any given party. No it does not either. It says The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. No mention of giving the same right. The whole point of the DFSG is to guarantee the giving of rights. Perhaps a better wording would be giving the rights outlined in the rest of the DFSG rather than giving the same rights. Either interpretation does not change the effectiveness of your original argument, though, so I have to wonder why you bring it up. Unless you have missed the connection between not discriminating and giving rights to people in every field, when the issue is about giving rights. I don't know how to explain that one better than I already have. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: For those who care about the GR
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:08:46PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: [Bill Allombert] There exist fields of endeavours that require mandatory encryption. For example, if you work in security-sensitive field, you can be required to use a hard-drive with built-in encryption. This technology certainly control who can read the disk. In that case, you cannot copy a GFDL licensed document to your computer for reading it. That's not at all what DFSG 6 means. That's equivalent to interpreting DFSG 6 to ban the GPL on the grounds that it discriminates against proprietary software companies. No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from using the software. Exactly. And neither does the GFDL ban people from using the documentation if they work in a security field. The GFDL does ban them: they are not allowed to copy the document on their computer so they cannot read it. It's an equivalent case. The DFSG does not say that any particular requirements related to a field of endeavor must be honored. This is true whether that requirement is in order to use this software, we really need to be able to make proprietary derivatives or in order to use this documentation, we really need to store it on encrypted media. The GPL allows you to make proprietary derivatives as long as you do not distribute them. This section is about usage not distribution. It says making use of the program not redistribute the program. DFSG 6 does not say anything a company might plausibly want to do, our software must allow them to do. It merely says that every field of endeavor must be given the same rights. Never mind whether that set of rights is enough to satisfy any given party. No it does not either. It says The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. No mention of giving the same right. The whole point of the DFSG is to guarantee the giving of rights. Perhaps a better wording would be giving the rights outlined in the rest of the DFSG rather than giving the same rights. Either But it still does not say giving the rights outlined in the rest of the DFSG, it says The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
FWIW, I second the amendment quoted below. Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom, it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines ~~ (0) Summary This is the position of Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation License as published by the Free Software Foundation: We consider that works licensed under GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 do fully comply both with the requirements and the spirit of Debian Free Software Guidelines. Within Debian community there has been a significant amount of uncertainty about the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), and whether it is, in fact, a free license. This document attempts to explain why Debian's answer is yes. (1) What is the GFDL? The GFDL is a license written by the Free Software Foundation, who use it as a license for their own documentation, and promote it to others. It is also used as Wikipedia's license. To quote the GFDL's Preamble: The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document free in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others. This License is a kind of copyleft, which means that derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense. It complements the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft license designed for free software. (2) The Invariant Sections - Main Objection Against GFDL One of the most widespread objections against GFDL is that GFDL permits works covered under it to include certain sections, designated as invariant. The text inside such sections can not be changed or removed from the work in future. GFDL places considerable constraints on the purpose of texts that can be included in an invariant section. According to GFDL all invariant sections must be also secondary sections, i.e. they meet the following definition A Secondary Section is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject. [...] The relationship could be a matter of historical connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them. Consequently the secondary sections (and in particular the invariant sections) are allowed to include only personal position of the authors or the publishers to some subject. It is useless and unethical to modify somebody else's personal position; in some cases this is even illegal. For such texts Richard Stallman (the founder of the Free Software Movement and the GNU project and author of GFDL) says [1]: The whole point of those works is that they tell you what somebody thinks or what somebody saw or what somebody believes. To modify them is to misrepresent the authors; so modifying these works is not a socially useful activity. And so verbatim copying is the only thing that people really need to be allowed to do. This feature of GFDL can be opposed to the following requirement of Debian Free Software Guidelines: 3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. It is naive to think that in order to fulfil this requirement of DFSG the free licenses have to permit arbitrary modifications. There are several licenses that Debian has always acknowledged as free that impose some limitations on the permitted modifications. For example the GNU General Public License contains the following clause: If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. The licenses that contain the so called advertising clause give us another example: All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by ... Consequently when
GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free
[ Bcc'ed to -project, -devel and -legal, any further discussion and/or seconds on -vote, please. ] After reading all the recent posts about the GFDL on debian-vote, I hereby propose the following General Resolution and ask for seconds. --8-- The Debian Project asserts that Works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2, as published by the Free Software Foundation (GNU FDL), are free in accordance with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG), if and only if the work is licensed using the following options of the license: no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts If any other options are used, the work is not free in accordance with the DFSG. This General Resolution partly reverts an earlier decision by the Release Management team, taken under delegation in accordance with the Debian Constitution, to remove all works licensed under the GNU FDL from the main section of the Debian archive. --8-- (The following is not part of the GR proposal text.) For this to work, an amendment which says the RM decision was correct is needed. I will second such an amendment given it is not overly broad or ambiguous. (That amendment should be simple to write: Works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License are not free in accordance with the Debian Free Software Guidelines or something similar.) Manoj: given this proposal receives enough seconds, will you fast-track it to appear before the Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main GR? -- Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free
also sprach Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.01.23.2241 +0100]: After reading all the recent posts about the GFDL on debian-vote, I hereby propose the following General Resolution and ask for seconds. I don't have the time these days to follow the entire discussion. How does your proposal differ from Adeodato's? -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP (sub)keys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! people with narrow minds usually have broad tongues. signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: For those who care about the GR
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 02:52:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Q1.1) Are GFDL licensed works without invariant texts non-free? Well, according to the RM team, and some developers (full disclosure: myself included), yes, they are, even if there is no explicit infraction of specific portions of our guidelines. The release team, a delegated body, has unequivocally stated that the GFDL licensed works are non-free, with no codicils and riders about absence of invariant clauses. Absent any other action, I am, by my own analysis, and the actions of the RM team, going to treat these works as non-free -- and this impacts issue 2. What sections of the DFSG do you think GFDL documents without invariant sections fail? -- gram -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about the GR
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:40:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 03:42:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: And what? If someone tries to bring through a GR stating that MS office warez can be distributed in main since it meets the DFSG, one might rule that as frivolous and a waste of time. I'm not convinced the constitution gives the secretary the power to make such a ruling. There are no provisions in the constitution for the Project Secretary to dismiss a GR -- *even* a GR stating that the Debian Project holds the value of pi to be 3 -- so long as the GR has the requisite number of seconds. I suspect the Secretary could effectively do so by declining to take the vote under Section 2.1.1 ([n]othing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to do work for the Project.) It seems then that the secretary has no obligation to actually perform 4.2.3 or 7.1.1. Which would be grounds for removing the secretary from office, if necessary by appealing to the SPI board under 7.2. of the constitution. In the present case, I understand that the proposed ballot option is ambiguous wrt whether it constitutes an implicit amendment to the foundation docs, and that in the absence of clarification (in the form of a re-worded proposal) on the part of the proposer, it is the project secretary's prerogative to specify a supermajority requirement. I think that under 7.1.3, it'd be the Secretary's job/power to determine supermajority requirement regardless of what the proposed ballot option says. Correct, it is the secretary's job to determine supermajority requirement in all cases. It would also be an abuse of power to establish a supermajority requirement other than that specified by the constitution. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: also sprach Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.01.23.2241 +0100]: After reading all the recent posts about the GFDL on debian-vote, I hereby propose the following General Resolution and ask for seconds. I don't have the time these days to follow the entire discussion. How does your proposal differ from Adeodato's? It doesn't launch into the whole project statement parts and it specifically says that it's intended to reverse a delegate decision about DFDG-freeness rather than leaving it unclear whether it's overriding the DFSG requirement. In other words, the differences are primarily technical (in my view), but the wording is clearer and less ambiguous about what it's trying to accomplish. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about the GR
Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What sections of the DFSG do you think GFDL documents without invariant sections fail? I've been thinking a lot about this issue, and I think it basically revolves around one's interpretation of the first two points of the DFSG: | Free Redistribution | | The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from | selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate | software distribution containing programs from several different | sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such | sale. | | Source Code | | The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in | source code as well as compiled form. The question is, basically, what do allow distribution and may not restrict mean? To take a more obvious example, consider a software package released under a license that says: Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that distribution of the software is only done on Mondays and the software is not redistributed on any other day of the week. Obviously, the Debian project could not redistribute such software for purely practical reasons, but is that license DFSG-free? I don't buy the arguments from No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor. I think the logical argument required to conclude that this provision would fail that test based on fields of endeavor that require working on other days of the week is too convoluted to hold up. My feeling is that the first two points of the DFSG imply some sort of unstated reasonableness standard on the restrictions on distribution. We allow the GPL, so obviously we allow *some* restrictions, such as the GPL requirements about accompanying source code. Equally obviously, in my opinion, we don't allow *any* restriction that's compatible with the rest of the DFSG; I think my Monday-only license is compatible with the rest of the DFSG (and even if not, I think it's obvious that you could fiddle with such an idea to come up with one that is), but I still think that it fails the DFSG as a whole. Assuming you buy this argument, the next obvious question is then whether the restrictions on redistribution in the GFDL fail that fuzzy reasonableness test. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free
* Fabian Fagerholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060123 22:44]: This General Resolution partly reverts an earlier decision by the Release Management team, taken under delegation in accordance with the Debian Constitution, to remove all works licensed under the GNU FDL from the main section of the Debian archive. Sorry, but what do you want to change? If you want to revert a delegates' decision, you need to specify which. First of all, I doubt that the release team did any decision on that, as a decision means there is more than one option. According to the constitution reading of the release team, there is however only one option. If you disagree with the constitution reading, feel free to apply to the secretary as per 7.1.3 of the constitution and/or make a GR to change the constitution. Also, there are two decisions that you could refer to: There is the decision that documents in main needs to adhere to the DFSG (see http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt). If you think this is wrong, please make a statement like The decision in ... that all in main and contrib must meet the DFSG is reverted for documents (licensed under the GFDL). Or you could refer to the decision that the GFDL is considered as non-DFSG-free. Than please say this. Or there could be any other meaning of your text. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about the GR
[Bill Allombert] No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from using the software. Exactly. And neither does the GFDL ban people from using the documentation if they work in a security field. The GFDL does ban them: they are not allowed to copy the document on their computer so they cannot read it. Don't be ridiculous. Nowhere in the GFDL does it say people working in security-related fields cannot use this work. It doesn't even say people working in security-related fields cannot copy this work to their hard drives. Nobody is forcing you to encrypt your filesystems. Let me try another analogy, since you seem to be having a lot of trouble with this point. There may be some fields of endeavor which require the use of Windows 2000, because most of the software they need only runs on Windows 2000. This does not imply that all our software must build and run correctly on Windows 2000 in order to comply with DFSG 6. And it doesn't mean that Debian as a whole violates DFSG 6 by not running that company's Windows applications. It is your choice to encrypt your hard disk, or to run Windows 2000. Or your company's choice. But it has nothing to do with discrimination against fields of endeavor. But it still does not say giving the rights outlined in the rest of the DFSG, it says The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. When you're trying to break down the GFDL, please pick something other than DFSG 6. It doesn't mean what you think it means. And I can't believe I'm still having this conversation. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
[Russ Allbery] If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead and put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs can later claim that their opinion wasn't represented by the choices. I think everyone is forgetting this one (IMHO pretty reasonable) option: - Works licensed under the terms of the GNU FDL but with no invariant-foo comply (or may comply) with the DFSG, but we still refuse to distribute them, because of the significant practical problems that this would cause both for us and for our users. The notable practical problems I'm alluding to would include: - All Debian mirrors must retain source packages one year after the corresponding binary packages are deleted - Debian CD vendors must either ship source CDs to all customers regardless of whether a customer wants them, or maintain their own download mirrors. - Neither Debian, nor the mirror network, nor the users, can use rsync-over-ssh to update their CD images or individual packages. I think any one of these points is serious enough to reject GNU FDL works regardless of whether they can pass a strict reading of the DFSG. In other words, the DFSG is a *necessary* but not necessarily *sufficient* hurdle. Peter signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:45:40AM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote: Hereby I am proposing an amendment to the GR about GFDL opened by Anthony Towns [Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:02:04 +1000] (The proposal actually became formal on the 12th, and that's the one you're amending, fwiw) GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom, it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines ~~ Obviously, presuming this amendment achieves sufficient seconds, I don't accept it as an amendment to the original proposal, thus it should appear as a separate option on the ballot. If I'd been making that amendment, I'd've made the amended resolution be something like The GFDL is DFSG-free. and given all the text as rationale. YMMV obviously :) It is naive to think that in order to fulfil this requirement of DFSG Calling your fellow developers naive isn't terribly nice, you sell out... ;) Consequently the license requires distribution of the transparent form ALONG with each opaque copy but not IN OR WITH each opaque copy. I wish the folks who believe this would just ask for a clarification from RMS or Eben Moglen. It'd be a lot more convincing. Anyone? It is a fact confirmed by Richard Stallman, author of GFDL, Cite, please. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free
Manoj wrote: So, I am seeking arguments and guidance from the developer body whether issue 1 can, and should, be decidable by a general resolution, or whether the freeness of the GFDL licensed works without invariant clauses is incontrovertibly non-free, as the license is currently written. Whether the GFDL conflicts with the DFSG is not a matter of opinion. It either conflicts or it doesn't. The question is really who decides whether it conflicts. I would say that it depends on what is being asked. If the question is whether something can be uploaded to main, then it is the ftp-masters decision. If it is the question of what the release criteria are for the next release, then it is the RM's decision. Similarly, if it is the question of whether a GR requires a supermajority, then it is up to the secretary [1]. They have to make a decision, so they do not have the luxury of waiting until something is completely clear in one direction or another. So what standard should they use? I would argue that there is always a more restrained option A (reject the package, require a supermajority) and a less restrained option B. Given that the actions of the delegates should be more restrained (so they may inherently favor option A), there are two standards that come to mind for B to prevail 1) Preponderance of evidence: Option B more likely true than option A other, but neither need be clear cut. Options A and B are symmetric. 2) Beyond a reasonable doubt: No reasonable person who has studied the issue would say that A is true. Which standard to use is not specified in the constitution. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] Appendix A3.3.4 of the constitution says In cases of doubt the Project Secretary shall decide on matters of procedure. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
[Anton Zinoviev] If Debian decided that GFDL is not free, this would mean that Debian attempted to impose on the free software community alternative meaning of free software, effectively violating its Social Contract with the free software community. That does not follow at all. If the GNOME Foundation chooses to license documents as GFDL, it does not mean they believe it is a free software license. It can just as easily signify that they do not believe documentation should be free software. As for violating its Social Contract, that's just rhetoric. The Contract assumes that our users are entitled to free software; if certain users who write documentation for other projects decide that they don't care about free software, that's beside the point. You must either include a machine-readable Transparent copy ALONG WITH each Opaque copy Yeah, along with means with. or state IN OR WITH each Opaque copy a computer-network location from which the general network-using public has access to download using public-standard network protocols a complete Transparent copy of the Document, free of added material. So free of added material means that if you want to offer CD images for download, you can't just offer source CD images, or even Debian source packages - you have to offer individual documents in source form. For at least a year after you take down the binary CD images from your site. People should think long and hard about this requirement, independent of whether it is DFSG-compliant. Think about the implications for the ftp.debian.org mirror network, and for CD and DVD vendors. It's a pretty significant added burden for everybody - is it worth it? This is about more than DFSG compliance. A lot of things can be DFSG-compliant yet could still cause serious practical problems if Debian were to ship them. It is a fact confirmed by Richard Stallman, author of GFDL, and testified by the common practice, that as long as you make the source and binaries available so that the users can see what's available and take what they want, you have done what is required of you. It is up to the user whether to download the transparent form. I thought that was what RMS said about the *GPL*. Did he also say that about the GFDL? When and where? Also, what RMS says about the GFDL matters very little when distributing material not copyrighted by him or the FSF. What matters then is the interpretation by the author of the material. This is why it's important to read what a license says, not just what someone says a license is supposed to mean. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 09:35:32AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Adeodato Sim? [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Russ Allbery [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:17:14 -0800]: If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead and put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs can later claim that their opinion wasn't represented by the choices. Latelly, I'm thinking that this (in a similar fashion to Manoj's mail) is the best option. The only problem I see is that Manoj's mail seems to want to attach a position statement to each option, and that can be divisive. I'm starting to see the benefits of a prior vote... Me too. The question raised by the original proposal here seems to be more one of whether we want to make a public policy statement about an issue already decided by delegates. I don't think that makes any sense; ignoring the fact I don't think that GFDL is non-free is a delegate's decision, I don't think it makes any sense to take an action on this without offering an explanation of why at the same time. Removing GFDL documents from main has been Debian's intention for many years now -- whether as semi-official future release policy, as a scheduled change to the social contract, or as an explicit policy from the release team; if we're changing that, we definitely need to explain why, not just leave it unexplained for another month. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:59:44PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: People should think long and hard about this requirement, independent of whether it is DFSG-compliant. Think about the implications for the ftp.debian.org mirror network, and for CD and DVD vendors. It's a pretty significant added burden for everybody - is it worth it? This is about more than DFSG compliance. A lot of things can be DFSG-compliant yet could still cause serious practical problems if Debian were to ship them. The implications are definitely worth considering; just not here. This vote will be about whether the documentation is DFSG free or not, not about whether we choose to not distribute GFDL documents because of other reasons. -- gram -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 00:02 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: * Fabian Fagerholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060123 22:44]: This General Resolution partly reverts an earlier decision by the Release Management team, taken under delegation in accordance with the Debian Constitution, to remove all works licensed under the GNU FDL from the main section of the Debian archive. Sorry, but what do you want to change? If you want to revert a delegates' decision, you need to specify which. ... an earlier decision by the Release Management team, ..., to remove all works licensed under the GNU FDL from the main section of the Debian archive. There is no other sensible way of referring to the decision in question. It is also not the main point of the GR proposal text. It is a consequence of the main point, which is that GNU FDL without Invariant Sections, is DFSG-free. (Which in turn may or may not be an opinion that I share.) First of all, I doubt that the release team did any decision on that, as a decision means there is more than one option. According to the constitution reading of the release team, there is however only one option. If you disagree with the constitution reading, feel free to apply to the secretary as per 7.1.3 of the constitution and/or make a GR to change the constitution. In several previous messages to this list, the Secretary has indicated in different ways that he does not see this as a clear-cut issue. In fact, in one message [0] he included a hypothetical option similar to this GR proposal. The difference is that this proposal says nothing about public statements, which is another issue. The reason is clarity. Deciding on multiple things at once causes confusion. Also, there are two decisions that you could refer to: There is the decision that documents in main needs to adhere to the DFSG (see http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt). If you think this is wrong, please make a statement like The decision in ... that all in main and contrib must meet the DFSG is reverted for documents (licensed under the GFDL). Or you could refer to the decision that the GFDL is considered as non-DFSG-free. Than please say this. As far as I can see, the editorial amendments to the Social Contract by GR 2004-003 [1] clarified that the DFSG indeed applies to all components of the Debian system. After that, GR 2004-004 [2] decided to temporarily suspend GR 2004-003 until after Sarge was released. Given these two decisions, the RM team has published the release policy for etch [3] and a document giving details about removal of non-free documentation [4]. As you say, the release policy for etch is indeed no decision with regard to non-free documentation, it's a direct and logical consequence of GRs 2004-003 and 2004-004. The missing part of the puzzle is the answer to the question does the GNU FDL meet the DFSG? -- the second decision listed in your message. The RM team has made that decision for themselves in [4], which is possible since they have that power by delegation. The point of this GR proposal is to find out whether that decision has the support of the Debian Developers and thus by the project at large. I imagine it would be very reassuring for the RM team if a GR showed such support. On the other hand, if the opposite is shown, then the responsibility lies with the Developers, not the individuals of the RM team. Also, this does not affect the Project's ability to issue statements about the problematic nature of the GFDL. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00173.html [1] http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003 [2] http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004 [3] http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt [4] http://release.debian.org/removing-non-free-documentation Or there could be any other meaning of your text. I'm not convinced of that. :) Cheers, -- Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 13:58 +1300, Anthony Towns wrote: I don't think that makes any sense; ignoring the fact I don't think that GFDL is non-free is a delegate's decision, I don't think it makes any sense to take an action on this without offering an explanation of why at the same time. Removing GFDL documents from main has been Debian's intention for many years now -- whether as semi-official future release policy, as a scheduled change to the social contract, or as an explicit policy from the release team; if we're changing that, we definitely need to explain why, not just leave it unexplained for another month. Having a GR that explicitly says GNU FDL is free/non-free/free in certain configurations will make it easier to make a statement that a large portion of the project can agree with and support. The question of whether GNU FDL is DFSG-free is one that concerns the Debian community (including its users and other non-DD affiliates) only. This is our problem. The complicated and problematic nature of the GNU FDL, however, concerns a larger group. It includes the FSF, upstream documentation authors, non-Debian users that come in contact with GNU FDL material, and so on. A public statement should appeal to this entire group, should detail the problems with the GNU FDL, should invite others to discuss these problems and seek to remedy them, and should offer advice to people considering the use of this license until the problems are remedied. The GR proposal that you have submitted does these things. But it should not be mixed with our own decision about including or not including GNU FDL material in our distribution. This is regardless of the outcome of such a GR. Cheers, -- Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whether the GFDL conflicts with the DFSG is not a matter of opinion. It either conflicts or it doesn't. The question is really who decides whether it conflicts. It now becomes time for the obligatory reminder that The G in DFSG stands for guidelines. Because they are only guidelines, I think we as a project are free to deviate (in either direction) from a literal reading of the guidelines when we decide whether a particular piece of software should be considered free, if we have a good enough reason. Which is good because sometimes the guidelines *do not have* an unambiguous literal reading, and the most literal readings often lead to completely spurious results which we have a sound tradition for correcting unceremoniously. The guidelines were never meant to be anything *but* guidelines, and so they are not phrased carefully enough to work reliably as a bright-line test. The decision whether or not to consider some software free *is* eventually a matter of opinion, even though that opinion should be guided by the DFSG. As such, it can be settled by GR. -- Henning Makholm En tapper tinsoldat. En dame i spagat. Du er en lykkelig mand ... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
Le lundi 23 janvier 2006 à 01:45 +0200, Anton Zinoviev a écrit : GNU Free Documentation License protects the freedom, it is compatible with Debian Free Software Guidelines And I thought Debian politics stayed away from populism... -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: DFSG, GFDL, and position statementsd
Le dimanche 22 janvier 2006 à 13:13 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : A) The delegates decision that the GFDL licensed works are non-free is wrong, the GFDL meets the DFSG. Override the delegated decision, and issue the following statement ... B) The delegates decision that the GFDL licensed works are non-free does not hold for works without invariant sections, modify the delegated decision to allow works with no invariant sections in main, and issue the following statement ... I fail to see why these positions don't require 3:1 supermajority. As currently, no sane interpretation of the DFSG can lead to such statements, especially for A), we would have to modify the DFSG to fit the requirement. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
